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/
He did not kneel to Rome.
That's the best you can do? He replaced papal authority with his own.
As I said, what I said, doen't even resemble Arianism. I have no idea what "created physical catagories" refers to. Since you are insisting on claimiing what I said is Arianism, you'll have to show why theat is so, because I never even hinted at "God created Himself". I have no need to repent for my thoughts. They do not offend God. They offend those that demand I obey them w/o question.
"And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation'"
I have no need for the term. I'm only interested in the rational evaluation of evidence for the purpose of gaining knowledge and understanding. I'm am not interested in art, only logic and what is. I do not accept any arbitrary, artificially imposed restictions regarding what is proper, nor do I accept authority, tradition, or democracy as logical operations.
"As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church."
OK.
"At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed.
The word "true" can only apply if the logic is sound. As I pointed out, such a claim is illogical. One can believe whatever is true, that does not make it so.
"Nonetheless, there is no new Creed."
LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?
The article argues for both predestination and free will because scripture contains both.
If you exclude one you have to proof-text and spin mightily.
Anyway, here's some of its scriptural references:
Romans 11:33
Isaiah 1: 19
I Tim. 2:4-5
John 3:16
John 5:29
I Tim. 2:5
I Peter 5:7
Matt. 18:14
Psalm 49:1
Ecclesiastes 15:14
Is.55,20
Deut.10:17
Acts 27:3 1
Annulments do not produce illegitimate children.
I explained to you what is necessary for a valid annulment. If you have further questions, just ask.
Lunacy is the serial marriage and divorce culture. Thus conceived, nearly all marriages are on shaky grounds.
So?
On that, we agree.
But one shouldn't try to get around this error by annulling marriages that had been sanctioned before the eyes of God.
Men might be fooled, but God isn't.
Plenty of practice in that department.
Like I said, grounds for valid annulment are
- lack of ability to contract a marriage or lack of consent
- petition of nullity form one or both spouses.
One marrying with the intent to divorce and remarry if opportunity presents itself, or one marrying but intending to avoid parenthood, or one marrying while already married in the eye of God is not consenting to marriage. He is consenting to temporary cohabitation. No matter how he fools the Church, or the pastor, or the state to do the ceremony, the marriage is not properly conceived and is nullifiable. Where do you disagree?
how about an anullment several years after and a few kids later? If the marriage didn't exist where do the time and kids go?
That is not a valid conclusion. You asked who is my teacher and I told you.
"God, as usually described transcends physics. Hence metaphysics."
The modern function of "transcend" is to remove a real object, or concept from rational evaluation. The word applied previously in speculations, with very little knowledge and understanding of reality. It was used to postulate and construct models of existence w/o knowing and understanding evidence provides.
Re: "In order to exist at all, time is required.
"True for finite, changing, material existence. Not true for infinite, non-material.
It is true for all things that are real. These are terms that were used, but never understood before. They are now. All things in any world have an underlying physics. There are no such things as "supernatural". The word material refers to the physics of this world. There is no such thing as non-material real objects. Even a thought depends on an underlying physics for it's existence.
"In theology, 'eternal' means "existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change."
There's 2 claims made here. The first is simply a claim. That claim consists of a proposition, that can be proved false, as I did. Time is a measure of existence. If there is no time, there is no measure, so "eternal" is meaningless and time = 0. Not subject to change could mean many things. It would be better to say, that God is persistent and consistent for all eternity.
A bit off topic, but interesting I think is determinism in the philosophy of science.
At one point it was deduced: if every thing in the finite cosmos is cause and effect, then if we could know the entire conditions at any one point and all the laws all the forces follow, we could know/predict everything that will happen. Another way to put it is that initial conditions determine everything.
This is pure determinism on the scientific level.
However, what scientists are finding out is that a large degree of indeterminism is in the system and yet doesn't violate cause and effect.
I think there is a loose parallel between this and the predetermined vs free will debate.
That's certainly WHAT SHEILA KENNEDY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
Oh where to begin.
Perhaps here: The underlying physics of God is physics. Creation. But the sum total of creation does not equal God. This is where your category errors come in.
Transcend has a very specific meaning. Learn it and we can discuss it.
"There is no such thing as non-material real objects. Even a thought depends on an underlying physics for it's existence."
Your problem here is reductionism. Thought requires a body and brain, but cannot be reduced to either. Else you end with absurdities like "True" is reducible to a biochemical event - and therefore there can be no objective reality.
"Time is a measure of existence." Not for God.
You may wish to develop a philosophy from your thinking, but you are still at least a level short of theology.
Theology attempts to explain why physics exists, it is metaphysics. You can't approach this perspective with your methods or requirements.
One or both??? So if one spouse wants an annulment, that's valid grounds for it?
This is a more liberal reading than even I thought.
Another one of the flexible inflexibles.
According to the Church, the "marriage never existed", apparently the 12 years of marriage that produced 2 sons were all in her head. The 2 sons were, well not exactly illegitimate, just of "an unholy union". They felt great about that! Kennedy Kid used his money and connections to do this to his wife and children.
Are we to conclude from this argument that Kennedy is fortunate he is not a Protestant or his divorce would have been much more difficult?
No effect on the kids. No personal sin if the marriage was thought of as a marriage -- in other words it does not count as adultery. Not sure what else you are asking.
Yep. Can you imagine what children would think of their church after pronouncing them products of "an unholy union?"
Which is worse I wonder, being a Kennedy spawn or a product of an unholy union? Wait, they're both!
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.