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/
I do not believe that there are verses to the contrary for I see no conflict in the fact that God's justice demanded the sacrifice IF God were to be reconciled to Man and Jesus willingly laying down His life on the cross. Both aspects are in harmony with God's will of being reconciled with man. Both respect His justice. If God had saved everyone without any punishment for sin, his justice would have been violated. God can not go against His own nature. I don't think His willingly laying down His life and His justice demanding the sacrifice are opposing ideas.
There is a lot humbling about such a context.
Sounds exactly what +Paul did. Did he not change the dietary laws, the circumcision, the obedience to the Law? In what Scripture did +Paul find those ideas?
But you are wrong as to the Orthodox. We do not change Scripture or anything for that matter. We have a Divine Liturgy that has its roots in liturgical Judaism, the Liturgy of +James, +Basil the Great and +John Chgrystotom, the latest dating back 1600 years.
Please tell me, show me, what have the Orthodox changed? It is a common practice and the only one at that, for the Orthodox Church to refer to the Patristics, the Scripture and Councils to resolve any issues of misunderstanding, always going back to the basics and the beginning.
Haven't paid a lot of attention for 2-3 decades.
YESSSSS and AMEN!
Yes, they're born with a sinful nature but until they know that sin is wrong, they aren't accountable. I don't know the age of accountability. I suppose it varies with different children.
Here is what Peter had to say about the Epistles of Paul:
2 Peter 3:15-17
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness
Of course, the Orthodox Church would never say what I say. Maybe the Church is not doing it for the greater good. The Church doesn't err. I do. Maybe one day I will see it differently, but there is a lot about +Paul that most people don't know and there are even more who feel that knowing more would be "bad." I don't.
I don't really care if you think I am a Christian or not, Blogger. My pay is the same. Yours is only to read my opinions if you so choose and respond with your own.
Do you have a problem with me stating my opinions, asking questions? If so, please state so and also tell me by what authority do you censor my thoughts or judge my beliefs?
Sorry for the ping. Didin't catch your name until I replied.
As a priest I once knew used to say "Who told you that?"
The removal of the ritual strictures of the Old Covenant Law was not an invention of St. Paul, but a decision of the Apostolic Council recorded in Acts, the model for all of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, whose decisions are always prefaced as was the decision of the Apostolic Council, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . ."
That council was presided over by the First Bishop of Jerusalem, St. James, the Brother of the Lord, very much part of the 'Jewish' Church at Jerusalem.
Gnostics and +Paul use the same argument as well. Why would a loving, merciful God make it difficult for poor illiterate peasants to understand? Would you teach your 5-year old quantum mechanics and derogate him for not being able to understand, and tell him his limited understanding is to his destruction? How loving is that, Blogger?
The truth, Blogger, is that the all Scriputre has been tampered with, none of it original. Thus we work on presumption, not fact, that what we read is what was written at that time by whosoever we believe wrote it.
I pay more attention to the broader message than to particulars, added, subtracted or invented.
The only thing about Sola Scriptura followers is that they read the Bible as if it were written in stone tablets by God himself.
That's the closest thing to Islam among various Christian groups, imo, of course.
The Law was made by God as a teacher to us. God knew that we could never follow it perfectly and wanted us to see that having all of the privileges in the world and all of the rules laid out plainly for us would not change the fact that we are all miserable sinners and utterly unable to save ourselves. The law showed us our need for a Savior. When that Savior came, he was the fulfillment of that law. No longer were we bound to it. Rather, we were now followers of the law of faith.
Kosta. Scripture ISN'T difficult to understand when you have the Spirit of God.
As to the Scriptures being tampered with, you reveal even more of yourself in that statement than in your anti-Paul ranting. Sorry, the words of Jon Dominic Crossan and the like are not a substitute for the words of historians and the evidence through the ages. God HAS preserved his message to mankind. Only religious liberals think he hasn't.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Again, if you have the Spirit of God indwelling you, it is not hard to understand Scripture.
I still do not why you identify yourself with Christianity. It seems that Unitarian Universalism would be more fitting.
Galatians 1:
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
That's your opinion. Others have the same opinion of your views. I guess we go 'round and 'round.
So I suppose that you too, D-fendr, believe that Paul was a flim-flam salesman? A packager of Christianity to the masses. The one who "saved" Christianity from certain extinction by creating a new religion to market to the world?
Alternatively, perhaps this thread won't be another 'Neverending' one after all.
You know, Mohammad claims the Koran was dictated word-by-word by God. One billion people believe him.
+Paul says he received Christ in an instant. That's what he says. gnostics claim the same thing. Why should i believe you, +Paul, Gnostics or Mohammad?
Maybe +Paul did maybe he didn't. I don't know. The Apostles were not all convinced immediately and only one or two supposedly say soemthing about him.
What +Paul did was necessary for the Church to survive. It required radical changes.
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.