'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

FK: "In the case of Psalm 103:3, it could either be David referring to his own illnesses that God has healed, ...

Yes it could be but we really don't know, do we? David could have used the personal pronoun 'my' but he didn't, did he?

That's right, but the difference is that under my interpretation, the Bible remains the inerrant word of God. Under yours, the Bible is wrong.

But we could also say that we have to thank God when we are not healed, because everything we have is given to us and the only one in charge is God.

Yes, we could, and in fact, we SHOULD:

2 Cor 12:7-10 : 7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Of course, this is very difficult for all of us, but it just so happens that my pastor touched on this very point in his sermon last week. He said the point is not to take "glee" in our own pain. Rather, the understanding is one of perspective. IOW, what is today's "thorn" compared to what awaits us in Heaven? Nothing. Hardships befall us for a multitude of reasons, but if we just keep focused on Who loves us we can always get through and be all the stronger on the other side.

Do you not thank God for illness or disaster or bad news?

In all honesty I have not, as a rule, because at the time I don't understand what I would be thanking Him for. IOW, intellectually I might be able to reason that there is somehow good behind it, but I don't know what that is. However, I remember that when my parents died, I did thank God for their lives. I didn't understand why they both died relatively young, but I wasn't angry at God about it. Maybe that's the closest I've come. When I pound a hammer into my thumb I'm not very thankful. :) I pray that God will continue to mature me.

[continuing:] Is it not His doing also?

Sometimes it is for various reasons, and sometimes it is satan's attacks, allowed by God.

[continuing:] Do you not die on His time, and by His Will?. I think the absurdity of "understanding" the Bible by ceaseless rationalizations is obvious.

Yes, we physically die on His time, and by His will. He calls His elect home, where they will be far better off than any existence they have ever known on earth. ....... If you don't like "rationalizations" of scripture, then what would you call interpretations that consistently go against the plain meaning of the text, or so torture the text that it is no longer recognizable? Is that better than "rationalizations"?

For example, we read the text "Josh 6:2 : ... "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men." and we rationalize that God ACTUALLY meant that He had delivered the city of Jericho into Joshua's hands, and that it would fall just as the Lord described in scripture. However, your interpretation is that this was all fiction and never happened. I think I'll stick with the rational. :)

But is not satan the great tempter?

Yes he is. But, how does he tempt us? He puts temptations in our path and we do the rest. God gives us blessings and we do the rest. When tempted, we can do two things: give in or refuse. When we are showered with blessings, we can do two things: tank God and use them to bless others, or use them to do selfish and evil things. For that we can't blame God or satan, but only ourselves. "Blame yourself first" teach the Orthodox fathers.

But in the Garden, Adam blamed God (for giving him "that woman") and Eve blamed the "serpent," when in fact they should have blamed themselves. Eve, attracted by the fruit, rationalized "Why shouldn't I be able to have it when it's here? after all God gave it to me." We do this every day. There is no "serpent" talking us into doing that which is unrighteous. We do all the talking! Adam succumbed because Eve gave him the fruit, but rather than blame Eve he blamed God for giving him "that woman!"

That does not change, however, my treatment of them while they are attacking me. I don't think that Jesus was talking about either of these situations when He said to turn the other cheek

Intentionally placing yourself into harm's way is no different than killing yourself. And that is a sin. You need to avoid harm, but your avoidance should never result in evil. Returning evil for evil is not an "inherited right." Revenge is God's not ours.

So they DID intentionally evade capture in self defense. Jesus did not even try to evade capture at the end since He had perfect control over the whole thing and everything happened according to His timing

It is a sin to commit suicide, so their capture had to be other than their own will. That in itself is not "returning evil for evil," so evasion is not contrary to God's teaching. Christ did not try to evade because he had foreknowledge and we don't.

However, He does not call on ALL of His children to so succumb

He does call on all His children not to return evil for evil.

For the original martyrs, it was of great worth to the faith to stand out by not resisting

I am glad you acknowledge that now. :)

They are so called, and predestined. However, that does not apply as a blanket policy, as in the case with John

We are all called (as the priesthood of believers) to do God's will, and God's will is that we not return evil for evil. John was never in that position (by the will of God, no doubt). I am sure if had been arrested he would have done what all other martyrs did.

