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/
As I said, our conscience is from God.
The only way people can get help with such a condition is if they ask God to remove it from them.
While I get drunk and watch porno, I ask God to remove my sinful lust? And if He doesn't, then am I'm a victim of God?
Christians need to stop manufacturing excuses for sin..
Yes. And excuses for not taking responsibility for our choices.
We call it RCIA.
I think you might agree that how and in what spirit and manner we ask matters. I don't think you believe that asking insincerely and still wishing to sin, knowing the consequences.. "asking" is not really asking.
God not only gives us the beginnings of conscience, He forms it in us and he gives us the strength to direct our actions toward our wish to be one with Him - as we grow in spirit. All of these things are from God. I hope you agree thus far.
Perhaps then it is a matter of viewpoint or semantics. You might say, if we ask sincerely God will change our actions. I see it as simultaneous, inseparable. God does not ask of us what we cannot and if we truly wish to be near Him, we will choose to do.
All of this is within our capacities, individual capacities. These are hard to know but we must strive continually to be close to God even knowing there is no perfection this side of the veil.
No, either would be immoral. Priests are to be chaste and celebate.
Protestants still look at homosexuality as a sin
You guys must have some really good gaydar.
So...discernment. Here's what +John Cassian had to say to his monks:
"It is discernment which in Scripture is described as they eye and the lamp of the body. This is what the Saviour says, 'our eye is the light of your body, and if your eye is sound then there is light in your whole body. But if your eye is diseased then your entire body will be in darkness'. This eye sees through all the thoughts and actions of a man, examining and illuminating everything which we must do. And if it is not sound in a man, that is, if it is not fortified by good judgment and by well-founded knowledge, if it is deluded by error and by presumption, this makes for darkness in our entire body. The clear thrust of the mind as well as everything we do will be shadowed and we shall be wrapped in the blindness of sin and the blackness of passion. 'If the light within you is darkness,' says the Saviour, 'what a darkness that will be'. For let no one doubt that our thoughts and our works, which originate from the deliberative processes of discernment, will be caught up in the shadows of sin if ever the good judgment of our heart goes astray or is taken over by the night of ignorance."
Error in belief and presumption can destroy the soul.
You shouldn't have a desire to get drunk or watch porno. If you do you should examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.
"We call it RCIA."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you. well spoken and outstanding delivery of a true heart.
Pelagius responsed to Augustine prayer ("Command what you will and grant what you command.") in exactly the same fashion as what you have posted.
You really need to read the entire passage if you want to put this quote in context. If you want to parse and snip you can easily misinterpret the meaning of anything.
Praise the Lord!
The one thing we have to measure all doctrine against are the Scriptures.
ROTFLOL
How is it that some Christian posters don't understand the obvious?
LOL! Well-parried, and too true!
I have enough on my plate to figure out the dogma. Policy is too much for me.
The phrase that sticks in my head is "disorder". There is a fine little article in the latest First Things about a young man who has homosexual tendencies but is working with prayer and the help of the rarest (these days) of therapists, namely one who will agree the homosexual urges are disordered. And the main point that stuck with me is that the young man refuses to let his urges define him or to get caught up in the "gay pride" and "gay identity" culture.
Every Catholic-For Dummies that I've found is inadequate one way or another. I think that's inevitable. Not every Catholic has the capacity, inclination, or vocation to be a theologian. For them to resolve to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified is a good course.
But if you're going to ascend the intellectual heights, you've got to expect intellectual distinctions, nuances, and all. And that will mean, at the least, reading ALL the paragraphs.
So, let's play:
- Passions are not culpable.
- Passions can be "disordered". A passion to eat filth would be disordered because what hunger is about it nutrition. A passion to eat 25 lbs of chocolate would be disordered for the same reason.
- Disordered passions can have many causes, some of them culpable.
- So, you may think your neighbor's wife is a hottie. No blame, (but there are some interesting conclusions to be drawn about the weakness of fallen humans and the disordered relationship between reason and passion and all like that.
- If you entertain fantasies of making it with your neighbor's wife, now you've sinned. There was a choice, there was an act, there is culpability.
