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/
On the role of good works I just read what the Bible says. You can do it too.
Read the Gospel and ignore spin. You will come out with Catholic soteriology.
Grace is from God to us according to His wishes, we have responsibility for our actions.
What I object to is separating faith from our moral responsibility, acting with integrity according to our conscience.
And I think it's harmful to look for formulas derived therefrom to get to heaven.
For Jewish Biblical teaching on the subject - and the references to Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel and others, see here:
Another common title of YHWH is "the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4,18, 1, 7; I Samuel 2:2; II Samuel 22:32; Isaiah 44:8; Psalm 18:32), thus comparing Him to a high crag on which one finds refuge and safety.
St. Basil:
As regards all the commandments given us by God [this following a discussion of Jesus's teaching on the two] , we have already received from Him the power to keep them, so that we may neither feel discontented as though anything strange were demanded of us, nor elated as though we paid more than was given to us.
Latest analogy from the Mad Dawg random analogy generator:
I bought you a gym membership. Now you CAN work out.
I drive you to the gym, I persuade you that working out is good. and that you want to be strong. I get you a personal trainer (taught by me).And I own the gym.
Not ONLY that, but I turn out to be in charge of making muscles respond to working out.
Of course, this analogy breaks down when you look at me .... okay, and maybe a few other places along the line too.
Transubstantiation is an especially nasty filthy concept.. that makes a mockery out of Jesus' metaphor.. Talk about "SPIN"... The RCC is just filled to the brim with nasty concepts.. I won't get into the "Mary thing"..
I have struggled over the years trying to see catholic spin and tolerate Roman Catholic doctines.. because of some Roman Catholics known to me that I prefer to tolerate, that I love.. I really need love for the others.. maybe its just the organization I am offended at.. At least that is my hope..
The more I know of many Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions the more nasty and filthy they seem.. By the way I'm not real happy with so-called protestant churchs either.. almost all of them.. I tolerate a few sometimes..
Tzur, right. I forgot.
It is not in the Septuagint though. In Deut 32 the Greek is "theos alethina ta erga autou", and in 2 Sam 22 the word is "ktistes". This explains the absence of "rock" in Vulgate.
Transubstantiation
"This is my body" and "he who gnaws on my flesh ... has everlasitng life and I will raise him up" is all you need there.
I hope this is it. The Eucharist is opposite of how you describe it and has been the focus of Christian worship since the beginning. If you read the very earliest fathers you will see it there.
To me, as a sacrament, it would be like calling baptism or marriage 'filthy'. I'm not doubting your statement, but I can't see this conclusion from one who truly receives the sacrament.
I would hate to jump to conclusions here, but is it fair to say you find something objectionable in the doctrine of Transubstantiation? I don't know, I just had a feeling. ;-)
Have you checked out Aquinas on that? I ask because it will be easier to wholeheartedly reject it if you're sure what it is. And there are some misunderstandings.
I kind of agree with our Orthodox brothers on the quasi-philosophical discussion of the Eucharist per Acquinas. I wish it were not so analyzed as it cannot be known using the tools of reason.
However, I hope they can sympathize with the West and see, per this discussion, how the necessity arises.
Have done that many times in the past with no good result..
Have never seen it work to benefit here(FR either)..
Transubstantiation..
I know what the RCC says it is already.. others say it isn't that..
I believe them..
And, yeah, precisely: there's a need for some explanation which deals with some of the misconceptions.
Would you put yourself in the "memorial" camp or in the Calvin/Cranmer "real presence in the believer" camp, or the "Virtual presence" or what? Gotta go get some firewood in. It's actually snowing in Virginia -- and it was 75F on Monday!
If it's not something we can discuss civilly then, yes, we should pass it by. You're right nothing in gained in flame wars.
i appreciate your reply.
He was incredible at it. St. Aquinas made huge contributions to the Church and to Western Civilization.
At the end though I think he wanted nothing more than to shut up, be still and know God.
Nor has it been lost among Christians who have long used the King James Translation which was faithful to interpret literally the Hebrew word tzur to mean Rock instead of God or Mighty One.
Ironically, the Christian hymn Rock of Ages is among their favorites.
Of all the possible errors a translator could make, seems to me that missing the mark on one of the names or titles of God has to be “right up there.” But I imagine that too is according to God’s plan, because when Christians and Jews do not understand that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is the Rock – it can have (and evidently has had) a broad effect.
For the record, here’s a few examples of the importance of God’s name(s)
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11
His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
Thank you for sharing your insights and for all your pings!
"However, I hope they can sympathize with the West and see, per this discussion, how the necessity arises."
You Latins care way too much about what your disobedient and obstinate children think! You know what Aquinas is trying to explain and why. So do we. You think to explain The Mystery is important; we don't. "Protestants" often deny the Objective Truth of the Eucharist. We don't care, really, what they believe as long as they leave us and ours alone with our beliefs.
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.