I still haven't seen it. Regarding your quibbles with Mary's behavior:
I blame this on many within our culture who, when telling stories set in other eras and/or cultures, can't get out of their "modern" mindset. A good friend of mine (who is a Tolkien scholar) calls this "chronological snobbery." It is very often unintentional, but it is there nonetheless.
'... his utterly reptilian son...'
Species prejudice.
My parents saw it and liked it very much. For not having a lot of fanfare upon its release, it is getting a lot now, particularly with ads and commercials everywhere. I'll try to see it sometime next week (in the spirit of continuing to celebrate Christmas throughout the whole Christmas season).
"It's the work of somebody who has read the NIV translation of Scripture."
The New Improved Version? 
My wife and I had much the same reaction to the film as you did, Mark. Fell in love with St. Joseph, felt uninspired by Mary's portrayal. My Baptist in-laws, however, raved about the film and cannot understand why we were underwhelmed. Led to a nice discussion about Mary and the Church, however.
"On the whole, and given its theological biases, the film is most certainly devout."
On the whole, and given your theological biases, this Protestant appreciates the review.
A very Merry Christmas, and/or Feast of the Nativity, to you and yours!
So, was Joseph an old dude or a young whippersnaper.
Inquiring minds want to know and can't afford a ticket.
+J.M.J+
Haven't seen the film yet, but it seems like every clip I see on TV shows Castle-Hughes frowning and looking generally unhappy. On the movie posters I've seen, she looks positively lost and despairing. I guess I've always envisioned Blessed Mother as radiating a quiet peace and joy.
I'll see the movie eventually, but I'm not sure I'll like it. I do want to see how they portray Sts. Joseph and Elizabeth, though, since I've heard good things about that in reviews. I guess every Gospel film has its flaws.
In Jesu et Maria,
Finally St. Joseph gets his props -- going to see it next week. Looking forward to it.
I liked the movie and am disappointed it has not gotten larger audiences. It would raise the average person's biblical literacy about 500% (which is not necessarily saying a lot). As you note, it gives a feeling for what it would have been like to live under a ruler like Herod. We should help fellow Catholic sift the chaff from the wheat, as you do in your review. To me the Visitation scene was worth the price of the movie. However, I should admit that in my case it was the first time I got the senior discount. 
Kudos to you, Mr. Shea, for not bashing the movie outright just for the fact that it depicts Mary as having labor pains. I mean, I understand the movie was NOT done from a Catholic perspective, but I've read some reviews that basically accuse the producers of the movie of *deliberately* blaspheming the BVM and trashing Jesus and Catholicism, etc., and warning Catholics to stay away at all costs. Good grief.
If Christians want Hollywood to make more Christian-friendly movies, then making the explicitly Christian-friendly movies Hollywood does put out into box-office failures, not to mention labeling them as being the work of God haters, hardly seems like a winning strategy.
In case anyone is doing polling for Hollywood in these comboxes, put me in the camp that doesn't care one way or the other if Hollywood makes these kinds of films. It would be nice, don't get me wrong. I don't need a relationship with Hollywood.
I pretty much agree with Mark's review. Don't consider it a holy obligation to go to the movie or avoid it.
"Mary mostly frowns and pouts". Yes, and that's probably why I for one didn't enjoy the film as much as I would've liked. I always picture Mary- being "full of grace", filled the Holy Spirit, intimately united with God!- as a confident, peaceful, prayerful and even joyful young woman (i.e., alive with the fruits of the Spirit!), not some uncomfortable, scared and strangely unhappy teenager. That's unfortunate though cause the film has many beautiful scenes and the actors really look the part.
The expression "chronological snobbery", I believe, comes from Lewis. He used it to point out that certain views from antiquity are often rejected because they have fallen out of fashion, not because they have been proven to be false.
Not to bring up the whole doctrine of the painless virgin birth (that has been handled well in a previous thread), but I will quibble with Mark's review. Mark said that the movie takes the Virgin Birth for granted, but what he should have said is that the movie takes the *virginal conception* for granted. As both sides admit the movie shows a normal birth. Also I find it disheartening that someone could see a movie which portrays the Blessed Mother as mostly pouting and frowning, and yet not have that ruin the movie for him. I would think that a frowning and pouting Blessed Mother would fall under the old anathema of “painful to pious ears.”
Christopher:
With all due respect, I think your repeated expressions of dismay over the movie's failure to perfectly accord with every facet of Catholic doctrine is starting to fall under the old anathema of "painful to reasonable people of good will."
What would be John Paul the Great's response to this movie? Consider his Easter 1999 Letter to Artists.
Excerpt:
I turn to you, the artists of the world, to assure you of my esteem and to help consolidate a more constructive partnership between art and the Church. Mine is an invitation to rediscover the depth of the spiritual and religious dimension which has been typical of art in its noblest forms in every age. It is with this in mind that I appeal to you, artists of the written and spoken word, of the theatre and music, of the plastic arts and the most recent technologies in the field of communication. I appeal especially to you, Christian artists: I wish to remind each of you that, beyond functional considerations, the close alliance that has always existed between the Gospel and art means that you are invited to use your creative intuition to enter into the heart of the mystery of the Incarnate God and at the same time into the mystery of man.
Human beings, in a certain sense, are unknown to themselves. Jesus Christ not only reveals God, but “fully reveals man to man”.(23) In Christ, God has reconciled the world to himself. All believers are called to bear witness to this; but it is up to you, men and women who have given your lives to art, to declare with all the wealth of your ingenuity that in Christ the world is redeemed: the human person is redeemed, the human body is redeemed, and the whole creation which, according to Saint Paul, “awaits impatiently the revelation of the children of God” (Rom 8:19), is redeemed. The creation awaits the revelation of the children of God also through art and in art. This is your task. Humanity in every age, and even today, looks to works of art to shed light upon its path and its destiny. ...
The Holy Spirit ... is the mysterious Artist of the universe. Looking to the Third Millennium, I would hope that all artists might receive in abundance the gift of that creative inspiration which is the starting-point of every true work of art.
Dear artists, you well know that there are many impulses which, either from within or from without, can inspire your talent. Every genuine inspiration, however, contains some tremor of that “breath” with which the Creator Spirit suffused the work of creation from the very beginning. Overseeing the mysterious laws governing the universe, the divine breath of the Creator Spirit reaches out to human genius and stirs its creative power. He touches it with a kind of inner illumination which brings together the sense of the good and the beautiful, and he awakens energies of mind and heart which enable it to conceive an idea and give it form in a work of art. It is right then to speak, even if only analogically, of “moments of grace”, because the human being is able to experience in some way the Absolute who is utterly beyond.
You can read the rest at
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...artists_en.html
I think you should.
Yootikus,
After the shabby/sinful way you culminated and detracted the FIs in the thread on the miraculous virgin birth, I feel no need to read anything you post, even when quoting someone. You assume you are a Catholic, but you have no Catholic sentiment, and a very badly formed conscience. I would suggest you take my example and no longer read my comments, you would not want to upset your conscience.
Just in case anyone is interested, here's one revelation with possible scenario of Mary/Joseph/birth, hidden years:
http://
www.centeroftheimmaculate...ife_forward.asp
http://
www.centeroftheimmaculate..._cumulative.asp
Gianna Sullivan's "Revelations" were disallowed as not supernatural by the Cardinal of Baltimore several years ago. This is a pious imagination at work repeating themes that go back to apocryphal scriptures.
Christopher:
I'm sorry that my patience with Protestants is offensive to you. I will have to disappoint you by failing to cultivate the virtues of impatience and anger. I have this notion that the Blessed Mother is patient with Protestants too.
I think some of the criticisms of this film's portrayal of Our Lady are a bit OTT.
(1) The BVm's reluctance to enter an arranged marriage - I think this is justifiable on grounds of dramatic licence - Don't forget that a modern AUDIENCE will find arranged marriage strange and somewhat repugnant. THe film actually takes care to show that this is something which makes sense in this sort of society - the scene where the taxgatherers abduct a girl from Nazareth because her father can't pay his taxes is a reminder of why Mary's parents would do such a thing - to protect her.
(2) Yes, she is shown having labour pains but the birth is not presented as purely natural - she is shown as making a miraculous recovery -which she herself describes as miraculous - so that she can leave for Egypt within a few hours of giving birth. Also, in devotional terms, if she is thinking of contemporary teenage girls identifying with Mary's position, many of their fears about childbirth would be connected with labour pains.
Another piece of dramatic licence, which I think is justified by the need to accomodate the audience's expectations, is the prominence given to ROman soldiers. The point of having a client kingdom is that the client ruler does the empire's dirty work locally and frees up imperial resources for bigger matters. There might be a garrison of Roman troops in Jerusalem to remind Herod & his family who was boss, but they wouldn't be going out into the countryside collecting Herod's taxes - that would be left to Herod's own troops.
Mark,
Christopher appears to be simply keeping our Catholic consciences well formed. I do tend to agree with you though, that a Catholic could in good faith see this movie and not be harmed. However, we have to be careful with what we mean by being "patient with protestants". If you mean to suppress Catholic Doctrine in order to not upset their sensibilities, then you are way off. This would not lead to conversion for them (and therefore salvation?), and may lead to a blunting of our understanding of the fullness of the faith, which is the easy and rapidly downward sloping road to protestantism for ourselves. If by being patient, however, you mean that we can be thankful for what IS presented well in the film, and enjoy it for such, while being very clear in our own mind what does not gel with the thoughts of the Church as defined by the Doctors, Fathers and Saints, then I agree with you.
