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/
Mutatis mutandis , like of course I personally would add "or by the Church", I would agree.
But, golly darn, how are we going to have fun if we don't call each other horrible things and generally "rejoice in the evil"? Rejoicing in the good is just so, y'know, BORing!
I left my sarcasm tag in my other pants.
Michael Wyschogrod (called "one of the most interesting Jewish theologians of recent decades" by Fr. R. J. Neuhaus in First Things, number 168, 12/06, from which I am quoting) reports,
"When Barth said to me that Jews have only the promise, but not the fulfillment, I replied that a promise from God is a sure thing and therefore, if we have the promise, we just about have the fulfillment."Sometimes I think the whole work of the Christian is to learn to "cast all thy care on Him that careth for thee," or, as I like to say, to learn not to work.
Apollies for the verebosity of previous post. When I get ttired I talk too much. Heck, when I'm NOT tired I talk too much!
I had THAT vetted by a scholarly Dominican.
The first serious attempt at theology I ever wrote (the attempt was serious, the theology laughable, but I was young) was halted by a kind of spiritual aphasia. I didn't know what to do, so I punted. I fasted and prayed and went to a priest about my sins and went to Hoyy Communion. (This was when I was Episcopalian.)
Then I knew what I had to write. I hd been treating the whole thing like a head game, and God graciously yanked my chain.
That still hasn't kept me from promising myself that if I ever win the gaazilion dollar lottery I will find every copy of that thing and burn them all, and deny that I know anything about it.
That would be me. I've been asking my priest for frequent flyer miles. He said he'd get back to me. (Mind you, I've also told them that things would be more efficient if they would put an "Express Lane: 10 sins or fewer" sign up by one of the confessionals, but do they listen to me?)
But here's the deal: extremely little by extremely little, I'm getting a weeny bit more "recollected." Sometimes I can see a particular sinful act sneaking up on me, and I can head it off. More often (though not nearly as often as I would like) I notice the act just as I've done it. So I can stop, shake myself, and apologize to God and to whomever I just hurt.
I figure, at this rate in about 2 or 3 thousand years I might be marginally better -- almost perceptibly better -- than I am now. Thank God it doesn't depend on me.
But what I'm saying is that I'll settle for gains of mere millimeters. Yeah it's embarrassing to have to say to God that I blew it again. Usually I try to blame it on Him, "Thus shall I always do when Thou leavest me to myself," but He is having none of that. "Dawg, I didn't leave you, YOU ignored me." "How come You're right all the time?" "Lucky for you that I am." "Yessir. Thank you."
Josephus is pretty much the only source available to peek into that era. The bad part of it is that he was a spineless character who, like Eusebius (the first Church historian), was prone to to things that make both of them highly unreliable. I would never take what Josephus (or Eusebius) says as normative.
The same problem occurs when trying to cite collections of the LXX from the fourth or fifth century as establishing the normative canon of the Tanakh from the first
But the same could be said of the oldest Hebrew Bible which is a 10th century (AD!) copy of the originals. The problem with LXX is that it demonstrates clearer than other sources the corruption of Scriptural content (and, by the same token, the uncertainty as to which copy is "truer"), because evidence of tampering and personal additions and deletions of various authors is more evident and traceable.
But, indirect evidence suggests that the older versions of the LXX may be closer to the original (based on such comments as made in the 4th century by +Augustine in his Retractions, etc.). The unfortunate part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the 5th c. Alexandrian Codex as normative, which seems to be the least reliable of the oldest three known.
It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same
Just out of curiosity, which Apostles quote from the Hebrew text? +Paul is a special case, and it does not surprise that he would quote from the Hebrew text. First, he was a Pharisee, and he claims he studied Scripture in Jerusalem under a prominent Jewish biblical authority.
But I would be curious, if you have such information, as to which other writers of the NT use the Hebrew Text in addition to LXX.
No, but the Orthodox and Catholic at least have the courage to admit and go through the pain rather than to say, as the Protestants do, "God knows my sins, I can't help it, so pecca fortier!"
Pain has a way of extinguishing behavior and thoughts. Avoiding pain doesn't. Repeated confessions are spiritual growing pains. Some find it easier to love God by avoidng them.
That was the basic premise of the Law. Do things pleasing to God and you will become acceptable to God. One does not become righteous by listening, but by doing the works.
In this case +Paul clearly says that the doers of the law will be (not are) justified before God.
It's not talked about veyr much, but it would not be considered "normal" (i.e. the way God intended it). I think active homosexual lifstyle is treated as a choice, a preference, no different from other covetous bahavior, and therefore a sin.
You can't be a Christian and still wish to live in sin
I got news for you: there are many, probably most Christians who not only wish to live in sin, but actually do. And, funny thing is, they don't do anyting about it! So, either God wants them to live in sin, or they choose to. Which is it?
It seems pretty straight forward to me that Jesus' ministry was not about replacing the legalistic structure of the Pharisees and Sadducees with another structure of the same ilk. I believe God telling Israel that he did not want Kings is a foreshadowing of this as well.
God wants us to trust in him. The Holy Spirit guided the creation of the Canon so that we would always have a sure foundation to find the truth and not be misguided by the social, or political pressures, of the day.
I think it's interesting that the merger between State and Religion occurred after the Canon was recognized. It could well be that the Holy Spirit was ensuring that when the pressures of the State began to try and change how we would understand God there would always be SCRIPTURE to testify to the truth.
It's interesting that in the other passages that correspond to Matthew 16:18 (Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-20) that there is no indication of special status for Peter, or for the Apostles. I believe the keys to the Kingdom of heaven is the Holy Spirit and those that are bound are those that believe in Jesus, just as Peter had just done, and those that don't are loosed in heaven.
Amen!
I think it is also a reflection of our human frailty. We just can't accept the idea of a free gift of GRACE. We have a need to create payment i.e., works. The works that we do are fruits of the Spirit and follow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit they don't precede it or cause it.
Thats going around.. Betty Boop spanked me earlier in this thread..
I deserved it too..
What a great way to start the day!
Amen! Amen! Amen!
;-)
The Vatican didn't abrogate the sin of lust. It's two separate issues.
And if you don't lust and you don't have sexual relations outside of marriage and you don't marry a person of the same sex, what else there? The sin of being?
Good way indeed. Many thanks for the good words.
Yes, the gay community just loves the Catholic Church. / s.
You're reachin' big time, Harley.
Protestants confess their sins as well. We go straight to God without a middleman, but we are told to confess our sins to one another. You seem to have a bias for protestants. Too bad. We're going to be spending a lot of time together in heaven.
Protestants confess their sins as well. We go straight to God without a middleman, but we are told to confess our sins to one another. You seem to have a bias for protestants. Too bad. We're going to be spending a lot of time together in heaven.
And, dear .30Carbine, I ditto your amen on the collection of Scriptures at 6758 concerning the importance of the name of God.
What gets me on this thread is that many of you think we protestants are just heretics and are going to hell in a handbasket. True Christians know when they are sinning and we ask for God to forgive us just as much as Catholics do. Catholics don't have a corner on the market on God's forgiveness,nor do EO's. I am just as much Christ's as a Catholic or an EO. Mxxx
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.