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/
I have no clue what your response has to do with what you quoted from me.
Throwing rocks at me particularly is not the best way to avoid messages from me.
As a matter of fact I was thinking about a person on this thread who thinks that somehow repeating the same quotes over and over again will lead to their being suddenly respected.
Reference and paranoia are not fruits of the Holy Spirit.
I know.. but it does anyway.. All denominations fly in the face of the Body of Christ.. the Bride of Christ.. ALL of them..
Why do we have to go around and around and around again on the same stuff? Strictly speaking, the RCC and the EO do not consider ourselves a denomination. I understajnd the Protestants disagree.
My having to say this at this point in the thread is to me a remarkable demonstration of the obtuseness of many of the interlocutors here. Some thousands of posts back we went in some detail into the question of two different views of the nature of the Church. I really don't want to have to go through it again.
And besides, we Catholics are eager to admit to many many many sins. So what's the issue? What is your point?
It's a matter of degree, but the point is the same. If the most saintly do not claim themselves saints, then we should presume, or assume, even less.
Humility is a foremost attribute of saints. "Blessed are the poor in spirit..."
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, it does. And so does his statement "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," (1 Cor 1:17) Apparently he was not aware of Matthew 28:19
Paul didn't have anything against baptism, but I think he does recognize that performing baptisms himself was far less important than his preaching Christ's Gospel. First, we can see that Paul assumes all believers are and should be baptized in Colossians, when he addresses all Christians:
Col 2:12 : 12 ... having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Paul himself was baptized in Acts 9:18. So, Paul is not disrespecting baptism at all, he is just stating what his charge was. He answers why he did not perform many baptisms himself just before the verse you quote:
1 Cor 1:13-16 : 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)
Paul evidently was aware of his own celebrity, and took extra care that no one would put him ahead of Christ. For example:
1 Cor 3:5-7 : 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
And then:
1 Cor 3:21-23 : 21 So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future — all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
He didn't leave anyone alone, unbaptized, he just had others do it. To Paul, it didn't matter who baptized you, but into whom you were baptized.
Sanctification is the process of growth toward godliness ... in the lives of those that believe (i.e. have faith). It is God's desire that His children grow in grace ... as it is our desire that our children grow in character and maturity.
Do you believe in "Once saved, always saved", Quester? I hadn't gotten that in the past from you. However, those who DO believe that, sanctification is really a pointless exercise. If Christ covers us up with His own righteousness and we are saved for heaven no matter what we do after that one-time faith declaration, then it is an utter waste of time and effort. Think about it. OUR OWN sanctification doesn't matter, because Christ will cover us with HIS anyways...
I agree that sanctification is VERY important on whether we will enter the Kingdom or not. My question was a rhetorical one to Blogger. In the world of OSAS, sanctification is a moot operation.
And I would say that such relationship with God requires continuing faith.
AH, now you're talking, brother. We have a relationship with God. What relationship relies on a one-time declaration? Faith is an ongoing walk in God. Thus, salvation, which depends on our faith, is also dependent upon our walk in the Lord, our relationship with Him.
Regards
The "religion" was already established as the law, the Torah - as Jesus said:
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. - Romans 11:17-18
LOL! I had just eaten breakfast, Annalex...
Regards
I don't despair of much, but I do despair of being able to have a thoughtful conversation about the nature of the Church here. I will read what you all write, but I'm not going to participate.
[.. So what's the issue? What is your point? ..]
True.. what is.... IS...
My point?.. I thought I did that.. I'm neither Protestant or RCC or EO.. but accept some of each as christian.. A Tree and its fruit, like that..
Christ did not come to make a Tax exempt organization but a family.. AND DID...
Even though some want to play church dress up..
Thanks for your kind words and reply. I do see your point. It's more subtle than I saw at first; it's a good one.
I'd like to focus on the example you gave, your experience with the clueless young man.
I don't think he's doomed. And I doubt either of us think he was doomed from birth.
For two reasons.
First, we are given certain capacities. Nature, nurture, in some manner we have limitations of capability and capacity. The best we can do is the best we can do within our limitations. Being a thief and not a robber was this young man's expression of this: "I don't scare and hurt people, I just take the stuff from stores."
That this was important to him I think may go beyond trying to express he's a lesser criminal - he recognizes it is a lesser crime, less harmful. I know that honor among thieves is a joke, but that theives know anything about honor is evidence of some conscience. And conscience comes from God. God works even on theives and robbers and murders. I think He may work even harder.
What may be easy for us, may be incredibly difficult for him. How do we determine the worth of an action? I think scripture gives us guidance. And one act of kindness from this young man is greater than a hundred from you or I. If his capacity makes it more difficult for him, he would not be the first to make a virtue of necessity.
Second, I don't think he is doomed because there is always hope. We may have looked at the snide enforcer before Damascus as hopeless. I know you know this also, I'm just pointing it out in context of this example.
But yes, he suffers the cost of his sins, his "self-destruction". But he knows he has choices and he knows, or will soon, that his choices aren't working very well.
In terms of paying a price for our wrong choices, it does not even take a judicial system. Justice is immediate and unavoidable. Without Rikers, the young man is paying a price. The murderer loses, for himself, the value and sanctity of life. The theif loses security of his possesions. The adulterer the gift of faithful love...
Repentance and forgiveness are the only way to regain what is lost here. And repentance is always possible, hope is never lost. Even for those we see as the most hopeless, to Jesus they were most valuable.
These are my views, FWIW.
thanks again for your reply..
And, hosepipe, I agree that a lot of people are more comfortable with religious organizations, assemblies, denominations or "clubs" as you sometimes call them.
It is a good thing they have that, so I ask that you join with me in prayer for all of their religious leaders and for all of them - that God will bless them one and all - and guide them according to His own will.
True.. what do we know of all truth.. mere humans need help all of us..
The Scope of "all knowledge" is quite large..
The flesh is weak but the spirit/Spirit is strong..
I feel that all of "Us" needs a bit of spiritual adjustment..
To: hosepipe
I very strongly agree with you, dear brother in Christ!
= = =
As do I.
I think we can improve on our opinion of church as a club.
Some churches are like clubs. When I first moved to this city a certain church was recommended to me because of the fine exercise facilities.
But this is far from how I see my Church. Allow me to extol a bit:
The Church has preserved and protected scripture and teaching of Christ's message. By being an continuous entity, it provides me with two millennia of religious writings and knowledge and art and music.
The Church has developed and transmitted guides for spiritual growth and health and continues to provide me with valuable teachers and help on my way. The Church was built by martyrs, they didn't give their lives for a rec hall.
This and much more. And I haven't even discussed the Sacraments because I know you don't see the same value as I do in them.
Thanks AG for your prayers.
And, D-fendr, I'm fairly confident hosepipe means "club" as an association of people who are likeminded gathering together for a purpose, i.e. not as a pejorative.
It certainly is another story, and a critical one. :) As we have seen, Paul came to preach the Gospel of Christ. Is circumcision necessary for salvation? Paul takes care of it in Galatians:
Gal 5:6 : 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Gal 6:15 : 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
See also:
Col 3:9-11 : 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
So, do you think that Paul is correct here, or is he breaking God's laws?
By asserting that God did not fully reveal Himself to the Jews, we can assert that Christianity is only a "more perfect" (I am borrowing this oxymoron from a very famous state document) form of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, that's not why God told the prophet He would give a New Covenant.
Well, God certainly revealed Himself enough to save the OT righteous. Christ said He came to fulfill the OT. Part of that fulfillment can be found in Paul's further discussion on circumcision:
Rom 2:29 : 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
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.