And Yooticus - you always seem very quick to jump in and denigrate anything posted in these comboxes that seems to elevate Our Lady. Just an observation, but that seems an interesting position for a Catholic to take. I pray that Our Blessed Mother is also patient with such attacks.
"Alia, in a transport of ecstasy, holding aloft her crysknife as the Fremen overrun the imperial forces, a nightmarish composition by Lynch out of Bosch, all darkness, and a fully-formed witch who should be no more than a little girl, lit by fires and explosions, wrapped in Bene Gesserit robe and headpiece, with an expression on her face of triumph in slaughter that no little girl ever wore."
And accompanying image:
http://www.24liesasecond.com/sit...hp&
Column_Id=88
The Nativity movie, and the virgin that is revealed within it, is an imposter.
Knight:
Given that I am urgently seeking a chance to publish a book that aims to affirm every particle of Catholic Marian doctrine, I don't think I'm in much danger of suppressing it. I simply recognize that when Protestants make a film about a biblical event, you are going to get a Protestant take on that event. Ideally, it would be a Catholic film, but it's still preferable to a piece of crap like The Last Temptation of Christ or some of the other idiotic post-modern attempts to demythologize the gospel like The Da Vinci Code.
Mark,
I agree wholeheartedly! I look forward to your book!
Can you give us a foretaste? Is your theme related to anything in particular - like Our Lady in scripture and tradition, or following the tradition associated with the Marian Dogmas, or something completely different??
Did Herod keep kosher? Might not have been safe for his pig, either!
Eh? What? Can't quite catch your drift!
Dear Friends,
I saw the movie today, 12/23, and as a new Catholic, and convert from Evangelicalism (September '05), I very much enjoyed the film. I confess that I am not yet familar with each and every Catholic doctrine concerning the Blessed Mother, but I saw the "pouting" and "frowning" referred to so much on this thread in a very different light. To me, the Vigin Mary did not seem indignant and sorrowful so much as she seemed mostly overwhelmed at the simultanoeus onset on an unexpected betrothal and an Annuciation declaring that she would bear the Son of the Most High. To me this reaction seemed appropriate--and not in any way denigrating--and reminded me very much of the human anguish and emotion that Our Lord displayed in Gethsemene. Surely, her "yes" to God was a trial like unto her Son's, and as such it was no more a passing formality of the Immaculate Conception than Jesus' "yes" was a simple by-product of his Vigin Birth. Both were undertaken through great difficulty and rigorous obedience to God. Can we expect even those who are "full of grace" not suffer and show anguish along the way?
Up until reading these posts, I did not know that we Catholics believed that Mary did not suffer labor pains. This makes sense to me, however, as the natural fruit of her being the Second Eve--she would of course be set free from the curse.
In any case, despite my differing perspective, I will also argue that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not entirely absent from the film. At one point, St. Anne says to St. Joseph--after the Vigin Mary had gone away to visit St. Elizabeth--"She will comes back, she has *always* kept her word." To me, this is quite a statement. Is their anyone of whom it can *truly* be said that they have never borne false witness and have always kept their word? I can think of only Jesus and his Mother. Perhaps that was only my Catholic ears gleaning something that was not intended, but somehow I don't think so.
Anyway, on another note, I loved the scene where St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother are travelling to Bethlehem from Nazareth. At one point, St. Joseph voices a concern that I believe may have likely been on both their hearts. He asks, upon reaffirming that this child is in fact the Son of God: "I wonder if I will be able to teach him *anything*?"
Then in a display of extra-biblical brilliance, the story goes on to depict St. Joseph's disdain at the money changers in the Temple, and the Vigin Mary's great compassion as she washes the feet of her travel weary husband. Although they did not seem to realize it in the film, here I found the unspoken answer to the question posed by St. Joseph. Out of his great heart Jesus would learn the zeal for his Father's house (the that would one day lead him to cleanse the Temple), and out of her great heart Jesus would learn the compassion of his Father (the humility that would one day lead him to wash his disciples feet).
Perhaps I am naive and not as well versed in Catholic doctrine as some of the other learned commentators, but I bid everyone not to harden their hearts, and go and enjoy this rich and wonderful film.
That is all I have to say.
Many Blessings,
+ Brian
Haven't seen it yet, but have cousins who did. The husband is a minister in the Nazarene denomination. They liked it quite a lot but felt the only thing not Biblical was some bit about the star over Nazareth. Apparently in the movie it's depicted as three planets or something that the three separate wise men are following which merges into one star (triangulation?). My cousin the minister insists the star actually was being moved by God for the wise men to follow. Anyone have any info on this?
Despite some reservations, I liked the film enough to see it twice, once at a preview and once on the opening Friday. I was disappointed by Mary's poutiness--and what was she doing allowing a soothsayer to read her palm (or did I completely misunderstand that scene in the market?)? But there is so much good to affirm. Like Fr Phil Bloom, I thought the Visitation was worth the price of admission. What radiance!
Brian, as a fellow member of the Class of September '05, I say, "That's the spirit!" Bless you.
Brian,
Amen! That was a beautiful post, showing a deep and beautiful reverence for the story of the holy family. (BTW, welcome home!)
As I have read more about Catholics' opinions on this movie, I have found it odd that we generally have no problem with the humanity of Jesus, but have trouble seeing the humanity of the Blessed Mother. I find this odd, and would venture to guess that most protestants would leap upon this attitude and reiterate that this shows that we "worship" the BVM. (Frankly, I could kind of understand why they would come to that conclusion from what I have read. Yes, I know they are wrong!!)
The humanity of Mary, while she was also a perfect creation, may be hard to grasp. After all, none of us knows personally such a one. Jesus, on the other hand, while being human, is also divine, so I would postulate that we don't expect to truly understand Him, but we do expect to understand His mother.
Who knows what emotions she may have had? I have never heard that emotions are sinful--only our chosen reactions to them. May not one fear? May not one experience difficulty in treading the path of one's vocation, while being truly joyful to do God's will? Seems to me that Jesus himself may have experienced these emotions--why not the BVM?
I am no theologian, and certainly respect the opinions of the Church Fathers, but, for me, the total humanity of Mary makes her most dear. She CHOSE to do the will of God. I believe in the IC, but I also believe in free will, and in order for it to be free will, one must always have the option to do wrong. She is truly blessed and always remained full of grace!
This has become somewhat rambling, so I will close by wishing all a very Merry and Blessed Christmas!
+J.M.J+
>>>was disappointed by Mary's poutiness--and what was she doing allowing a soothsayer to read her palm (or did I completely misunderstand that scene in the market?)?
I read about that scene in a traditionalist condemnation of the movie. I still haven't yet seen the film, so I don't know the full context of the palm-reading scene.
However, it strikes me that both Our Lady and St. Joseph already knew that they would have a son, since St. Gabriel had told them so. Therefore, the soothsayer's "reading" was kind-of superfluous. They thank her politely, but maybe they're thinking, "Yeah, tell us something we don't know!"
I don't know whether that scene implies Joseph and Mary's "approval" of fortunetelling, as the traditionalist critics maintained. Apparently, Mary does not solicit the divination; the woman just does it on her own. Still, it is a questionable scene. Had Evangelicals or orthodox Catholics done this film, you can be sure that scene wouldn't have even been in the script!
In Jesu et Maria,
The problem with the film, as I stated before is that Catholics do not know there faith well enough to separate wheat from chaff. Margaret Mary tells us that free will means the ability to choose wrong, but that is not true. The angels and saints in heaven have free will, yet they can not choose wrong. Free will is the ability to choose the good. Mary was full of Grace from the moment of her conception. Think about what that means. Take the greatest Saint that ever lived, and look at the peace they have in Christ. Trusting His will, never being ruffled by anything. Look at the peace St. Filicitas and Perpetua had as they were being gorged by bulls, or St. Ignatius as he was being ground by the teeth of the lion. Mary had a peace well beyond this, yet she finds out about an arranged marriage and gets poutty?! Brian you gave a beautiful witness, but the reactions of Our Lady in the movie do not show someone who is full of grace.
Finally, blasphemy is blasphemy whether the person intends it or not. This film is objectively blasphemous. If Mark Shea or Christopher Sarsfield would have made this movie it would have been a mortal sin. The makers of this movie have blasphemed, whether they did this knowingly does not matter for us. The movie is objectively blasphemous, and I can not see how a Catholic could support it. It is participation in another's sin. And what makes it worse is it is a betrayal of Catholicism. If a similar movie had been made showing blasphemies against Christ, but had good and poignant scenes would that be okay? I doubt it. But it is okay to blaspheme Mary, because we live in a protestant country, and have lots of protestant friends, and the teaching on Our Lady is small thing, because only Catholics believe it. I am sorry, but this does not wash.
Before you all jump down my throat, if someone on the list can show me how this movie is not *objectively* blasphemous, or show me something from the Church that says it is okay to encourage blasphemy as long as the blasphemer does not realize it, or something like that, I will retract what I have said and apologize.
+J.M.J+
As promised, I have posted my defense of the painless, miraculous birth of Christ online:
http://home.earthlink.net/
~mysti...nityinpartu.htm
As I wrote on top, it's still a "work in progress." I hope to add to it and smooth it out a bit. But I wanted to have it online in time for the Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord, when we celebrate this holy mystery.