Yes, the Bible teaches that, but I don't think it teaches that when I am mugged and stabbed in the ribs, that I should turn and offer him the chance to stab me on the other side

Christ teaches you not to resist and evil person and to turn the other cheek. He doesn't teach you to stab him back, shoot him, or to go after him. Running away or pushing him so that you can escape is not returning evil for evil. If you have an opportunity God gives you, by all means use it without resorting to evil. Not using is might result in self-assisted murder, and that is contrary to God's teaching.

I'm not sure why that type of language was used many times in the NT, other than the possibility of simply stressing the urgency of coming to Christ and not putting it off until later. I would imagine this also helped to motivate evangelists

If it was not true, then it was a lie. If it was not a lie it was a deception. God neither lies nor deceives. The master of all lies and deception is satan. So, how do we explain such language and such teaching of the apostles and early Christians? In either case it doesn't look good for those who claim to have known the scripture or the word of God.

John's service also included taking care of Mary, who lived to the ripe old age of ??? :) In addition, John had to write 3 more letters, and Revelation to close out the scriptures. God wanted Revelation to be last, so it makes sense that John would live the longest

She died before he did, so that was not the reason for his prolonged life. Also, John did not write the deuterocanonical epistles, or the Revelation.

The consideration is on whether in earthly matters God is either a director or merely an observer

If God's plan is perfect it needs no adjusting. It is playing itself out exactly the way God wanted. It only appears to us (your famous POV approach) that for some things God intervenes and in some cases He doesn't. I think that would reflect Reformed theology accurately.

If He is merely an observer, then that argues against Him loving us. Do we merely observe our children growing up, or do we participate and give them direction in their formative years?

And allowing your children to be tempted, knowing they will sin and die is love? Allowing evil is love? Then sacrificing your own Son to fulfill the "divine justice" is love? Why not make it perfect the first time and never have to "fix" it? It seems there have been constant "patch-up" jobs throughout the Bible.

Would an omnipotent God, who actually DID love us go to all the trouble of creating everything just to sit back and watch? I wouldn't even do that

God is perfect and what He does is perfect. He cannot be but perfect and His work cannot be but perfect. His creation is therefore perfect and His plan is playing itself out perfectly without any need for correction or adjustment or replacement or plan B, right?

How do you explain interventions when the Plan is perfect unless you admit that God intentionally created evil and allowed it to disturb His perfect plan so that He has something to do.

He could have just created Adam and Eve without having them fall and they would have been perfect and their offspring would be in heaven without all the bloodshed and suffering and pain and injustice and poverty and hunger, dying etc.

IOW, if God just sits back and watches, then that isn't love

And creating a Paradise and putting a man and a woman in it and telling them "be fruitful and multiply" while knowing they will commit a sin because of a temptation He placed in the Garden and having decided before they were born that they will disobey Him and be cursed and become corrupt, is love? Strange love it is!

Sometimes, I do feel a little boxed in while trying to justify that some of the very early Apostolics had some concepts so wrong when they were close in time to the Apostles

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they were right and you are wrong?

That's exactly right. I was juxtaposing that against your citing the Pope as authoritative on the subject of whether we are "legitimate" Christians

You (plural you) are "legitimate" Christians; your assemblies are not "legitimate" churches, by definition. There is a difference. The Pope is not expressing his personal "opinion," but a historical fact. The Church was defined before any of you (plural) existed. That definition came from the authority given to the ordained priesthood by the Savior and their successors ever since, in an unbroken lineage.

The word "legitimate" comes from the Latin word lex (the law); the law is the authority of God given (ordination) to bind and loosen on earth and that which they bind and loosen will be bound and loosened in heaven. That includes their right to ordain others as their successors and we are assured by the scripture that their decision will be honored in heaven.

Your assemblies lack that unbroken succession and authority (ordination) it brings, and therefore cannot claim the lex on which to establish and claim a church, which makes your "churches" illegitimate in legalistic terms.

Now, the Catholic Church knows that the Orthodox Church does have that authority and that its priesthood is valid and sacraments are licit. It considers the EOC "deprived" of the fullness it would enjoy with the rest of the Church through communion with the successor of St. Peter (the Pope),but the EOC feels that the same applies to the Pope and his side of the Church, which is why both sides would like to see a reunion, for the Catholic Church is not "complete" either if 300 million of its Eastern brethren are not in communion with them. Thus the whole Church is wounded and defective, but it is still a legitimate Church.

