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/
ME being the changing-subject one???
LOL
ROTFLOL
GUFFAWS TO THE MAX.
= = =
No. I'm not, really.
Seems to me the other side is the habitual change-the-subject side.
Though I am at the college doing work between posts.
And shortly to leave to teach my class.
Again, I seem to have great inadequacy of explaining the point sufficiently to bring any sort of clarity of understanding . . . my fault.
But there's no hint of the point being understood on the other side . . . so far.
You should teach em to follow 1 Corinthians while you're at it.
Political PC has severely limited what issues of faith I can even mention in my secular college class in Intro to Psych.
I was freer about issues of faith in my university in Mainland China.
What a commentary that is on our era.
I'm quite familiar with overly curious protestants. Like the ones in Russia who swindled my wife's great grandmother out of all her belongings on her death bed so they could put one of the local baptist parishioners in her apartment at no cost.
Anyone can represent themselves as a Protestant.
However ... their word alone ... doesn't make it so.
I'm sure that there are some wolves in 'Orthodox' clothing, as well.
Even Jesus had Judas.
I am sorry for the loss to your wife's family.
Indeed on all points.
May The Lord restore 7 times over.
Having so much faith in Peter overlooks that his name is Simon Barjona.. Jesus called him a Rock not some English personal name.. And then miss what calling him a rock meant.. while they both were standing by a structure made of rock upon rock.. with a cornerstone that was also a rock..
It seems many have missed this metaphor..
Jesus must be saying to himself you buy them books and they eat the pages..
Some of them.. Who then is the cornerstone Jesus or Peter?..
You are correct that we are talking past each other. However, I am generally familiar with the charismatic Protestant theology and know the perspective you are coming from. It is the intense personal experience of God, desire to cut out any transmission belt you did not build yourself, dislike of authority, and a heavy dose of anti-Catholic propaganda.
Parts of the Catholic tradition connect to this, especially Catholic mysticism. I don't need to tell you how fraught with danger this road is, if taken without the spiritual instruction of the Church. Here is a piece of advice, however, that you might actually follow: read the scripture slowly and read all of it. The Protestants skip from prooftext to prooftext; for every passage that runs counter to protestantism (like most glaringly James 2 or Matthew 16, or Matthew 25 or John 6) there is a ready spin to dismiss it. The spin is not the scripture. Read the scripture, tune out spin. Read Pauline epistles not just for faith-alone slogans, but to the end. You may not become Catholic as a result, but your fundamental theology will be.
You mean, the rock is really the faith of Peter, not Peter as a person. This is a possible, even patristic interpretation of the episode. However, let us not look at the renaming alone. St. Peter is also given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose, later given the rest of the Apostles. His weaknesses Christ saw, right in the keys episode and another time at the Last Supper. But after Peter's betrayal the charge to feed the sheep is repeated three times; at the Last Supper Christ prays for Peter personally and asks him to convert his brethren. Which he does, as we read in Acts. Taken together, these scriptures do not allow any trivilaization of the renaming episode, and instead place it on the same level as the other epochal renamings in the Old Testament, of Abram and of Jacob.
I would say there are Protestants who follow this example as well. John Calvin is one person who comes to mind. Luther is another. And just to be sure other, non-Reformed Protestants don't feel left out, one could include John Wesley.
I'm not suggesting anything. You're the one who stated Protestants don't follow scripture, remember? If you wish to get legalistic about it I can pull out a whole bunch of commandments which we all fail to follow. That is the reason we live under grace, not works of the law.
BTW-How much is the Vatican worth these days?
I find I'm adequate in some parts of the scriptures. Perhaps you meant to say that I don't understand and accept what other people tell me the scriptures mean. That would be closer to the truth.
However, gay marriage and abortion are outside the pale in any serious religion, yet, some Protestant groups condone them.
Like some bishops condoning, or at least covering, pedophile priests I suppose. How much has the Catholic Church spent on this so far?
Covering, yes. May they burn in hell. Condoning -- no. Show me condoning in the Catechism.
"I was freer about issues of faith in my university in Mainland China.
What a commentary that is on our era."
Indeed. See what the Protestant mindset has brought our country to! :)
Salvation by works.
Period.
Don't even try to deny it.
"BTW-How much is the Vatican worth these days?"
HD, Kawaii's Orthodox. We don't get the annual report from the Vatican.
Simply moving one person who you know is a pedophile to another parish is condoning in my mind. And as long as these bishops are taking the Eucharist aren't they receiving God's grace? Isn't the Church still ministering to them God's grace? Why would you wish them to "burn in hell" when the Church is so forgiving?
I don't wish to drag the Catholic Church through the mud simply because of poor leadership in a few parts of the Church. It's no different than Protestants who suffer from these various types of people. But making blanket statements about Protestants in general, simply shows that you have run out of scriptural arguments and instead trying to attack the character of Protestants in general.
LOL!!! I should know that from reading his tag line and some of these posts. There happens to be some very nice Orthodox churches and art as well.
Good works are necessarty for salvation, yes. This is what the scripture teaches very clearly. How can I deny it?
Matthew 25, Romans 2, James 2....
Or condemnation (1 Cor 11:27). It depends is the bishop in question has awareness of a sin he committed.
blanket statements about Protestants in general
The statement is that some Protestant groups allow abortion and others allow homosexual practices, as a matter of doctrine. Some don't. It is a fact, -- open any guide of Christian denominations and find out for yourself.
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.