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/
In dissertations and perhaps on the couch, yes. In internet religion forums, no.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
1 Peter 1:5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time...9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
1 John 5:4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
Yes, that is exactly my understanding now. Sanctification will always result in works that are good in the eyes of God. Such works are impossible for the lost. Therefore, sanctification cannot happen with the lost, only the saved.
If something is insightful, useful, practical, truthful, helpful toward enhancing someone's personal insights and growth toward and in the Lord . . .
I think it's fitting to share virtually wherever there may be hearing hearts.
I don't pretend that those who openly contend with me necessarily fit the fertile ground for such usefulness but there are persistent occasions when lurkers assure me that such is the case.
And, Holy Spirit within me bears some witness as well.
Psychology is merely the study of organisms and behavior. When it gets to religion and humans . . . there's a lot to study.
All kinds of things can be said. All kinds of inferences can be drawn.
But, GOD ALONE is still the confirmer of all that's true vs all that's false. Everyone is always encouraged to take any and everything I say to The Lord for confirmation or trashing.
Why should psychology be banished from usefulness in religion forums?
There is every reason to believe that the term 'sheep' refers to people. Anyone who has read the Bible ought to know that. To the best of my knowledge, neither the Apostles nor Christ Himself had any real sheep.
Then Christ and the Apostles were obviously wrong because of course they all preached to non-believers
No, they preached only to the Jews, unless you are denying that Jews believed in God. Gentiles were by definition non-believers (and could include Jews and non-Jews, but around the 1st century AD the term mainly applied to pagan non-Jews).
Kosta: He did. He sent them to preach to the 12 tribes/clans/phule of Israel (descendants of Jacob).
FK: If that was true, then God couldn't possibly love all men, as Orthodoxy holds. Your verses would also make Paul a false Apostle
Let's leave Orthodoxy alone for now and concentrate on what took place:
Not only does Christ say to ALL the Apostles not to go to the Gentiles, but he calls the 12 tribes the lost SHEEP. He clearly distinguishes the Torah-worshipping Samaritans (Semitic, but non-Jewish tribe) as not being the "lost sheep." (so much for MY "liberty" to interpret sheep as people!)
So, not only did Christ NEVER command His Apostles to preach to the Gentiles, not even Semitic, Torah-worshipping Samaritans, but one must seriously question WHY would He send ALL of His disciples on a mission He knew would fail?
As for +Paul, well...like I said, the Church was dying in Israel and +Paul was charged to save it even if He preached 'his gospel' in places Christ never commissioned any of His Apostles.
I'm really not trying to be cheeky.
If linguistics, archeology, philosophy, geography, . . . etc can be useful in studying religious/spiritual issues and offering useful, practical, growth enhancing insights, facts, suggestions . . .
then so can psychology. NO big deal, to me.
Indeed. What deception.
God silences Satan by choice. But He doesn't do anything else to Him. Satan, after all, was 'just doing his job,' being the prosecuting attorney.
It doesn't make him a 'fallen angel' or Babylonian Lucifer. In Judaism, Satan is very much part of the "God-Squad."
BTW, if you haven't visited Bill Somers' site recently--I hadn't for several weeks, there's been a raft of 2007 prophecies that might be worth your interest.
http://www.etpv.org/whatsnew.html
Errata: the NEVER should be EVER.
I'd be more specific that that: Attributing psychological motives or causes for another's religious views, values or theology.
A) Irrelevant - as to theology and exegesis in particular.
B) Slippery slope to reducing all religion to psychology - the atheist's toolbox
C) When well done rides very close to ad hominin, most often crosses over into 'you're nuts'
D) Non-rebuttable, non-discussion of theology; degrades into a psychological debate
E) Review your post I truncated; imagine someone doing the same using Calvinism.
Indeed - I can just imagine it happening right now.
But I've been forced to grow quite a lot spiritually from someone having the courage--actually quite a number of someones to have the courage to exhort me on the boundary of those two important parts of my life--spirituality and psychology.
Certainly there are hazards aplenty.
And I've been accused of being many foul things psychologically and otherwise by a whole raft of Calvinists hereon.
Last I checked, I was still breathing and God still loved me and even some Calvinists still care for me . . . so I think it's been quite worth it in terms of my own growing.
Why should I rob someone else of a similar benefit?
Of course, lots of discourses are really not intended for the faint-hearted, wimpy, wusses, thin skinned . . . including in the religion forum . . . especially in the religion forum?