HIS words could not have been more poorly chosen for global consumption, imo

I respect your opinion, but his words were not his choice. It's like saying the United States of America is a republic. It's not an opinion, it's the truth! You can't say that it isn't or that it's a republic a "little bit," or that it is like any other republic, or that any other republic can legitimately call itself by the same name.

Just as the Church can never legitimately ordain women, not because of bias or because of prejudice, or fad, or fashion, or political or social pressure, or simply by rationalization, it cannot acknowledge other "churches" as legitimate.

The Protestants can return to the Church and then argue their theological issues within the Church, even if they break communion with Rome, as is the case with the Orthodox Church, but they cannot claim to be the Church unless their authority comes from the Apostles by virtue of their ability to bind and loosen. They must have legitimate clergy. Remember that Reformation started over abuses and not theology.

In Mat 5:1-2 the crowds are separated by a full stop. The 'them" here is a pronoun for the disciples who came and sat down next to Him. This is basic English comprehension, FK. In Luk 6:20 any doubt lingering from Mat 5:1-2 is dispelled, because he is looking directly as the disciples and addressing them.

So during His "ministry", thousands of people follow Him around, but He preaches to no one except the Apostles. I suppose this was to show that Christ had no time for the common man, but only for the future hierarchy. Of course the Bible teaches just the opposite. We know that Jesus spoke frequently one-on-one with people, He ate with sinners, and we also have these examples:

Mark 2:1-2 : 1 A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.

Luke 4:42-44 : 42 At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." 44 And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.

Right there it says Jesus Himself acknowledges that part of His mission was to preach to the PEOPLE, not just to the Apostles. And for good measure, throw in when He taught publicly in the Synagogues as a boy (BEFORE He even met the Apostles) and the people were amazed. There is just no getting around this, Kosta. :) Immediately following the above it says:

Luke 5:1-3 : 5:1 One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, 2 he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.

Are all of these more dubious insertions? :)

FK: "Mark 12:10-11 : 10 Haven't you read this scripture : "...[Jesus specifically endorses/commands reading the scripture.]"

Of course He is. He is addressing scribes and priests, FK. It was their job to read the scriptures.

Ah, the old contained message ploy. So, I suppose that all He said to them at the end of chapter 11 through here is also not for us, but only for them and your leaders? Further, it appears that your fair reading of this is that Jesus never tells us to read the scriptures, but luckily, we have the hierarchy of your Church to thank for their permission to do so. Now, if this is true, what is the value to us in reading all these contained messages, if none of them are directed to us? How could a layman POSSIBLY know, verse by verse, which verses apply to him and which are only for your leaders? (You told me earlier that as far as pronounced dogma goes, your leaders have only put forth a very limited amount.) I mean, if Jesus never talked to the crowds, all the other times He spoke He was only talking to specific people, so, what is left over for us and how would we know it?

FK: "John 10:35 : If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken—...[If Jesus says that scripture cannot be broken, is it possible He thinks we should follow it?]"

If the scripture cannot be broken, it doesn't matter if we follow it or not, does it? Besides, one does not read the scriptures in order that he may believe, but because he already believes.

That's true, but it does support my position that Jesus is telling us to read and follow the scriptures. We do not need the permission of your leaders to know it is right to do so.

FK: "James 2:8 : 8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture , "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right...[James seems to think we should follow scripture]"

He is addressing the believers too who, by definition, already follow the scripture.

OK, so I hope we can now agree that the Bible is clear on this by itself.

The Orthodox Church recognizes that the scriptures are God-inspired human creation, expressing inerrant spiritual truth, but not free from human error.

Oh, OK. I didn't know that the Church's position was that the Bible is spiritually correct, but is nonetheless a fallible, man-made document.

The Jews believe that Torah was dictated to Moses word-by-word and therefore actually "written" by God using Moses' hand and therefore free from any kind of error. I am pretty sure the Protestant/Baptist communities believe the same for the entire Bible.

We do believe that the Bible is free from any kind of error, but we also recognize that the personalities of the authors do work their way into the writings. So, the authors wrote, and every word they wrote was first approved by God. When Jesus spoke of not altering a jot or a tittle, it was not because man was lucky enough to get it right to the extent of his contribution. The only way for it to be perfect, (I believe the original Bible is perfect), would be for God to be in full control of its writing.

