Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
If you're going to insist to the moderator that i not ping you on this thread don't ping me.
Are you talking about the same God that asked Abraham to give his only son?
Apparently whatever you were told about Mary (and God) were wrong.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
Okay name the church fathers, the apostles, and the churches the apostles founded.
Unless the Scrptures and Apostles LIE they COEXISTED.
None whatsoever. It's very strange.
I believe the relevant verses usually discussed/debated on this subject include (though not limited to):
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
"Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29)
And welcome to the thread...
What are you referring to? I do not deny that God desires sacrifice. Follow the thread on back.
What is the Eucharist?
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. - Acts 10:44-48
Sorry about that.
Put down Cur Deus Homo and pick up the Verbum Dei.
Sorry, I stole Annalex's ping list.
No, I just understand that this world ain't all there is.
I also understand my place in Christ. I may boldly approach God's throne personally. Not because of myself, but because of Christ alone.
Let the Saints enjoy heaven. We'll be talking to them in person soon enough.
Grooovey lets talk diamonds.. A good quality diamond releases ALL the light that comes into it.. no other stone does that.. Also that diamond is invisible in clear water, invisible..
A ruby steals most of the infra-red wavelengths and some of the green and a little ultra-violet wavelengths in some rubies..
Diamonds are special among stones in several ways.. first that they steal no light.. second they can cut any other stone.. or most anything else.. What they are made of(carbon) is opaque uncrystalized.. Keep in mind there are blue, pink, yellow and green diamonds.. not all diamonds are "pure" carbon.. These diamonds are NOT invisible in water..
I too tend to dream about the visual metaphorical meanings of the last chapters of revelation.. Missing those metaphors would cost a deeper revelation of what "heaven" might be.. The New Jerusalem is not an earthly structure but a heavenly one.. Its talking about spiritual beings built together not some earth like building made for human bodies.. Deep calling out to deep, I think.. The water of the river of life running thru the "city" is a wonderful metaphor.. simply wonderful.. I see a "virtual city" changing as the spiritual beings move about.. since they ARE the city..
Actually an earthly city with all the infra-structure removed is still that city.. Because the city IS the people, even on earth.. The infra-structure is for service to human bodies.. With a new updated body(heaven) infra-structure may not be needed at all..
So much is possibly implied in the last chapters of revelation.. Precious stone typology is present all thru the bible.. However it is very hard for humans to even concieve of life without these bodies.. they are so indentified with them.. For me its easy to consider life without this body(mine).. for some reason.. The possiblities (in revelation) seem delicious to me..
Maranatha...
Abraham, Moses, David, the thief on the cross, etc. didn't have baptism, the Eucharist or, as far as I can see, an organization of men claiming dispositive authority over their souls.
The aborted babies have neither baptism nor Eucharist - neither do some who are mentally or physically handicapped and others who have died without hearing the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The last few chapters of Revelation are glorious! I soooo look forward to it:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45
Thank you so much for sharing all those insights!
Amen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.