A Blessed Christmas to all!
In Jesu et Maria,
Again, I can see both sides. This film contains things which are clearly not Catholic and which border on blasphemous. However, those with good formation can see the good, while recognizing the bad. However, the point at issue, and I take Christopher's position here is that many Catholics do not understand their faith sufficiently to make the distinction, and this is very important.
In regard to the Blessed Virgin, being chosen from all eternity to give flesh to God Himself - flesh which he still has in Glory in Heaven - gives Her a dignity and Holiness which is beyond all of our understanding. She is the exemplar of all which was meant to be true, good and beautiful, before the fall. So even without knowing the writings of the Doctors and Fathers, this is an easy way to measure what is written or portrayed about her. Anything that falls short of that tidemark is inappropriate. If our Lord loved her deeply, then how should we act in regard to her? This is not adoration due to inferring anything devine about her, but rather acting as Christ himself did - and still does!
That the film falls short of this is very clear. But we can understand that, enjoy the film and at the same time ask forgiveness for those who do not know what they are doing. But as good Catholics, we shouldn't be arguing for anything which is less than exalting Our Blessed Mother the way in which Christ does.
show me something from the Church that says it is okay to encourage blasphemy as long as the blasphemer does not realize it
John Paul the Great:
"All artists experience the unbridgeable gap which lies between the work of their hands, however successful it may be, and the dazzling perfection of the beauty glimpsed in the ardour of the creative moment: what they manage to express in their painting, their sculpting, their creating is no more than a glimmer of the splendour which flared for a moment before the eyes of their spirit."
A paraphrase: No artist gets everything right. But every artist who strives to communicate, through beauty, what God has shown him succeeds in showing something of God that glorifies God.
From a pastoral perspective, the inter- and intra-religious dialogue spurred by The Nativity Story is a teaching moment for the Church: a moment of evangelization as well as catechesis. But here's the thing, Christopher: You cannot catechize those who have not been evangelized. And you cannot evangelize those who think you are insane on religion. (Recall the reaction of some Muslims to the Danish cartoons.)
Christopher, go around posting on the Internet (and orally verbalizing, if that's what you've been doing) charges that the making of The Nativity Story was an act of BLASPHEMY. See how many non-Catholics you effectively evangelize, and how many poorly formed Catholics come away convinced of the Church's apostolic authority in general and catechized on this point of Marian doctrine in particular. We'll wait to hear back on how that goes.
Honey attracts more bees than vinegar. John Paul knew this. Benedict knows it. Et tu, Christopher?
I thought it was interesting that the very first scene showed Mary goofing off with her friends, throwing grain playfully at one of them, and being scolded by her mother. None of this counts as a "sin" except in the most rigorous of minds, of course, but it did seem to start the film off on an aggressively Protestant, "this Mary is imperfect" note. The palm-reading scene came closer to real sin, but it struck me as quasi-coerced; the palm reader basically ran up and grabbed her.
Also, I didn't like it that the Holy Family fled on the day after Christmas Day. This Jesus was apparently never circumcised, let alone presented in the Temple. The old shepherd functioned as a sort of Simeon figure, however.
In real life, Herod's nastiest son was Archelaus; as bad as Antipas was (just ask John the Baptist), the Holy Spirit regarded his Galilee as a fitter place for Jesus to grow up than Archelaus's Judea. (Matthew 2:22)
Dear Friends,
First of all, thanks Christopher, for your instruction on, and abiding commitment to, the Blessed Mother. I have certainly learned something valuable from you about what it means to be full of grace, and for that I am grateful. Your analogy to the serenity of the Saints—even in death—was most helpful.
One of the things I have struggled with since coming into the Catholic faith is a certain demonically inspired tendency which leads me to approach my Evangelical friends with great impatience and incredulity. At times I find myself astonished at their seemingly indestructible ignorance of the Catholic faith, and their equally caviler attitude toward learning anything new. For some, Catholics are to be dismissed simply by virtue of being Catholic. It can be really frustrating, and in such instances I find myself especially prone to listen to the subtle and sinister voice which says: “Look at these fools! Heretics! Why don’t you put them in their place? They ought to be put in their place! And its okay to be angry. Sarcasm? You bet! After all, you are defending the truth. What these people really need is a swift kick in the butt! Especially that guy who mocked you. After all, he started it. You ought to really lay into him!”
Yuck! Does anyone else find themselves pulled in that direction during debate?
I fear I have followed that voice too many times in the past—without even recognizing it, let alone stopping to ask myself who was speaking. *shudders*
That said, I find that the best way to disarm this fleshly impulse is to try to remember that my faith, and all of the knowledge I possess concerning my faith, are the gifts of grace. Certainly, I have worked to obtain some of this knowledge, and certainly I have at times chosen to listen with humility. But who am I to thank for the ability to learn, the motivation to work, and the humility to listen? Am I not wholly indebted to grace for every good gift which comes down from the Father of Lights?
I am so thankful for those occasions—especially in the heat of the moment—when I allow that other voice, that still small voice (incidentally, spoken of so often in the Nativity Story), which says: “No Brian…not in anger…not with sarcasm…perhaps not even with cold calculated reason…and please be especially kind to that man who mocked you…his heart is weighed down with many burdens…he is also my son and it would hurt me to see another insult flung at his soul…be patient…what you have has come to you as a gift of my grace…pray that I would bring this gift to others, and that I would use your words to do it.”
I have tried to do this, and I must say he has come through. Jesus has begun to transform me from an arrogant caustic young writer—one whose style obscured the truth (no doubt a mortal sin there)—to a person who is more patient and effective with his prose. Since grace has enabled me to begin to write—with kindness and humility as my guides—I have seen so many more seeds fall on good soil. And as it turns out, the resistance of my Evangelical friends had less to do with their “indestructible ignorance” and “caviler attitudes toward learning anything new”, and more to with my own vulnerability to the Devil and the desires of the flesh. I have learned that the Devil is glad to help me proclaim the truth without error, so long as I agree to package it in his hateful rhetoric. He knows all too well that hate speaks louder than truth—especially when he stands ready to act as the interpreter for the reader on the receiving end. Very few of these hurtful dialogues take place with only two parties involved. God please help me to remember this.
That is all I have to say.
Many Blessings,
+ Brian
"The angels and saints in heaven have free will, yet they can not choose wrong."
Where did Lucifer come from, Hoboken?
We saw it last Thursday. My DH liked it better than I did. I'd give it a B+. Like others, I loved the portrayal of Joseph but found Mary completely unappealing. I call it the "'Mary Did You Know?' Nativity Movie," after my least favorite evangelical Christmas song.
I know it was a Protestant Take, yahda-yahda, and therefore I shouldn't expect it to get Mary right. But that's just the problem. The problem IMHO is evangelicalism's blind spot about Mary. It's precisely because it was a studiedly Protestant portryal of Mary that it misfired big-time. I guess I think Christmas is just meant to be, well, Catholic. (Yeah, I know the first Christmas was Jewish, but you know what I mean: As Rosalind Moss says, Catholicism is Jewish. )
Tim Staples says (echoing Newman) that, if you don't get Mary right, you don't get Jesus right. I saw that in this movie. IMHO, Jesus was diminshed precisely because Mary was diminished.
I'm not saying Mary should have been portrayed with a halo and radiating light or anything like that. I did not objedct to the "humanness" of the portrayal. I just objected to the this-is-not-Mary-ness. If that makes any sense. Mel Gibson managed to make Mary both human and special, holy, immaculate. It can be done. But Protestants can't or won't do it.
Matt,
Lucifer was never in Heaven. The essence of Heaven is the Beatific Vision. The Angels were tested, the ones that revolted went to hell, the ones that went with God, went into the Beatific Vision.
Brian, I believe you are correct. It has been a long time since I have read any C S Lewis. I seem to remember him wrting, somewhere, that truth is not determined by the clock, therefore one should not use "clock words" to determine truth.
Diane,
You seem to have got the balance just right. You can be happy with what is OK, while knowing what is not Catholic. It is the knowing part which we need to get right, and we do that gently but firmly, with clear catechesis. Prudence is an important virtue, and one which is under practiced.
Having an absolutely clear and uncompromising understanding of the truths of the faith, while being able to gently lead those who need to be educated is the ticket to evangelization. This film is a great example to help us practice this - both to educate ourselves and others depending on where we are with respect to a true understanding of the Catholic faith.
Brian,
You are absolutely right. The faith is not something that you should hammer someone into the ground with. Sharing the faith with someone is not about winning a debate, or beating the person, but rather it is a win-win situation for the both of you. I went through that "apologist" phase, where I spent too much time trying to win debates, instead of sharing the faith. We must be committed to the truth, and realize that people will be drawn by the splendor of the truth, but we must share the truth with charity. That does not mean glossing over our differences, it means being respectful of the other, and treating him with the dignity of someone made in the image of God – of someone redeemed by the death of the God-man. Thankfully, the new pontiff has decided to remind people that the ecumenical movement must start discussing issues which divide us, instead of glossing over them.
