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/
1Ki 7:23 ¶ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
1Ki 7:24 And under the brim of it round about [there were] knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops [were] cast in two rows, when it was cast.
1Ki 7:25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea [was set] above upon them, and all their hinder parts [were] inward.
1Ki 7:26 And it [was] an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
is father not a term for parent? is it not a term Christ uesed for Joeseph even knowing Joeseph was not his biological father?
come on now, get on with your rationlizing why you protest following the commandments laid out in 1 corinthians 12 and 14 rather than play silly games over something Christ clearly did...
LOL.
"But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead...Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." -- Luke 20:35-36
The children of the resurrection don't need no stickin' rings. And the only crown is Christ.
Very interesting. I suppose you know what the oxen represented? Were they worshipped? Did Solomon put little halters on them and bells and parade them thru the streets? Did he built temples to the 12 oxen?
fact; cow statues used within the temple who's sole purpose was the worship of God.
fact; angles statues where God command incense be lit!
But actually, it's the TRULY TRUEST TRULY TRUE Christians who have the most RIGHT and brief to rant.
It's in the MAGESTERICAL TOMES volume number 1,987,684,371 page 486 paragraph 15.
In fact, there's quite a reward for the TRULY MOST TRULY TRUE TRUESTLY TRULY TRUE Christians TRULY RANTING MOST TRUESTLY.
Now where was that brochure . . . rustle rustle . . . ahhhh, yes . . . . for every 100 truest rants . . . one gets a 24 caret gold decoder ring with a big red ruby . . . for deciphering all the true Biblical secrets that otherwise only the magesterical understand.
Well women with scarves on their heads? Catholics did that in the 5o's. No more? How come? Did the Law change? Now they go to mass on Sat night wearing shorts and jeans. Did the Law change? Call no man Father-- or Holy Father, lol
when i post i post references to scripture when you post you invent reams about rings...
i think you've demonstrated perfectly how protestants hate scripture.
protestants did it through the 50s also, not sure why either of them stopped but in my church we don't just forget commandments...
Was not. the 12 oxen holding up the sea is something altogether different.
Did not, other than cultural. Women wore hats and gloves, cultural thing. Black worshippers do it now
sure they weren't WORSHIPPING the oxen they were VENERATING them. its alltogether different.
you see even protestants realize that icons are nothing like idols when you make them put it in their own words.
heck anti-Christian rants from protestants are commonplace. you could almost say that protestantism is based on angry rants and schismatics since the day Luther pinned his angry list of demands to the door.
= = =
lest some unwitting lurker misunderstand, please clarify . . .
Are we given to infer, to understand from the above that
the RC edifice--including the flawlessly correct, ALWAYS APISTOLIC, ever purely pontifical, always splendidly arrayed . . . MAGESTERICAL
NEVER
was angry in their deliberations, pronouncements, encyclicals,
their . . .
INQUISITIONS?
If that is the contention . . .
perhaps we could call forward to testify some from
--the rack
--the iron spiked body cage
--the merciless lashes
so now its okay to dispense with what st paul said were the commandments of God as long as your culture says its okay.
we'll thanks for clearing up where protestants stand on scripture.
We love scripture, and it's obvious by our celebrated understanding of it, something you with your "cow worship in the temple," can only aspire to
i do hope you find some roman catholics to debate this point with
They were not "venerating" them. Your understanding is absurd
Actually, that's debatable. RCC folks repeatedly derogates the Bible's teaching on Christian truth and practice, Christian life and The Church Universal . . .
But, hey, what can we expect . . . contrary to some popular opinions of the Magesterical . . .
they are ONLY human.
so now the cows in the temple offend you also?
no room for the word of God in protestantism? covering heads too tough for their feminist women? icons God command be in the temple too strange for protestants?
well that's okay just go play Bible buffet and pick what you like and ignore the rest of God's word...
Interesting.
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.