LOL.
What do you mean happening!
It's HAS happened at my expense many, many times! LOL.
It's not Mary or at least not just Mary, it's all the saved, the saints, yes potentially you and me, that we're talking about here. And why you're blathering about RC meanings when writing to an Orthodox Christian is beyond me.
You'd better get used to it, Western Christendom is not the whole story. When you get into discussions of the Christian Faith at FR, you'd better realize that the discussion is at least three-sided, as there are a lot of us Orthodox here, and quite active on all of the Christocentric religion threads.
What a poor notion of salvation you must have! Just being let off of eternal punishment? Becoming partakes of the divine nature. Instead of posting garishly typeset replies to this thread, why don't you take a few days off and consider what that verse might actually mean.
By the way, I made a point of only answering for the Orthodox, the Latins (or RC's as you call them--though as an Orthodox I vigorously dispute their claim to catholicity, and am only willing to share Roman-ness with them) have to answer for themselves. They do not accept the doctrine of salvation as theosis, and will expound on 2nd Peter differently. Quite frankly, without the understanding of salvation as theosis, I cannot see how the Latins justify their practice of veneration of the saints.
"Very fascinating for a sociologist/shrink… I'm just honoring Mary.. let's bump it up a bit--she BIRTHED GOD! . . . we are so caught up enraptured with this graven image of Mary that we no longer bother about keeping it in mind . . . But of course, we are ONLY honoring Mary. I know that. The priest knows that--ask him. All my fellow RC's know that . . . but twixt the neurons . . . runs this other script that feeds my flesh so well; comforts me so well; is so much more ACCESSIBLE, that's it--I can relate to Mary so much better and so much easier--MOTHER--THE SUPREME EARTH-MOTHER; MOTHER OF HEAVEN; MOTHER OF GOD--what a comfort… Let's deal only with Mary. So comforting. So accessible. So reachable. So our sizeable. Except then we need to elevate her to be able to do all our magical requests… "Why should I rob someone else of a similar benefit?
Oh, gee. well then, thanks.
I've been accused of being many foul things..
This is not a good thing. Too much of it and the thread becomes toxic and locked by the RM. Which brings us to:
F) Forum Guidelines include: "Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.”"
thanks for your reply.
Because they were afraid that without guidance the laity would end up being as the Protestants are, scattered all over with a hundred different doctrines which they all claim we would see if we just read the Scriptures a little longer or more sincerely or if we, lacking the time to do all that study, just paid attention to their professors instead of our own? In other words because what you seem to think is a good outcome we think is a bad outcome?
But Calvin and Luther were both Roman Catholic clergy. They had as much guidance as there was to have in the Church, and look what happened. :) We Protestants have no fear at all that if one of our laity just went out and read scripture by himself that he would wind up being as the Roman Catholics are. I think these opposite approaches really mean something as to how both sides REALLY feel about how close their respective systems are to scripture.
You all have a hundred different "doctrines" (layman's sense) on matters which have not been officially ruled upon by the Church. Of course, when men command you to believe as they say (if you want to remain a Roman Catholic), there will be relative unity. :) ......... I don't know what you mean concerning "outcomes".
You treat Scriptures like cannon, and claim to outgun us, or say we have not studied it long enough and hard enough, as though agreement with you were the standard. And the most amusing style of combat in answer to James' "man is not saved by faith alone," is to line up a bunch of other texts which say, "He is too!", so that "Sola Scriptura seems to become "Sola the majority of texts in Scriptura".
What are you talking about? I've never commented about how much any Catholic has studied scripture. If we use scripture as a cannon, then you use Tradition as the same. That's the way it is. We might think our cannon is bigger because it is inspired, and your cannon is not. I'll give you that. :)
What exactly is your argument against our saying we might have 5 texts of scripture against your one, on a given point? Is your position presumptively correct because you have less scriptural support for it? :)
It is not clear to me that letting just anyone read the Bible has had a good outcome. I'm not saying it isn't right, I'm just saying the data aren't conclusive to those who haven't made up their minds ahead of time.
I think there is no question it has had a good outcome, overall. If one starts from nothing, and then reads the Bible by himself, where do you think he will end up in almost every case? I would say: "much closer to Christianity than he was before". Regardless of theology, the Bible points to God always. Where's the downside? I would much rather have someone a follower of a Christian faith with which I disagree, than never being a Christian at all.
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.