I try very hard to never forget where I have come from. There were many moments in my life when God could have taken me, and I would have gone to hell. Except for the grace of God, I would still be in that state. How many graces did I reject, until finally succumbing to the sweet burden of Christ? How can I look down on those that may have rejected far fewer graces? When I reflect on this it makes it easier to deal with other people that might not be where I feel they should be. “God wills the conversion of the sinner and not his death.” Thank you for your beautiful posts and may our Lady keep you forever in the blue shadow of her mantle, especially during this blessed season.
I thought it was interesting that the very first scene showed Mary goofing off with her friends, throwing grain playfully at one of them, and being scolded by her mother. None of this counts as a "sin" except in the most rigorous of minds, of course, but it did seem to start the film off on an aggressively Protestant, "this Mary is imperfect" note.
Egg-zackly!!!
It reminded me of the scene in that evangelical Gospel of John movie--the Wedding at Cana scene--where the filmmakers just had to show a frowning, shrewish-faced Mary, apparently playing the high-handed grande dame as she imperiously bossed around the wine stewards. Was that in the Bible? No, it was sheer eisegesis. Or--similarly--in a claymation made-for-TV Nativity movie I saw a while back: As Mary and Joseph approached Bethlehem, Joseph was a model of patience under pressure, while Mary was snappish and impatient.
This unflattering portrayal of the Blessed mother is gratuitous. No one will convince me it's not deliberate--i.e., that there isn't an agenda behind it.
I think there's maybe less of an agenda in the case of this new Nativity movie; certainly the unflattering portrait is a lot subtler than the snappish-ticked-off-Mary portrayals in those other flicks were. But why do Protestant moviemakers see fit to portray Our Lady unflatteringly in the first case? In order to do so, they must go waaay beyond the Bible--which does NOT contain a pouting, much less shrewish Mary. Why can't they just stick to what the Bible says and shows us about Mary? If they wanna be good Protestants and shy away from all that Immaculate Conception stuff, well, fine. But in that case, why not just stick to the Biblical portrait of Mary? Why the eisegesis? Why the added, gratuitous, unnecessary, unbiblical, unflattering details? (I think I've already answered my own question. )
"Margaret Mary tells us that free will means the ability to choose wrong, but that is not true. The angels and saints in heaven have free will, yet they can not choose wrong. Free will is the ability to choose the good. Mary was full of Grace from the moment of her conception."
Christopher, this is Jansenism. You are saying that, as Mary has received the fulness of Grace, as being exempt from Original Sin, she is unable to sin. You are basically saying that interior Grace is irresistible, which is the major point of heresy in Jansenism.
But Mary was fully able to sin just like anyone else. She, out of her free will and with the help of God's grace, never sinned in her life. But, as St Augustine says, everyone who is saved had the full potential to go to hell and every reprobate had the full potential to go to heaven. This also applies to Mary, who was the New Eve also in the respect that she was, like Eve, without Original Sin. Still, Eve sinned, out of her free will. Mary did not sin, out of her free will.
The angels cannot be compared to men, as angels do not have the possibility now to turn away from God. Once, in the beginning, they were given the possibility, and this applies once and for all. They are like the saved and the reprobate, who cannot "go over" the Hell or to Heaven, respectively, anymore.
Brian, welcome home! It is lovely to see you in full Communion with the Church.
Petra,
First you have completely misunderstood what I said. Someone had said that the ability to sin is essential to having a free will. I told them that this is false. I gave the example of the saints and angels *in* heaven. Are you saying that the angels and Saints in heaven no longer have a free will?
Second it is a common opinion among theologians that Our Lady was only giving choices between goods, and was never given the choice to sin. This is not my opinion, however, I know that it is a legitimate opinion. It is also a common a opinion that some Saints were confirmed in grace and could not sin. As long as you maintain that grace is hypothetically resistible, you can and many theologians would say you must, maintain that God could so flood a soul with grace that the will could not in reality reject. The Dominicans would say that efficacious grace (grace that brings about the effect intended) can only be rejected in theory, but in practice never is, and also that sufficient grace could never be cooperated with in practice, but only cooperated with in theory. You would not be the first to accuse the Dominicans of heresy on this issue, but you would fall under the condemnation of the Church if you did. I would recommend reading “Predestination” by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. , although I worry you might decide to excommunicate him.
Finally, I would say that if you think someone is spouting heresy, you should give him the benefit of the doubt at first, and ask questions to determine if he means what you think he means. Never assume (you do know what happens when you assume)?
May you have a blessed Christmas.
Christopher, The name is actually Mary Margaret(not that it matters!) I will say that I had not considered the saints and angels in heaven in my statement. Having now considered this, I am still not convinced that free will(on this earth, at least) can be understood without the ability to choose wrong. God is our Father, and what of Adam and Eve? Were they not created without sin? Did not God say it was Good? The saints have the beatific vision--my understanding is that Mary did not have that in total until she was assumed into heaven. I am willing to be instructed in this--but I still do not think the film blasphemous. I hope you do not think that I am uttering blasphemy. I would never intentionally blaspheme against Christ's church.
Diane, I spent the latter years of my youth in an evangelical foster home. Great, kind, and gentle folk(and very good Christians). I have read it all about their opinions about the BVM, and, even more, their opinions of the Catholic ideas and ideals thereof. I agree that there are issues with the portrayal that are laughable(one of the most idiotic was that a young Jewish woman of that time would object to a marriage on the grounds that she did not love him! LOL, I'm pretty sure that the Jews of that age did not require romantic love as a prerequisite to a good marriage.) The film certainly has protestant leanings that I do not agree with in any way. Still, it's a baby step towards Mary (mother to us all) that I would never have expected to see in the 70's. Charity, I think, is required towards their view, while they (in God's time) journey closer to what I firmly believe is the fullness of faith.
Are you saying that the angels and Saints in heaven no longer have a free will?
All free will is ideally destined to the perfect Will of God. Since the saints in heaven have satisfied this end and live "in the Will of God" the question for them is moot.
Even those in Purgatory who have much or little ground to still cover to reach this union, that period of purification is now up to the Will of God, moved by the prayers and sacrifices of others. The population in Purgatory can no longer will their own "becoming" while they CAN, after their own revelation (seeing themselves before God in their own particular judgment) as to what is needed for that, be moved to pray for those still undergoing their trials on earth, for they can no longer pray for themselves and rely on God's Mercy and perfect Judgement.
As far as the angels go, due to their great superior gifts of knowledge and understanding of the things of God, had their one moment in time for choosing to serve or not to serve ... and that was it. That was the point when the angels had to make an unbreakable commitment to Our Lord to serve Him. If they could not do this, they had to go. One third followed Lucifer to rebellion. At that point the rest gave up their freedom to rebel.
Mary Margaret, yours is a wonderful perspective. I didn't realize that such a focus on Mary would have been unthinkable in the '70s. Thank you for this! "Baby step" seems an excellent way of putting it.
Truth to tell, I didn't object to the Nativity Story portrayal of Mary as much as I did to the Gospel of John depiction of her as a tad snappish and high-handed (and rather homely, too). The scene in question lasted but a moment, but it left me with a very bad taste.
But I'm grateful for baby steps in a more positive direction, believe me!
Mark- I agree that the Joseph character was excellent, and Mary, although lovely, seemed like she was miserable throughout the entire story.
A scene that I really enjoyed was Zechariah in the sanctuary.
Speaking of Zechariah, I have been puzzled by Luke 1:62. Zechariah was struck dumb/mute by God for his lack of faith. Why does anyone need "signs" to communicate with him? Sure, he probably needs a tablet to write on so he can express himself, but why can't they talk to him? I don't see anything about Zechariah being deaf. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Tim
For those who believe this movie contains blasphemy, and that to see it would be to participate in the sins of another, could you tell me if the Vatican has reacted in this way to the movie? My understanding is that there was a screening of this movie at the Vatican. If the movie contained blasphemy, or if viewing it were sinful, shouldn't the Vatican condemn the movie? I may have missed it, but I heard no such condemnation.
I personally enjoyed the movie a great deal, and I took my 10th grade religious ed class to see it. It was very helpful in giving them a vivid portrayal of Mary and Elizabeth meeting, Roman oppression, Joseph, and more. It also gave us a chance to talk about what scenes were "made up" and what scenes are actually in Scripture. For example, the teens wanted to know if Mary and Joseph really encountered a snake. That's not in Scripture, but the scene does help to convey the truth that Joseph took care of and protected Mary. I thought scenes like that actually helped the teens see Mary and Joseph as real people with real life experiences.
+J.M.J+
>>>Speaking of Zechariah, I have been puzzled by Luke 1:62. Zechariah was struck dumb/mute by God for his lack of faith. Why does anyone need "signs" to communicate with him? Sure, he probably needs a tablet to write on so he can express himself, but why can't they talk to him? I don't see anything about Zechariah being deaf. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Scripture commentaries I've read simply state that he must have also been struck deaf. You're right, though, that the text itself only mentions him being mute. That doesn't mean he wasn't also struck deaf, of course; the two conditions often appeared together - "deaf-mute".
In Jesu et Maria,
This is the first movie to open in the Vatican. Ever. Somebody thinks it is not a great hazard to faith and morals.
If we are to thunder anathemas every time non-Catholics do the best they can, given their understanding, in making movies that touch on the faith, they will either stop considering our perspective or stop making such movies altogether.
It does no good to say that Protestant, Jewish, or infidel filmmakers should have been guided by the Magisterium. If they were, they would be Catholic filmmakers.