To sum up, with the neighbor's wife, the passion is morally neutral, the fantasies, which are actions though internal ones, are culpable. With, however the neighbors husband (assuming you are of the guy persuasion) the passion is not culpable, but it is disordered. Any subsequent fantasies are culpable. SO, I can IMAGINE (while I busily thank God for not making me a bishop) a situation where someone with homosexual passions could be trusted in some pastoral situations, if the person was otherwise of average sanity and all. I never met anybody who wasn't a little out of kilter. BUT If I came to that guy's house and saw a stack of, ah, muscle magazines, that would suggest to me that he was deliberately entertaining fantasies, thereby weakening his resolve and harming his temperance and self-control, I'd remove him from any pastoral responsibility. Does that make sense?
As to your last paragraph, there's a "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" in the term "Protestant". There are a bunch of different ecclesial assemblies which are not in communion with Rome and don't want to be. Sometimes it seems that's the only characteristic shared by all these assemblies. A few of those assemblies, e.g.: Metropolitan Church and now the Episcopal Church, consider homosexual activity no bar to pastoral responsibility or to ordination. I'd bet that a vast majority are ag'in it.
There. I did my best.
Ping to 7055 for another Catholic (I hope) POV.
Rom 6:10
We all want to live in sin because of the old sin nature. The trick is to remain in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ so He continues to sanctify our thinking and our heart. Accordingly, while in fellowship with Him, we deny and sacrifice the old man, choosing the mind of the Lord over giving control of our decisions back to the old sin nature.
I just don't see any point in demonizing him either
No need to demonize anyone; but a balanced profile is good for a fair discussion. What a person does often makes him reliable or unreliable in general. Saying that Hitler liked animals doesn't make him any less of a monster (and, no, I am not comparing Josephus to Hitler!)
And pray-tell, what is your evidence that the matter of the Jewish canon was something that he saw fit to lie about for his own purposes?
I didn't say he saw fit to lie about it. I was only wondering if his choice corresponded to others' and why. What was the reason for him to spell out the Jewish canon? To the best of my knowledge, few people considered it closed.
Thanks to Christian scribes who saw fit to interpolate their own prejudices into Josephus' writings and thereby almost destroy the value of the earliest non-Biblical source on the existence of Yeshua the Messiah
Exactly! And not only into Josephus' writings but into the Bible itself! As a result, there is no way of knowing which came first, what was added, what was deleted, what was not there to begin with.
The Scripture have been tampered with. That much is clear. Subtle words change whole meanings; missing one accent can change the whole word. Different words lead to different beliefs and concepts. That's why corroborating evidence is needed more than ever.
The unfortunate part is that about 90+% of what we know about ancient history is single-sourced. So what then is your point?
Uncertainty.
As opposed to dozens of places where the LXX is less accurate?
No, in response to your claim that the Hebrew version has been "perfectly" persevered. Even a 'handful' makes it not perfect.
Look, the differences in the LXX are often due to the fact that the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation
Agree. The only reason the Orthodox Church uses LXX is because it is by far the most predominant version of the OT used in the Gospels. We don't know which version they used, however. The Sinai and Vatican Codices being the oldest actually differ quite a bit from the Alexandrian version (which is the one used by the EOC and is least reliable of the three).
I don't think anyone in the EOC would claim that any one version is absolutely faultless.
If you think Yeshua was preaching in Greek in Galilee and Judea
I wold never think that. But the earliest Gospel fragments we have are in Greek. Until such time that we discover Aramaic versions, Greek will be the original language of the NT. The references made to the OT in the Gospels are made with respect to LXX (in a vast majority of cases).
Well, I was right--this has indeed been every bit as fruitful as debating with a KJV-Only fanatic would be. "If the King James' was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me!"
I am sorry, that's a poor comparison. KJV was created for political purposes and is based on a "Greek" text retro-translated into Greek from a Latin translation from Greek. It also contains numerous documented errors and very strong pro-Protestant vocabulary and concepts.
Anyone who uses any single source as the Bible is guilty of self-deception. But it is also a stretch to assume that absolutely nothing changed in the Old Testament from Exodus until Babylon and that 'oral tradition' maintained a faultless version of the truth delivered to Moses when there is ample evidence of variations and changes in scriptural texts elsewhere.
So, the best way to approach any Scripture, in my opinion, is one of open minded doubt, and consider all source.
Repentence is a life-style. There is always turning and mind-renewal and praying for those gifts. It's fun. Mostly.
I tend to associate repentence with a moment's decision to simply turn back to Him. Sort of like glancing away and looking at something else, but then thinking and deciding to look back at Him. Refocusing our thinking through faith in Him.
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.