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/
Now I am confused. Are you saying that a Protestant cannot subscribe to traditional Catholic Marian beliefs? Were Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley Protestants or Catholics? Are present-day Lutherans Protestants or are they Catholic?
Because, you see, Mary was a super-human goddess, who had no need to offer marital love to Joseph, or to love God by properly loving the man God had put in her life. She could please God by defrauding her husband, you see, since, like Nietzche's "superman," she was "above" the mundane obligations binding upon mere humans. Therefore, since she was a superhuman goddess then, we can appropriately worship her, and pray to her, today.
DrE, you need to read the conversation leading up to "throw out the past."
I was talking about throwing out the notion of "infallibility of past councils." I said the Reformation was more focused on the central issues of Justification and Salvation.
Genevan, Reformation Bump!
In Christ the Holy Spirit is always conjoined to the Word, for "there is a permanent relation between faith and the Word." -- John Calvin 3.2.6.
Ditto!
These were steps back to the faith of Christ and the Apostles. Nothing new. And they were a lot more than simple disgust at indulgences and ornate cathedrals.
A LOT MORE!
"...The Reformation was the greatest religious movement for Christ since the early church. It was a revival of Biblical and New Testament theology...."
And a saving grace for all those souls who needed to get as far away from Rome -and the suffusion of God in their myriad superstitious accretions- as they could
It's snowing here to beat the band, and it's Godly and Majestic. Just beautiful! The first snow storm (though this technically isn't a storm) really makes me feel like a kid again. I just love it!
"You now agree that Jesus did not pass through the birth canal?
Scripturally unsupportable."
No; I agree the birth was painless and perhaps by some miracle The Theotokos remained "intact", though I must say I have never ever been told that was a dogma of Orthodoxy.
A woman does not have to have an intact hymen to be a virgin. Young girls lose they intact hymen through horse-riding, other athletic endeavors, medical necessity, etc.
Do you agree that a young girl who has never had sex should be considered promiscuous if her hymen is ruptured?
"The question then becomes this: "In what way can we begin remotely to derive the idea that Jesus was fully human?""
I think you point out a very real danger of getting too specific about the actual mechanics of the Incarnation. I have always maintained that the Latin Church's formulation of the Immaculate Conception, while likely a necessary consequence of the popular understanding of +Augustine's statements about Original Sin, posed the danger that one might conclude that Christ was not "True Man" as he was not born of a true woman, howeever wrong that conclusion might in fact be. The history of heresy unfortunately shows how often wrong conclusions lead to trouble. Sometimes divine mysteries are best left alone, though I suppose there is no harm in speculating about such things so long as both the speculator and his readers understand that is what is going on.
Christ is one Person, two natures, in perfect harmony, fully divine and fully humam, inseparably fused, but not confused.
My understanding is that God the Word took on human nature, using Mary's flesh in her womb, which He entered mystically without violating her.
The Church always taught that His mystical Birth likewise did not violate her.
He was not a pagan byproduct of some divine-human sexual union, a demigod like Achilles, a mixture of divine and human "seed."
Incarnation is an act of the Word of God, His will, and not a "natural" consequence.
Let me see if I have the sequence of events straight:
1. Calvin believed Catholic Marian beliefs including Mary's perpetual virginity.
2. Calvin broke from the Catholic Church.
3. Others followed Calvin and became Calvinists.
4. Calvin continued to preach about his Marian beliefs including perpetual virginity. In fact, he never altered these beliefs.
5. At some undetermined later date, Calvinists began to question Calvin's Marian beliefs and rejected them.
So, when you say that Calvinists "needed to get as far away from Rome -and the suffusion of God in their myriad superstitious accretions- as they could," you're not really being accurate. These people had already left the Catholic Church, the Calvinists who rejected Calvin's Marian beliefs centuries later had probably never been Catholics in the first place. By rejecting Calvin's Marian beliefs, it was Calvin they were leaving, not Rome.
"Do you agree that a young girl who has never had sex should be considered promiscuous if her hymen is ruptured?"
Not at all. Padre, I must not be making myself clear. At base, to the extent that I have any opinion on the mechanics of Christ's birth, I suppose I'd agree with you that Christ didn't spring out of The Theotokos' head. But I must say I think all of this of necessity is speculation and probably not very profitable speculation.
I find it hard to accept that someone who's not remotely connected to human experience can be said to be "fully human."
I agree that this line of teaching would be entirely unprofitable. I hope it is not some kind of settled dogma of the church, or whatever they call it.
Calvinist would say God "programmed" her to be a mindless but obedient vessel, a robot in God's Plan, which is better than being a goddess? How dignified.
We Orthodox believe and have always believed that Mary was an oridnary human being who devoted her whole life to God, out of love for God. Some people find that offensive (envy?).
She could please God by defrauding her husband, you see, since, like Nietzche's "superman," she was "above" the mundane obligations binding upon mere humans
I see where your priorities are. After all, God must take the back seat when it comes to pleasing the husband. Joseph did not have to stay married to such a woman, you know. He could have divorced her. But he and Mary realized the awesome task that was entruted upon them and they stayed true to God.
Of course, Calvinism can't see that. They were, after all, just "pre-programmed" to do God's will, so there was no sacrifice, humility or love involved; just plain robot-like obedience, since "free will" doesn't exist.
It's always amazed me that some people find it so difficult to understand that in the case of the Holy Family, the fact that they were raising the Son of God was really the only thing that mattered. NOTHING about their family structure could be considered "normal;" in fact, the duty that God bestowed upon them is almost beyond comprehension.
There are only so many hours in the day. There were larger issues for Luther and Calvin than researching and talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Of course, had they known that the worship veneration of Mary would developed to where it is today, perhaps they would have spent more time on it.
But they obviously believed it or else they would have remained silent on the matter. Lutherans hold these beliefs to this day.
People weren't seeing and worshipping Mary floating over corn fields, on grilled cheese sandwiches and mold in tunnels. It has become a cult obsession.
I am inclined to believe that some of this is absurdly bizarre.
Harley, you make an excellent point. The cult obsession with Mary was not a teaching of the RCC at the time of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.
Didn't I read earlier that the Immaculate Conception didn't become official until the late 1800's?
That's well after the life of all of them.
No, it is absolutely sound by the scriptures for live humans to pray for one another, and by extension to ask for it. When my friend asks me to pray for him, not only does it benefit him for the fact of my prayer, but it also benefits me in the making of it. I see this as completely different from praying to deceased saints who may or may not actually be in Heaven. What scripture is used to defend the propriety of praying to the physically deceased for intercession with God?
I think the crux of the difference is that some of you view the Saints as "a bunch of dead guys." Catholics view them as very much alive and available to them.
Well in a sense, they ARE a bunch of dead guys. :) We believe that upon physical death the saved among them go directly to Heaven, where they are very "alive". This includes any or all of who you would call the Saints. This is scriptural. However, I am not certain of the scripture that says that these "spirits" are actually available to us.
I have been told by other Catholics that it is permissible to pray to such others as deceased relatives for intercession. Is that your understanding as well? If it is, and if you would agree that it would be a waste of time to pray to a "spirit" in purgatory or hell, then how does a Catholic make such a prayer with any confidence since one cannot know where the "spirit" of a lost relative is?
The Immaculate Conception was not DEFINED until the nineteenth century, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception had been celebrated for centuries. So, your contention that none of this was "taught" is erroneous.
Mary's perpetual virginity was taught and defended by these Reformers, Lutherans have never rejected this.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM
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.