"For example, the teens wanted to know if Mary and Joseph really encountered a snake. That's not in Scripture, but the scene does help to convey the truth that Joseph took care of and protected Mary."
Yes, Tim, exactly! And the snake is, although the filmmakers might not have intended this, a subtle reference to Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium. Satan, the snake, is seeking to do harm to the pre-born Savior of the world. While the scene isn't in Scripture, it shows just how difficult a 100 mile trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem would have been 2000 years ago for a woman in her 9th month of pregnancy & the man guiding her there. It was far more than a small inconvenience! Perhaps Satan didn't know this was the Christ child being brought to Bethlehem to fulfill prophecies. But he did know this young pregnant woman & her betrothed were righteous & holy believers in God's Word. And that would be enough for him to try to attack them in an attempt to shake their faith.
So, perhaps I'm reading into the script - I'll never know unless I can interview the writer of TNS. But I thought that scene was pretty strong & not the Nativity-meets-Indiana Jones some would make it out to be.
I wouldn't put too much opinion into the movie being previewed at the Vatican. The film was offered as entertainment, not an instructional video. If this film were being created as part of catechetical instruction, the Vatican would have vetted it and offered a critique. The Vatican never offered a theological critique for Die Hard 3, and for better or worse, this film is really the same thing, just a form of amusement. The USCCB's movie review did the same thing: it treated it as a film. It would have been nice if the USCCB would have added in their review that this movie wasn't a precise theological treatise, but I don't see them having an obligation to do that.
Ed,
I do not think I or anyone else is thundering anathemas at the producers of the movie. What we are doing is warning Catholics that this is not a Catholic representation of the Blessed Mother and Catholics should be aware of this. Tim decided to take is religious ed. class to the film, and to the extent that they and Tim accept the representation of the Blessed Mother, they are accepting Protestantism. It is not enough to say I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, therefore I am Catholic. You have to have some kind of idea what that means. If a movie was made about St. Therese and showed her acting as Mary did in this movie, Catholics, I hope, would be upset. But Mary at the moment of her conception, was quasi-infinitely more holy than St. Therese ever was. This movie does not even portray the Blessed Mother as a Saint (or a pious Jew), let alone the Mother of Saints. This is the danger of the film, and Catholics have a right to be warned. Many Catholics (like Tim above and his 10 graders) are going to come away from the film with a perverted picture of the Blessed Mother. There is a real danger here. I do not expect better from non-Catholics, but I do expect more from Catholics.
Finally, do you believe the movie portrays an objectively blasphemous understand of the Blessed Mother, or do you believe that a pouting, frowning, feminist (all descriptions from Mark) Virgin Mary is in keeping with the teaching of the Church?
Again, and again already!
Christopher is correct about the film where is at odds with true Catholic teaching. This is not, so far as I have seen, in question here. But also, given the understanding that this is a protestant film, we can enjoy the things that are good, while defending and catechizing others about what is not Catholic (plenty). The only problem that I see among well formed Catholics is if they do not realize what is and is not consistent with the Magesterium.
So, can we agree that the film is protestant, and that it could be viewed by a Catholic, as long as they realize where it is coming from?
But something more important is to help educate each other - with a healthy dose of humility (along with prudence, an under-used virtue!) - about what in the film is consistent with TRUE Catholic Teaching and what is not. Lets keep "feelings" out of it, as they distract and lead you astray.
>>"This movie does not even portray the Blessed Mother as a Saint (or a pious Jew), let alone the Mother of Saints. This is the danger of the film, and Catholics have a right to be warned."
And the problem is compounded to the extent that we say to ourselves "we see", and presume that we can separate in hindsight the truth from the error. Rather than an act of devotion, it turns into an occasion for pride and increased blindness to the truly authentic - when it should suddenly visit us. The images will ultimately overpower the reasons.
" This is the first movie to open in the Vatican. Ever. Somebody thinks it is not a great hazard to faith and morals."
Thanks for letting us know that, Ed. I had no idea the Vatican allowed that and that speaks volumes to me. If it were at all dangerous to the faith, the Vatican would never have done what it did, or it would be cause for great scandal. If it's good enough for the Vatican, shouldn't it be good enough for me? I think I will go see it, after all.
Numerous movies have been shown at the Vatican. Openning at the Vatican was significant to the producer, not the Vatican.
Frankie:
"This is the first movie to open in the Vatican. Ever."
Please be aware that this is not a guard against things that are objectionable, or even if not objectionable, that it is not a Catholic "Stamp of Approval."
There are many things that can be allowed, but it doesn't mean they are good. The American Catholic bishops have reviewed many films which are morally reprehensible, but did not give that as a warning. Even if "a Vatican spokesman" said... something, it doesn't mean that it is free from error. Even worse is "sources at the Vatican said..... That could be anybody.
Please note that even the Pope's encyclicals are not issued "ex Cathedra" necessarily and must adhere to Docrine and Dogma - which they usually do of course. So please do not take the statement that it was viewed at the Vatican as a sign that it is free from issues.
It is, as always, a matter for prudence and clear thinking. Understand the mind of the Church, through sound reading of the Doctors/Fathers and Saints, and you will not go far wrong.
Christopher,
I have not seen the movie, but my comments are applicable generally to good faith efforts by non-Catholics.
Knight,
It seemed to me that Christopher was strongly denouncing the movie, rather than merely urging us to recognize it as not being a production of CDF Films.
M.Z.,
I didn't say it was SHOWN at the Vatican, it OPENED at the Vatican. I don't doubt that at some point Mad Max has been shown there. Heck, Fr. Bryce Sibley scheduled a screening of Death Wish III for the North American College.
But to allow a movie to open there is, I think, a bigger deal than just letting it be shown.
Ed,
My only point was that where it openned was at the discretion of the producers. The Vatican could have certainly declined such an invitation and requested a showing at a later date, but I don't know the justification they would have offered for doing so. If offering a showing at a different time doesn't constitute an endorsment, I don't see how the showing being an openning would make it so.
"Many Catholics (like Tim above and his 10 graders) are going to come away from the film with a perverted picture of the Blessed Mother."
I'm sorry, Christopher, but how can you possibly know this unless you can read their hearts? How do you know with any certainty that Tim & his class in fact did not discuss where the film differs not just from Scripture, as he states in his post, but from Catholic doctrine? Were you there? I saw the film & I specifically know where it differs from Catholic doctrine & the Word of God. I do not have a "perverted picture" of the Blessed Virgin. I'm not about to become Evangelical or Lutheran or any other non-Catholic denomination. Neither is my 87 year-old Mother, whom I saw the film with. She, in fact, was very moved by the film - it made the events of Scripture real for her in a way no other film has. But, believe me, she's still all Catholic!
This film has not, in any way, changed my adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Those who would allow it to do so must not know their faith very well. Just as those Christians who believe Dan Brown's lies in the Dumb Vinci code don't know their faith very well. Please, don't lump those of us who do know our faith in with those who do not just to prove your point. It's uncharitable.
And, in on similar note . . .
"The images will ultimately overpower the reasons."
No, pace, they won't. Yes, cinematic images, along with the whole package of the film (dialog, music, editing, effects, etc), can be overwhelmingly powerful; to the point that some folk can no longer tell the difference between fact & fiction. But that's a problem with all forms of fiction. And it is incumbent upon the viewer to know the truth, to educate themselves - or, in the case of TNS, to seek out the Truth of the teaching of the Church Christ founded on earth.
And some people, pace, would even mistake some examples of cinema for a continuation or fulfillment of divine revelation - which I would call blasphemy, among other things. On the one hand, a film has been made that depicts the birth of Christ & specifically refers to the pre-born child as "God incarnate" while on the other hand some would view the films of a certain Buddhist filmmaker, effectively, as an oracle from God. In light of Church teaching, which would you see as the more dangerous position?
The only ways images can overpower the reason of the viewers of any given film is if those viewers are either not thinking critically &/or rationally or if they're predisposed to the POV of the film in the first place. Some loved the Dumb Vinci Code book & film because it told them what they wanted to hear. Some, like an un-churched friend of mine, saw DVC for what it was, lies & hokum, because she's a rational, critical thinker.
What Gene said.
Christopher and Pace: Did you drink Father Angelo Mary ("The Nativity Story Is A Virtual Coup Against Catholic Mariology") Geiger's Kool Aid? Or did you whup up a batch all your own? Either way, the antidote is available: John Paul's Letter to Artists, Dominus Iesus, the writings of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Et cetera.
Lighten up, More-Catholic-Than-The-Popes Catholics! Read John 17:20-23, pray for Christian unity and drink some KOOK Aid!
Mr. O'Connor,
Could you please show me anywhere in what I have written that I am claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope. Your post is completely lacking in charity, and I would suggest you copy it and show it to your confessor, because I think it is objectively grave matter.
Gene,
Many people believe they know their faith well enough to separate wheat from chaff, unfortunately that is not always the case. Certainly, you have heard of, or even know, Catholics who have started attending protestant bible studies, only to later abandon the faith. One of the graces this movie has brought about is a discussion of Mariology. One prominent priest blogger just recently posted about how much he had learned about the Church's teachings on Mary, through this dicussion. As I study theology, I am continually surprised at how little theology I know. I am very glad that movie in no way perverted your understanding of Our Lady, but I assume you have a slightly better grasp of Catholicism than the average 10th grade CCD student.