My point was that God never tells us "read the Bible." The quotes you give me use the Bible as the proof of what He was saying. Not an invitation to read the Bible.

Well shoot, I thought we agreed after the James quote. :) So I take it then that all glory should be given to your hierarchy for their permission and instruction to read the scriptures? :)

FK: "... Therefore, God has always been the authority of His Church."

How could He always be the head of His Church when there were always no believers? The church is based on faith in Jesus Christ, for which one needs believers in Jesus Christ for a Church (ekklesia, gathering of the faithful) to exist. The Head existed, but not the Body. The High Priest existed, but not the congregation. God was always authority unto Himself, but his authority in the Church was not when the Church was not.

I'm not sure I follow you. God was the head of all believers in the OT, and when the NT Church formed, He was the head and full authority of that also. When were there no believers?

FK: "I'm talking about leadership here, along the lines of "Luke 12:48 ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be basked."

I hope you recognize yourself included in that statement. When you can tell me you have not failed, even once, I will reconsider.

I am only included to the extent of a semi-informed layman. That is to a lesser degree than my theologically trained pastor, and, presumably, infinitely less than Apostolic successors who have been given supernatural powers through Holy Orders. And no, I have never failed to the extent of the people I am talking about. The Bible teaches that some sins are worse than others. (Obviously the Latins use venial and mortal.) Christ speaks specifically about certain sins, and how it would be better for offenders had they never been born. Peter was indeed a lowly sinner, but he CHANGED after his "Holy Orders". There are too many who have apparently NOT changed for me to believe that Apostolic succession is real.

And [Apostolic successors] fall much lower than you and I, precisely because they have been given so much more.

What? How does that work? Should I expect the worst criminals in our society to be Apostolic clergy? :)

But don't you think it should be up to God to pronounce judgment on them rather than my sinful self or yours?

I don't judge their souls, but I do judge their conduct. The Bible tells us that we cannot serve two masters, and it appears that way too many in high positions have decided on a master I cannot follow. I do not believe in Clintonian compartmentalization. I absolutely believe that Clinton's moral failures fully affected him as a leader. Even if I wasn't a conservative, I could never trust him because his core morality was clear, and it was un-Godly. It is the same here. We CANNOT say that so and so is still a good priest or Bishop, even given that he did thus and such. That will never fly with me. It would be a full abdication of the accountability that you tell me your priests and Bishops have.

Is it not like one criminal calling another criminal a criminal?

No, it is not like that at all. By that standard, we should simply empty all the prisons because no one has standing to accuse another of wrongdoing. In addition, this philosophy would have hierarchs look the other way while Apostolic clergy commit heinous crimes. Given today's news, I guess that has already happened within the Church.

You told me earlier that as far as pronounced dogma goes, your leaders have only put forth a very limited amount

We go through biblical verses in the Divine Liturgy, through our prayers, and through the readings of the Epistles of +Paul and the Gospels. Not all of the NT is read throughout the year. The OT readings are done at through the year at Vespers (Saturday evening prayers) and during the Great Lent (40 days).

That's true, but it does support my position that Jesus is telling us to read and follow the scriptures

He is not telling ordinary people to read the Scripture. That's not how Judaism operated. ordinary people did not have access to biblical scrolls.

OK, so I hope we can now agree that the Bible is clear on this by itself

Inasmuch as those who believed Jesus believed what He said was in Scriptures. There are many things Christ taught that was not in Scriptures that they believed as John tells us and is not written down but is obviously the same as Scriptures. The people then believed the Church and the NT and the OT to interpret both correctly and trusted the Church to compile in Judaism or Christianity -- until of course, the Reformers.

We do believe that the Bible is free from any kind of error

A cursory study of the Bible reveals that your belief is wrong. The Christian Bible has undergone massive and radical alterations in its

So, then you do agree that God ordained His priesthood apart from the priesthood of all believers?

Yes, and I know where you are going. :) God ordained both His true priests and He also ordained THAT there would be false priests. We are told of them in scriptures. It puzzles me though, what message God is sending when so many false priests wind up in the same group. :) By no means is my side immune, but perhaps the reason that we get less press is that once it happens in one of our churches, it is dealt with and the person is gone forever. At least in the SBC, I can't speak for other Protestant denominations, there is no condoning of the conduct by the leaders, and offenders are not simply shuffled off to another church to continue offending. This is the part that boils my blood the most.

