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/
How about I let you convince the Orthodox of that, and I'll watch?
Honey, we all sin, all the time. He may not be drinking but he's got other sins to work on. We ALL do.
... you have no clue what it is.
One of us then, has a clue?...
If he invites lustful thoughts, etc. then it is acting. Being visited by feelings is not something done wilfully, and cannot be sinful. Christ speaks of "committing adultery in his mind", -- he is describing an act of mind, not an inclination.
Exactly!
I've know priests who have married, perhaps not nuns, but married just the same. They're human. Humans should marry. Even God didn't turn his back on marriage for people who wanted to serve the Lord. He said it's better to marry than to burn, although it might be harder for them if trials and tribulations come.
Yes, Christ and John the Baptist come to mind.
I think you are right in that spiritual practice as known in Christianity for millennia are mostly missing in Protestantism.
I'd touched that topic a couple of times on the thread, that the monasteries were shut down by the reformers for example.
The traditional spiritual practices are not entirely dead in Protestantism however. There is for example a growing number practicing some form of lectio divina.
and then there are those who faithfully go and confess their sins to their priest, get absolution, and then go out and do the same old same old all over again. It's not only Protestants who do these things, hmmm?
A little more than thinking about, but yes, you can sin by lusting.
The point was that this would be sinful regardless whether homo or hetero.
I happened to be reading St. Basil's rule concerning nocturnal emissions and he said... oh, sorry, family forum.
You are making a fine point, a fine line of difference, but a line nevertheless IMHO.
I forgot to add. I read somewhere long time ago something about the difference between having a thought and chasing that thought. I think it applies a bit.
That would be a totally improper confession, totally invalid if done in the manner and spirit you imply.
A proper confession includes a searching examination of conscience and a sin cannot be properly confessed if one intends to or wishes to commit it again. One must also analyze why it happened and what they will do to prevent its re-occurence.
St. Ignatius is often used as a guide for examination of conscience. If you knew anything of this, I believe you would respect it more.
As always, the individual can harm himself in improper use of a sacrament. This is not the sacraments fault.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation is an excellent one for spiritual growth, perhaps the best.
But, just because I believe in making a point, here's 2 Co. 8:15, quoting Exo. 16:18 (pardon the English transliteration, but I don't feel like trying to render this in unicode),
O to polu, ouk epleonase, kai o to oligon, ouk elattonese.And here it is in the LXX. I'm quoting the whole verse and bolding the relevant portion.
Kai metresantes tou gomor ouk epleonasen o to polu kai o elatton ouk elattonesen ekastos eis tous kathekontas par eautou sunelexanHmm, some of the words are the same, but not all, and the construction is different--in fact, Sha'ul's is actually closer to the Hebrew in word order. It's clear that there were times when Sha'ul (Paul, if you prefer) deliberately did not use the LXX--in fact, while he quotes from the LXX 51 times, he renders his own translation 38 times and creates a translation closer to the original Hebrew than the LXX at least four more times (one of which is the quote I used above).
The Septuagint was a useful and widely-used translation in the first century, much as the KJV is today, so it makes sense that Sha'ul and the other Apostles would make regular use of it when quoting the Tanakh for their Greek audience, but since they also made their own translations from the Hebrew text, the idea that the LXX was a sacred translation to them, as good or better than the original Hebrew, doesn't hold water.
I did not call the Bride of Christ satanic. I called the church of Luther's time satanic, unless you consider Sixtus VI's decadence, Innocent VIII's illegitimate children, Alexander VI's "Dance of the Chestnuts" orgy in the Vatican, mistresses, illegitimate children and murder - Godly behavior worth following. I thought not.
As to the Priestly and monastic vows, if one is not a Christian when he makes such vows and later becomes a Christian the sin of vowing to begin with is covered by the blood of Christ and the brother is free.
Luther was not a Christian when he called on St. Anne to save him. He later became a Christian realized that the church that he had made the vow to serve in was evil. He spent the rest of his life serving God as a pastor and professor - but outside of the Roman Catholic church.
If one made a vow today to serve Muhammad as a Jihad warrior but then became a Christian; or since you say that the vow of the non-Christian Luther was to Christ, say someone makes a vow to Christ for some reason to LITERALLY die to self by killing one's self. Certainly that person misunderstood what dying to self meant. Now that he understands the truth is he still bound by the vow or is he freed by the forgiveness of Christ and washed clean from ALL sin? He is free. Luther too was free. He was free to leave an evil institution and preach God's Word. He was free to marry Katherine the EX-nun who had been placed in the Benedictine cloister by her family at the young age of 5. Transferred to a Cistercian convent before 16, and who finally escaped with other nuns and soon found Dr. Luther. The rest is history.
Theirs was a true love story blessed by God, and Catholics have been so trained to hate them that they would deprive them of that which God had blessed and call their marriage an act of moral depravity. Seems that the "Church" would rather point at the specks in Luther's eye than deal with the planks in its own from that time.
Luther shook the dust off of his feet from immmoral Rome. Rome has never forgiven the challenge to their power.
But you know what Mary? I would no more say that those doctrines CAUSE a person to want to go out and sin any more than believing in eternal security makes a person feel so safe they want to go out and do whatever they wish without consequences. If one is truly saved, the "want to" is towards Christ. Doesn't mean we don't sin. But when we do, it grieves us as it does the Holy Spirit within us. Our want to is to please God. Technically, we could go out and "Sin boldly" as Luther said and not lose our salvation. However, those who quote him conveniently leave out the full quote. He said: "Sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for He is victorious over sin, death, and the world." In other words, "hey, you're going to sin. Don't beat yourself up over it. Rather, get back up, put your trust in the grace of Christ to keep you from sinning further and move on.
That is Christianity. Not perfect people, but a perfect Savior.
Absolutely. There is a difference between a fleeting thought (and immediate repentance) and a willful follow-up (act) on that thought.
But to a Protestant mindset, it shouldn't matter either way, should it? So what if they sinned? God already paid their bill, right?
God is the Rock, hence the metaphor/nickname for Peter - the first to receive that direct revelation, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
I agree as I've posted before. But I would make one other comment on fleeting thoughts. They can vary with our spiritual condition and where we focus our attention. So we do have some responsibility - in the general sense - for our fleeting thoughts.
I think, too, that your reply agrees with this in its: "and immediate repentance".
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.