Chris- In my opinion, any faults in the movie are greatly outweighed by the numerous positives. I can explain any differences with Catholic teaching to my 10th graders in our classroom.
And would you please stop telling people that they need to consult their confessor? If your intentions were truly charitable, you wouldn't make such a statement on a public website viewed by many unless the person had asked your opinion. Didn't Jesus ask us to focus on our own sinfulness before we go around looking for sin in others?
If someone would be so kind to point out the theological positives, I would appreciate it. Well not so much appreciate, but use it as an excuse to explore whatever positive is stated.
That any Catholic would be deeply moved by the movie is a concern to me about their knowledge of the theological importance of Christmas. I'm not accusing anyone of being a bad Catholic. I heard a deacon give a homily this weekend that completely missed the point of Christmas, but I'm sure many were pleased with that homily.
M.Z.:
"My only point was that where it openned was at the discretion of the producers."
No, it wasn't. I bet there are a lot of producers of a lot of movies that would love to have their movie open at the Vatican. It was at the discretion of the Vatican. Which means someone had to actually see the movie before giving it that great, big OK. Which they did. Not the producer. The Vatican.
"The Vatican could have certainly declined such an invitation"
But they didn't.
"and requested a showing at a later date, but I don't know the justification they would have offered for doing so."
They could have listed all the reasons we've read right here: that it's inappropriate for Catholics to see. That it portrays Mary in an anti-Catholic light. These are things you believe. Obviously, the Vatican doesn't think the same. Be honest: if you had a position of some power in the Vatican, and the producer came to you and asked you to premier this movie there, wouldn't you have said no? It means something that they said "yes". What does it mean?
What I find amazing is how you completely disregard the concept of the Vatican giving a thumbs up to having a particular movie OPEN at the Vatican and try and twist it around to have it mean nothing at all. But it does mean something, something very loud and clear: this movie must be more than OK for Catholics to see or else the Vatican wouldn't have had anything to do with it.
Diane, Thanks for your very kind comment! I am almost afraid to post to threads such as this, as I know that I am not very learned in Catholicism. Most of us born in '59 in a very protestant part of KS aren't. (Not disparaging either my parents or my pastors, but it was a pretty difficult place to really know your faith, especially when you were the only Catholic of your age in the whole town and we were all dealing with VII changes.) I am looking forward to discussing this movie with my very evangelical foster family.
Frankie,
For the Vatican to turn down a world primier, they must be offered one. As I stated, it was certainly within the Vatican's perogative to turn it down. Having perused numerous media accounts over the past half hour, the only statement was from Cardinal Batrone and that was after the movie. The media was fed the line that this was a Vatican endorsement. This is not unusual for the media, because the media is lazy. Cdl. Bertone's comments were quite neutral, praising the plot and cinematic quality. Archbishop Meyer's comments were of a similar quality. http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0606750.htm
I wouldn't go so far as to say, though I may have previously said, that it inappropriate for Catholics to see the movie. I don't believe the film is anti-Mary or anti-Catholic. It is not catechetical or devotional. Most movies aren't.
This does not mean I endorse every remark made about the movie. I really do not like the movie. There were plenty of things that bothered me about the movie. For instance, Elizabeth feeling the baby Jesus kick. John was born 6 months prior to Jesus. There is no conceivable way that a pregnant Elizabeth could feel Jesus kick. The home church thing bothered me too.
Of course, I enjoy watching curling on TV. It is not my place to account for taste in others.
Gene:
I'm sorry. The choice is free.
MZ- The following is an excerpt from a NY Times article on the movie and the Vatican viewing:
"The film’s director, Catherine Hardwicke (“Thirteen,” “Lords of Dogtown”), and cast members were seated directly across from high-ranking church officials like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state, who ranks second only to Pope Benedict in the Vatican hierarchy. “I kept trying to look over there to see if they liked it,” Ms. Hardwicke acknowledged after the premiere.
That, of course, was a foregone conclusion, as the pope himself had approved of the film well in advance."
Did the NY Times get it wrong about the Pope's approval?
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/2...=rssnyt&
emc=rss
And this from CNS:
"Vatican officials give thumbs up for 'The Nativity Story'"
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0606750.htm
Did CNS get it wrong? It sure sounds to me like the Vatican approved of the film. If the press was getting it wrong and misleading Catholics, then it is the Vatican's responsibility to clarify, and I have heard no such clarification.
MZ- that last post was from me. I forgot to "log in."
Can we please keep to objective discussion here. This would obviate the need for gratuitous and sarcastic comments by such as Jamie O'connor, necessitating defensive remarks by Christopher. For those of you who are concerned about him commenting about the need for confession, it is allowed to make objective judgements about objective matter - such as said sarcastic and sneering comments about Fr. Geiger. It would seem to me that making such an overwhelmingly dismissive statement about the works of one of the most prominent Mariologists in the world today should give us pause about the motives he has to do this!
My observation is that Fr. Geiger gives a balanced view of the film outlining what is and isn't Catholic with regard to the depiction of Our Lady. He does not recommend the film, but he does that from the point of view of the damage that it could do to poorly catechized Catholics. He doesn't make watching the film an occasion of sin, but his points seem very valid!
No problem Tim. It would probably be a blessing if I didn't log in and post from time to time.
I know there was a small write-up in L'Obs. Romano, but I don't receive the paper, and they don't have archives online. I forgot the pull quote cited from L'Obs. in most of the press accounts, but it was 3 words and not significant.
I may be attempting to make too fine of a distinction. I think it is fair to say the Vatican endorses the movie as a movie. I do not think it is fair to say that an imprimatur or nihil obstat was given by the Vatican, which seems to be what some people are perceiving.
Do I think the Pope personally reviewed the film? No. It didn't serve the Vatican's or the Pope's purposes to condemn the movie, so they didn't. You will note in each case that the reporter doesn't source the approval. I could be wrong, but the stories have the markings of a press release rewrite.
Gene,
I have actually encountered a commenter who thinks that at least one of the films of guy who has made what I can only describe as some REALLY strange s*** is an Eighth Sacrament in some way. Either that or a Fourth Person. It's hard to tell. He's quite sure it is a new public revelation.
Which doesn't quite make him a Sola Membrana Christian, but does give me an occasion to use the phrase.
"That any Catholic would be deeply moved by the movie is a concern to me about their knowledge of the theological importance of Christmas."
Um . . . am I reading that right, MZ? Just because I've seen TNS, you're concerned about my "knowledge of the theological importance of Christmas"? Really? Because I saw a freakin' movie? Not to be rude here, but can you also tell me what I ate for breakfast? I also saw Cars this year but I don't for a minute believe my truck is gonna start talking anytime soon. See, I can tell the difference between what I see on a movie screen & reality. And I can tell the difference between Protestant & Catholic dogma & doctrine. I do not for a hot minute believe that it's Protestant moviemaking, or bible study, etc that lead people out of the Catholic Church. It's bad formation. Frankly, it was a Protestant bible study that, in large part, led me back to the Catholic Church after years of non attendance because I could tell where it was going wrong, so to speak.
And, if I may say so, there has been some wonderful work done by Protestants throughout the centuries & the Catholic Church recognizes this. Do you realize that many of the hymns that uphold many Catholic doctrine/dogma were written centuries ago by Protestants? But I guess we should do away with those 'cos they might lead folk out of the Church. Well, there goes "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing", "Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus", "Jesus Christ is Risen Today", & "Christ from Whom All Blessings Flow", among many, many others. And those are just a few written by Methodist Charles Wesley that have been approved by the Catholic Church for use during Mass. Honestly, the scholcky Marty Hagen show-tune "hymns" of the 60's & 70's have done more damage than Wesley's work! But, since he's Catholic, let's keep those, shall we?
Sorry, I'm just not buyin' the argument. At all.
"I'm sorry. The choice is free."
Yes, pace. God has given us free will to choose to follow Him & the teachings of His Church or not to. Just as we can choose to see TNS . . . or not to. And the choice to see it should not be a spot on the veracity of our belief in the teachings of the Church Christ founded. By anyone. For any reason. Period.
MZ- my point in bringing up the Vatican's approval of TNS, or at least the Vatican's failure to openly condemn the movie, wasn't to suggest that the Vatican had declared the movie to be without error. I was only responding to something that was posted much earlier. That post said:
"Finally, blasphemy is blasphemy whether the person intends it or not. This film is objectively blasphemous. If Mark Shea or Christopher Sarsfield would have made this movie it would have been a mortal sin. The makers of this movie have blasphemed, whether they did this knowingly does not matter for us. The movie is objectively blasphemous, and I can not see how a Catholic could support it. It is participation in another's sin. And what makes it worse is it is a betrayal of Catholicism."
If the Vatican agreed with these comments, then wouldn't you agree that it was obligated to make a public statement condemning the movie? At the very least, you would expect a warning of some kind that Catholics should not support the movie. I have heard no such comments from the Vatican. To the contrary, as the articles I posted earlier suggest, the Pope either approved of the movie, or at least approved of its being viewed at the Vatican by Vatican officials. And I can't find any quotes from any Vatican officials that speak of "blasphemy" or "sin." Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the Vatican must think it ok for Catholics to view the movie. Does that mean the Vatican has endorsed the movie as being squarely in line with Catholic teaching? No. But I do think it means that the Vatican believes Catholics can watch the movie and appreciate it without doing themselves or the Church harm. When the Vatican wants to make a stink over a movie, it doesn't hold back. The Da Vinci Code is an example. It would seem the Vatican trusts us to view TNS and separate the good from the bad.