How is hierarchy involved in the process of our salvation? You need to read the link I gave Ping-Pong on the Eastern Orthodox Church and look up salvation and escathology. I don't think you will find that priests somehow determine our salvation.

Your priests and Bishops, to the exclusion of all others, are dispensers of the sacraments, which are normally necessary for salvation/theosis. You told me recently that it is not a firm requirement that a priest perform a valid baptism, so I'll let that one go. However, what about sins after that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a priest or a Bishop MUST administer the sacrament of confession to cleanse the penitent of his sins so he is fit for Heaven. Under normal circumstances, this would make the clergy indispensable to the theosis of a layman, if I understand it correctly. I KNOW the clergy are indispensable for the Latins, but I am not certain about the Orthodox.

FK: "Are THESE the people God REALLY left in charge of His flock, over and above all others, including other Christian clergy? If I was considering becoming an Apostolic, that would be a very hard question for me."

Is Judas? Besides, a dishonest priest does not invalidate his consecrations with his dishonesty. His orders are still valid; it is his life that is sinful, not the keys God gave him.

Is Judas what? A valid priest in God's Church? No way. He was false. ....... Now, I know this makes me a Donatist, but I don't see how Holy Orders can still be valid if a priest or Bishop de facto renounces them by his fruits. The Latins believe that salvation itself can be renounced through conduct, so for them, apparently a lost person, doomed for hell (since the offender is unlikely to confess in this case), can still have valid Holy Orders within the Church. That is actually a very scary thought. :)

You are making an unjustified exception. First, the Orthodox do not consider their priests and bishops as "holy" by virtue of their profession.

I don't know what "holy" has to do with anything here. I assume Holy Orders are conferred regardless of the holiness of the recipient. One just goes through the system. In any event, Holy Orders and supernatural powers are only given to priests and Bishops, not members of any other profession. That means the standard is the highest for them before God. They have been given the most, for they are responsible for taking care of God's most prized possession, His sheep. How could they not have been given the most?

FK: "It would definitely say something about the legal system if the average untrained layman was a better lawyer than THOUSANDS (a noteworthy percentage) of trained attorneys. However, this is exactly what we see, by comparison, in Apostolic history."

I will ask you to back this up with more than your opinion. I reject this as a strawman.

No problem. I'll even forget the sins of history and just talk about today. Now, first we have to establish that there is some imaginary "line of sin" that we are drawing. That is, such sin committed by clergy that is above and beyond the normal level of sin committed by any in the faithful laity, since becoming Christian. We need to do this to keep the comparison with other professions. So, I will assert that pedophilia is one such sin. In Wiki's article Roman Catholic sex abuse cases it says this:

"Early reports came mostly from the United States and Ireland. The John Jay Report[1] found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all priests."

Now this is just in the United States alone, never mind the rest of the world. Certainly some of those accusations are false, but it is also true that some true violations are never reported. ------ I would say that another sin that crosses "the line" in this context is the practice of homosexuality. Now, again just staying in the RCC, Wiki says the following in Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood :

"Estimating the number of homosexuals in a given population can be problematic due to problems of measurement, definition, and heterogeneous geographic distribution. Estimates in large populations range from 1% to 15%, with a mean of 4%-5%."

Now, Wiki IS Wiki, so this isn't gospel, BUT Catholics have every chance in the world to correct the record if they think they are being shortchanged in this. Apparently there are no takers. Another Wiki article says that there are just over 500,000 priests between you and the Latins. So, even if the number is as low as 4-5%, and there is no way in the universe it is that low, that still leaves 25,000 practicing homosexual priests, a significant number.

I'm not sure I follow you. God was the head of all believers in the OT, and when the NT Church formed, He was the head and full authority of that also. When were there no believers?

Surely you don't suggest the Jews were "true" believers before Christ? Surely you don't suggest the Jews had fullness of God's revelation! The few had a better idea of God and their faith was steadfast, but there could not have been a true Church without Christ. If it were, then what was Christ doing building His Church on the rock of faith given to Peter? The Church was established on the Pentecost, 33 A.D.