Thanks for the discussion.
Tim
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576
Pace, your point would be . . .?
Are you saying TNS is part of this religious deception? If so, it's my belief that some are far more deceived when they profess certain films to be the equivalent of the Word of God. And to you really mean to imply that those Catholics who choose to see TNS are apostates? Really? If so, how can you possible read their hearts like that?
You can't honestly expect an excerpt from the Catechism to be proof of a point you've not made, can you?
The reason I posted that was to show that even the Church herself teaches that there will be a "religious deception".
I'm not calling anyone an apostate. I'm simply saying that they may be deceived - like me : )
And there has been religious deception dating back to the 1st century. This is nothing new.
At least we seem to have violent agreement here that the film is not Catholic in many of its fundamental depictions of Our Lady.
What we seem to be arguing is whether we can watch a film which has such faults. I say that you can, as long as there is not scandal or objective sin in watching it - this is exercising prudence. And the folks in this com box seem to be well enough formed to not let such a film affect their faith.
But what about the effect on others - the ordinary, poorly catechized Catholic? It is these that I am worried about, and why it is important to be able to articulate what is wrong with this film.
If indeed we all agree that the film is not an accurate reflection of the person of the Blessed Virgin, then we move on to Is this movie appropriate for Catholics? When does blasphemy become so bad as to warrant a Catholic refusing to see a picture. For example where do we draw the line among this group: CBS mini-series Jesus, Jesus Christ Superstar, The DaVinci Code, The Last Temptation of Chirst? Can we say objectively that any of these movies are inappropriate for all Catholics, or is each Catholic left to make his own choice, and none are objectively wrong? Is it only certain teachings that are okay to be denied but not others? Is it okay to misrepresent Our Lady, but not Our Lord? Many on this list feel that the positives in the Nativity outweigh the negatives, but I have heard the same argument from my family with regard to Jesus Christ Superstar. They all take offense because I will not let them watch it around my children. Am I wrong to point out the errors in the picture, when they tell me how much they get out of the movie?
With regard to the Vatican watching the movie, and not warning Catholics... I can find many positive statements from the Vatican concerning Mohamed and the Koran, and no statements calling the Koran blasphemous, does that mean Catholics should read it? I remember reading an article in Catholic Digest that said Catholics should be reading the Koran, in order help their spiritual life. Does the lack of the Vatican calling the Koran blasphemy mean that it is not? I do not think so. The Catechism gives us the definition of blasphemy:
“2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
“Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.”
Is it wrong to see if this definition applies to movies or books, and they use the term if it applies?
With regard to JPII statement to artists, which I do not feel applies at all, but if it does, it must be applied equally to everything. So is the Last Temptation of Christ okay because it is technically good art (ie good direction, sets, acting, etc.) What about the picture of the crucifix submerged in urine? Again where do we draw line? Is the impossibility of perfectly rendering Christian mysteries in art, mean that there can be no criticism of anything because everything falls short? or is there a point beyond which art should not sink?
Christopher - you articulated the Churches position very well. We are allowed to make prudential decisions on anything which is not objectively sinful or that will give scandal.
Yes, we should draw a line, but does it have to be the same for all? I do not believe that we can endorse the film without caveats, as discussed at length above. But your discussion is a good one and indicates that we should form our consciences in the mind of the Church, and then make appropriate decisions for us and our families. And also be prepared to defend the position of the Church about what is not good about the film.
+J.M.J+
>>> So is the Last Temptation of Christ okay because it is technically good art (ie good direction, sets, acting, etc.)
Is the Last Temptation really good art? Michael Medved would beg to differ. I don't know whether we could call a film that gives the Apostles Brooklyn accents "good art," but maybe that's just me....
Now, there's at least one big difference between the Nativity Story and Last Temptation that I can see. The former was at least intended as a reverent treatment of the subject, while the latter deliberately "pushed the envelope," going for shock value. For instance, in Kazantzakis' novel (which was bad enough already), the title character waits outside of "Magdalen"'s closed door, until she is finished with her, um, customers. However, in the film the door has morphed into a thin veil through which Dafoe's character (and the audience) can see what's going on inside. Why would Scorcese (or the screenplay writer?) make such a change in the original story if not to make it more scandalous.
Also, the way they handled publicity for Last Temptation - leak a script to fundies, start an uproar, save your publicity budget! - says something about their contempt for traditional followers of Jesus.
Now, say what you like about the Nativity Story's apparent disregard for Catholic teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity, but they sure didn't pull the same kind of cynical stunts as the culprits behind Last Temptation. The latter was self-consciously sacrilegious, while the former is not.
Apart from that, I don't know exactly where to draw the line (except to say that Last Temptation is not suitable viewing for Catholics because of its deliberate, in-your-face flauting of the age-old Christian understanding of Our Lord). We have no more Legion of Decency, and the Vatican doesn't make official pronouncements on films, even though there are plenty of movies out there that Catholics really shouldn't be watching. The best thing we have is the USCCB ratings, but even that isn't perfect.
However, if we are going to say that any film depicting labor pains during Mary's childbirth is blasphemous and off-limits to Catholics, then Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth is blasphemous, as well as the lesser-known Mary of Nazareth, the Genesis Project's Gospel of St. Luke and probably a bunch of other Gospel films. Catholics will be reduced to watching the 1905 Life and Passion of Jesus Christ and maybe a few more movies that don't depict His birth.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
With regard to Zefferelli's Jesus of Nazareth, do you not believe that he was attempting to push the envelope with the birth scene, and deliberately rejecting Catholic teaching on it. Sure, he did not dare push it as far as The Last Temptation, but I got the impression when I watched JofN, that Zefferelli was deliberately trying to annoy "traditional" (for lack of a better word) believers. Not annoy them enough that they would not watch, but almost like telling them, I will give you this movie, but I am going to do it on my terms, and there is nothing you can do about, because if you do not put up with me, you will have nothing to watch.
+J.M.J+
IIRC, some Christians expressed concern to Zeffirelli before it was filmed - something about Anthony Burgess being one of the scriptwriters, I think. They feared that the miniseries would not be reverent, but were reassured that it would be. In the end, most Christians were evidently pleased with the results (though it's never been one of my favorites, FWIW; I have a number of issues with it).
So no, I don't really think he was trying to annoy Christians of any stripe. Was Zeffirelli even aware of the Church's teaching on the Virgin Birth? Apparently, many Catholics are not, as we have seen during these discussions, so why should we expect that a filmmaker be well-versed in all the finer points of Catholic Mariology?
He evidently wrote a book later titled, Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus: A Spiritual Diary in which he discusses making the film and his motivations for doing so. I haven't read it, but if one wants to know what he was thinking and intended perhaps that would be the book to read.
In Jesu et Maria,
I'm an orthodox, faithful Catholic. Daily Mass. Confession at least monthly. Longtime subscriber to Catholic World Report, Crisis, First Things, NCRegister, This Rock, Magnificat. And I liked The Last Temptation of Christ.
There. I said it.
Did I like it because I thought it was a fair and balanced portrayal of Our Lord, historically accurate and Scripturally sound? Of course not. It was no such thing; nor did it claim to be. I liked it because it was a non-ironic reflection of the honest, earnest, devout and sincere struggles of two modern artists, the Greek novelist Nikos Kazantzakis and film director Martini Scorsese, who want to believe the Gospel but have great difficulties doing so with their interior integrity intact. (They don't want to lie to themelves just to go along and make things easier.) In short, I experienced it as an authentic work of hard-won art, a deep meditation by a pair of genuinely hungry hearts who wrestle with their interior resistance as Jacob wrestled with the angel. (And, as we know between the lines, these two surely have as an add'l foe their poor Christian formation.) I did not find this much-vilified film a gratuitous provocation by a shallow and deliberately offensive provocateur (such as the talentless Madonna with her concert "crucifixion" or the phony "artiste" behind "Piss Christ").
I don't know where you draw the line when it comes to art involving the things of God, but to me, against all odds, Last Temptation is on the right side of that line. Many of us struggle against doubt, as Thomas the Apostle did, yet we have faith by an act of the will. This story speaks something powerful to those of us Christians for whom faith does not come easily or naturally but must be sustained through long (or permanent) dry periods by prayer, supplication and obedience. Bl. Mother Teresa would understand this struggle, although I would never suggest that she would appreciate or applaud this film. She almost certainly deplored whatever people told her of it. But we revere her as a holy soul, a saint for certain, not as a film or literary critic.
After reading through this thread, I must say that I also think folks like Christopher are probably better off seeing precious few movies, reading no modern novels and visiting no museums at all. These are surely near occasions of sin for the sensitive soul tempted to dwell and dwell on real and perceived offenses against the letter of the law while de facto dismissing out of hand others' attempts to love Jesus as best they can by the lights the Lord has given them -- so far. I think we need to be very careful to guard against Phariseeism. It's the last thing the Church needs right now.
Bill H.
It is funny that you warn me to stay away from things modern... I actually get into a great deal of trouble with my friends for pointing out the good in modern music, movies, books, etc. that show an artist struggling with faith. I just tend to draw a line between general questions asked individually, and mass artistic representations of the Church/Gospel, that have the effect of planting doubts in the minds of faithful Catholics. I have always said that someone who asks sincere questions will have them answered and save their soul, however, there are many whose questions seem to be of the spirit of Voltaire.