And no, I have never failed to the extent of the people I am talking about. The Bible teaches that some sins are worse than others. (Obviously the Latins use venial and mortal.) Christ speaks specifically about certain sins, and how it would be better for offenders had they never been born

Oh, I see. First the Bible does not teach that some sins are worst then others. It says that there is only one sin for which there can be no absolution -- blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. No reason is given for this.

Second, the Orthodox Churches does not distinguish between venial and mortal sins. To us, all sin is sin. As St. James says

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all -- James 2:10

And mercy is one thing we must show in order to receive mercy.

For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment -- James 10:13

Do not feel yourself "worthy" of God's mercy just because you have sinned "less" in your eyes the the clergy you loathe.

[re And [Apostolic successors] fall much lower than you and I, precisely because they have been given so much more] How does that work?

It's that talent thing. They have been given so much and if they fail they have so much more to answer for.

And what master do we follow? God or money? Ambition or virtue? I find it funny to read something like this in a country founded on predatory capitalism, materialism, secularism lifestyle, and above all love for money. We seem to have done pretty good serving both masters, FK, don't you think? We even have God on our money, so we can love both!

You just have a think about clergy. It almost seems as something deep-seated. perhaps you can show me what master did they decide to follow that makes them worse than any other human being? And while you are at it, remember that RCC has 1.2 billion members and EOC about 300 million. How many priests are involved? One thousand, ten thousand? Ten thousand is 0.0006% for 1.5 billion (1,500,000,000) people. That would leave 99.999% of the priests serving God. I'd say, that's pretty impressive. And let's be generous, and say 1 million priests are serving the other master, that gives us 0.7% (less than 1%) with 99% of all priests serving God.

What are your figures?

I do not believe in Clintonian compartmentalization. I absolutely believe that Clinton's moral failures fully affected him as a leader. Even if I wasn't a conservative, I could never trust him because his core morality was clear, and it was un-Godly

Clinton lied under oath and should have been in a slammer for 30 years because that's what we ordinary "mortals" get and what the law calls for. What's un-Godly is that we are all equal but some of us are apparently more equal in a country that prides itself on being based on the rule of law!

And how is Clinton's lying any different than the one who lied us into a war in Iraq while pursuing agendas of dubious national interest instead of going after the guy who is responsible for the 9/11?

By that standard, we should simply empty all the prisons because no one has standing to accuse another of wrongdoing. In addition, this philosophy would have hierarchs look the other way while Apostolic clergy commit heinous crimes. Given today's news, I guess that has already happened within the Church

No, conduct that is evil should not, must not be tolerated. There is a difference between topping and avoiding and returning evil for evil. We don't have vigilante groups meeting out their own brand of justice. Our judicial system tries to give most people a chance to reform, which is the way it should be. I just don't agree with providing them with the kind of accommodations they get on taxpayers' money. I believe in dungeons, a place no one would ever want to come back to.

But, how does he tempt us? He puts temptations in our path and we do the rest. God gives us blessings and we do the rest. When tempted, we can do two things: give in or refuse. When we are showered with blessings, we can do two things: thank God and use them to bless others, or use them to do selfish and evil things. For that we can't blame God or satan, but only ourselves. "Blame yourself first" teach the Orthodox fathers.

OK, and we were talking about whether satan engages us. I said that if he does not, then neither does God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to say that God does not engage us either, here. I would say that BOTH actively engage us. satan does because he tailors and personalizes his temptations to us. satan could put a vial of crack cocaine in my hand and my reaction would be nothing. However, there are other things that would cause me great distress. I believe this is engagement. Similarly, in the opposite direction, God also puts things before me as blessings. MANY times there is nothing left for me to do. I don't always have to "accept" a blessing from God. It just happens and I am thankful.

Eve, attracted by the fruit, rationalized "Why shouldn't I be able to have it when it's here? after all God gave it to me." We do this every day. There is no "serpent" talking us into doing that which is unrighteous. We do all the talking!

Your rationalization does not fit the scripture. To get to your conclusion one must completely ERASE Gen. 3:1-5 (along with verses 13-15, which also erases the Christ reference, BTW). Simply erase it out of existence. It is of no value, apparently, to you. It must mean nothing. Certainly, using that hermeneutic selectively will lead directly to the Apostolic view of scripture. Perhaps that is the only way. :) Needless to say, we see it differently.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.