I also do not believe that every Catholic has been given the ability to subject their faith to the doubt of brilliant artists without being effected by it. Perhaps you have been given such a gift, but for some people turning the sprinkler on the Mormons at the door, might be the best way to deal with them. Seriously, I have had friends who have started out defending the Church against non-Catholics, only to wind up leaving the Church and becoming non-Catholics, after being convinced by the arguments of the non-Catholics they sought to save. The new trend that holds that anyone can read/see anything, and not have their faith effected by it, I find overly optimistic. All you have to do is look at all the "catholics" that fell for the DaVinci Code. The fact is, almost no one knows the faith as well as they think they do. Yet, you have lay people that think they are qualified to offer their opinion on all aspects of Catholicism, yet have never studied any aspect of the faith systematically, they just make their best guess. Even theologians with doctorates teaching at orthodox Catholic Universities, sometimes make obvious mistakes. I remember one teacher (Phd Theology) waxing eloquent, on how the Apostles might not have been baptized until first mass baptism in Acts. Then one student raised his hand and mentioned that all the Apostles became priests at the last supper, and you can not receive any sacraments validly without being baptized first. The teacher showed great humility, and acknowledged his mistake, but I was amazed that a man so brilliant and knowledgeable in many ways could make such a rookie mistake.
I would also say that you can not dismiss the culture’s ability to effect you. Americans live in a very anti-Catholic culture, that seems to be split between the seculars and the protestants. Growing up in such a culture, you can not expect to have Catholic instincts, in the way one would have them growing up in a predominately Catholic culture. Add finally the lack of catechetical instruction most of us have received, and I believe sending the average Catholics to movies full of brilliant doubt becomes a recipe for disaster. But I admit that this is a matter of prudence, where we can disagree.
Chris- if someone is sincerely seeking the Truth, don't you think the Holy Spirit will help them find it? It sounds like you're saying we should keep ignorant Catholics in the basement - hide them away where they'll be safe from the lies of the world. That's not real life.
It seems to me the better strategy is to find new and effective ways to ensure that adults and teens know the truth about our faith, not scare them away from anything and everything that isn't 100% Catholic.
I've been looking over various web articles discussing the idea that Mary did (or did not) experience birth pains. The link below is an example. I'm not so certain anymore that this is official church teaching that Catholics must accept. What are the CCC citations for the objections to the movie? CCC 499 seems to be the place where it should be addressed, but it isn't specifically mentioned.
http://www.catholicherald.com/sa...ws/
ws980521.htm
Forgive me for asking questions that have likely already been answered somewhere on this blog, but what is the CCC citation for the "no birth pains" teaching, and is it in fact OFFICIAL church teaching, or just a viewpoint? I'm leaning towards not even raising the issue with my 10th grade class that saw the movie. I'm not convinced it is official Church teaching, but if someone can show me otherwise, I may change my mind. Thanks.
Matt-- (from 'waay up above)
I don't have any opinion on the "free will of angels" debate, but "Lucifer" is not actually a fallen angel turned into the devil.
The only mention of Lucifer in the Bible is Isaiah 14, and it is a prophecy against the (entirely mortal) king of Babylon. Not a literal angel, and not the devil.
To tell you the truth, though, it's a mistake that I held, too, until I heard a theologian talk about the devil and many of the misconceptions we have of him. I looked "Lucifer" up in the concordance, and sure enough, he was right!
+J.M.J+
>>>Forgive me for asking questions that have likely already been answered somewhere on this blog, but what is the CCC citation for the "no birth pains" teaching, and is it in fact OFFICIAL church teaching, or just a viewpoint?
The painless aspect is not separate from the physical integrity aspect of the birth of Christ. They rather go together.
Here is the text of Catechism #499, with the citations intact:
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156
In footnote #154, we find the following: 154 Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880.
According to the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which contains all the footnote citations), DS 291 refers to Pope St. Leo the Great's Letter to Flavian which says that Mary: "brought Him forth without the loss of virginity even as she conceived Him without its loss."
DS 294 is another portion from the same letter, which states that: "in the Lord Jesus Christ born from the womb of the Virgin, because His birth was miraculous, nature was not for that reason different from ours. For He who is true God, is likewise true man, and there is no falsehood in this unity, as long as there are alternately the lowliness of man and the exaltedness of the Divinity. For, just as God is not changed by His compassion, so man is not destroyed by His dignity. For each nature does what is proper to it with the mutual participation of the other; the Word clearly effecting what belongs to the Word, and the flesh performing what belongs to the flesh."
DS 427 comes from the Council of Constantinople II, which is cited because it officially calls Mary "ever-virgin." No further discussion of her physical integrity is present; it mainly focuses on Mary as Mother of God.
DS 442 is from Pope Pelagius I's letter to King Childebert I. It informs us that "Jesus Christ, true God and the same true man proceeded, that is, was born, while his mother's virginity remained intact: for the Virgin remained such in bearing him just as she had in conceiving him"
DS 503 is from the Lateran Council: "If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned."
DS 571 is from the Creed of the Council of Toledo XVI (693), which professes: "And as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also she experienced no loss of her integrity; for she conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin."
Finally, DS 1880 comes from Cum quorumdam hominum, the infallible decree of Pius IV (during the Council of Trent) against the Unitarians, where he condemns them for claiming that "the same most Blessed Virgin Mary was not the true Mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of her virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth."
Note the continual emphasis on "integrity" in these passages. It's talking about physical integrity, being an intact virgin. Though the Catechism may not explicitly mention that in the text, it references that fact over and over again in the footnotes, referring back to past teachings that Mary remained an intact virgin. That's a restatement of what the Church has always believed.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
I read the article you linked and I'm puzzled by this statement by Fr. Saunders:
"On the other hand, the Eastern Fathers emphasized Mary’s joy and freedom from pain in giving birth to Jesus, the Son of God. They looked upon Mary as the New Eve, free of the pain of original sin. Moreover, they did not want to lose the notion of Mary being a mother in the full sense of the term. Remember, the Gospel of St. Luke simply states, "She gave birth…" (Lk 2:7), which does not demand a miraculous birth process."
Is he saying that Eastern Christians don't believe that Mary was an intact virgin, only that the birth was painless? That's not what my research has uncovered. Here's an article from an Eastern Orthodox site that clearly teaches the miraculous birth of Christ:
http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/
pa...st_voND97.shtml
Disclaimer: it also promotes an interpretation of original sin which differs from the Catholic understanding. Other pages on the site may be hostile to Catholicism. I can't tell if this is an Old Calendar site; it may be. Yet despite all that, this article does provide ample quotes from Eastern Fathers and Liturgies which prove that Eastern Christians believe that the birth of Our Lord was miraculous. Just read it with caution and discernment wherever they disagree with us.
As for whether this is "official" Church teaching, the Lateran Council statement seems pretty authoritative, with the anathema and all. This belief has clearly been taught consistently by the Magisterium throughout the ages, so I would think that it is infallible according to the ordinary and universal Magisterium. It must be at least as authoritative as the Church's ban on contraception and inability to ordain women. In his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig von Ott writes that this teaching is de fide.
In Jesu et Maria,
Wow you catholics mess up the bible completely and twist it the way you want to hear it, Sorry but Marys birth WASNT painless... Was yours?
I know your childs not Jesus but he was born in flesh... not a ghost or Spirit, that means he came out as a solid not some thing that randomly appeared. and why do you choose to worship Mary? WHY? like look at you... What is Mary gonna do for you... GET YOU INTO HEAVEN?? i think not. is she umm... gonna save you from your sins... HECK NO, is she the one who died on the cross?? nope I'm sorry but i guess those Catholic preachers messed you up. But I do have little yet some respect for you guys since you have some idea of Jesus and how he died for us...(Ihope)
+J.M.J+
>>>Sorry but Marys birth WASNT painless...
Were you there? If not, how can you state that with such certainty?
>>>Was yours?
No, because I am a sinner, while Jesus was the sinless Savior. Apples and oranges.
>>>I know your childs not Jesus but he was born in flesh... not a ghost or Spirit, that means he came out as a solid not some thing that randomly appeared.
He wasn't a ghost or spirit when He transfigured on the Mount either. His birth was a miracle, as I explained over and over.
>>>and why do you choose to worship Mary? WHY?
We don't worship Mary, we honor her out of love for her Son.
>>>like look at you... What is Mary gonna do for you... GET YOU INTO HEAVEN??
She'll pray for us even as an earthly Christian will. I don't expect earthly Christians to get me into heaven either.
>>>is she umm... gonna save you from your sins... HECK NO, is she the one who died on the cross?? nope
Couldn't agree with you more. Earthly Christians also won't save me from my sins or die for me, but I can still ask them to pray for me.
>>>I'm sorry but i guess those Catholic preachers messed you up.
Actually, whoever told you that we worship Mary or think she can save us "messed you up" a bit - by feeding you misinformation. You've been misinformed and deserve to know the truth about Catholicism.
>>>But I do have little yet some respect for you guys since you have some idea of Jesus and how he died for us...(Ihope)
Yes we do, and thanks.
In Jesu et Maria,
Commenting by HaloScan
