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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

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

By John-Henry Westen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[kosta50]

GOD’S ESSENTIAL WORD IS TRANSCENDENT IN VIRTUALLY ANY REASONABLY QUALITY TRANSLATION...I’m beginning to think that these slightly different versions are another test from our Master . . .I imagine DADDY shaking HIS head going . . . HAVE IT YOUR WAY . . . but you won’t like the results!

Q, my tagline says something about my mindset (phronema in Greek). I became acutely aware of it when a Catholic woman wanted to "cross over" and become Eastern Orthodox. Her new godparents were ecstatic. But they became "concerned" when the bishop said she can be received by anointing her with holy oil (chrism); no Bpatism would be necessary.

I received a frantic call from them, since I knew her, and talked my ear off because they were "worried" she would not be fully received and her soul would be lost because "she was probably baptized by sprinkling" (which is a BIG no-no) they thought.

They even called Mt. Athos (Holy Mopuntain) in Greece, and spoke with Athonite monks they know about this, as they wanted to make sure they were not going to be witness to spiritual demise.

At first, I was annoyed with them! Their complaints seemed rather trivial. Who cares if she was only "sprinkled!" It seemed even ridiculous!

But to them, it was real. They were terrified for her soul. They were terrified that we ordinary humans, in a desire to "cut corners," would do less than necessary to ensure her salvation. In other words, they were worried that our dismissive carelessness would constitute deliberate negligence of someone who seeks Christ amongs them.

When I realized that their concern was genuine and unselfish, I felt terrible for having judged them, for disrespecting their concern and their faith.

As I grew in thats same faith I began to recongize many of their characteristics in me as well. I see others wave off things as trivial, and I can think of nothing else but their salvation.

Yes, of course, God is transcendent, and of course his Word reaches us through any translation, but no one ever said translations can be full of deliberate additions and deletions, alterations, doctoring, eor sloppy copying.

As an Orthodox Christian, I do care about the Word of God being unadulterated. There is no "guaratee" attached to the Bible. People have gone astray with or without it, but knowingly and intentionally, ignoring the corruption of God's word is not something I, as an Orthodox Christian, can dismiss and say "Daddy" doesn't care what we read.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful insights, dear kosta50!

But I am going to dispute one thing, just a bit. James 1:13 says that it is impossible (a futile effort) to tempt God with evil. IOW, not that it hasn't been tried, but God is good and not evil - which is to say, evil has no "currency" with Him.

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: - James 1:13

It was tried here:

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. – Matt 4:1

You said "So, if satan thought he could tempt Christ, he did not believe He is God." but here Satan knows he is speaking to God:

Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. - Job 1:9-12

Here they tempted God with their unbelief and brought His wrath down on themselves:

Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, [and] as [in] the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with [this] generation, and said, It [is] a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest. – Psalms 95:8-11 (also Hebrews 3)

On your comment below the line:

Àpropos the Gospel accounts in Mat 4, and Luk 4, both say that Jesus, following His baptism, was lead in the desert by the Holy Spirit which descended on Him at His baptism in the River Jordan. This is somewhat troubling to me, for it implies that Christ was without the Spirit until such time and that, being one of the Hypostases of the Godead He would not need divine guidance.

Otherwise, there would be no need to mention that the HS descended on Christ at baptism.

In the Gospel of John, Christ also makes it clear that the Comforter or Spirit of Truth or Holy Ghost cannot come until He has ascended to the Father.

If one tries to apply logic to God - more specifically Aristotle's Law of Identity ("Everything that exists has a specific nature") - he immediately detects a problem here.

But such laws do not apply to God. Indeed, to apply mortal logic to God is to anthropomorphize Him.

Moreover, concerning the Law of Identity, the Holy Spirit is multi-faceted:

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. - Rev 4:5

There is no conflict.

[Quix]

Thanks for your thoughtful and fitting reply.

I believe that those who earnestly seek GOD in spirit and in truth

will be/are

led by Holy Spirit SUFFICIENTLY in the way that they should grow—including the better available-to-them texts—to arrive Heavenward with The Author and finisher of their Faith having done a wonderously more than adequate job with each of them.

. . . regardless . . . of a LOT of other details.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your concerns!

Truly, every Christian should be careful not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements!

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Alas, a lot of our mangled chidhoods give the enemy an inroad to tweaking our pride to the effect that unless we win this or that issue, argument, turf war etc. . . . we aren’t worth daddy’s love or anything else. What a set-up for horrible conflicts!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! Thank you for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, dear brother Quix. Sad, but true.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thanks, Kitty Mittens, for your lovely comments, and for that terrific website. God bless you.

[kosta50]

I know I won't get much support from my brothers in the East or West; they are included simply because that's how the thread started. If any of you wish to be discontinued, please let me know.

First, the position of the Church is that +Paul is misinterpreted by the Protestants. I can see that in some cases, as +Paul says things that are strictly orthodox (lower-case "o") and fully in line with the Church teaching.

I trust the collective knowledge of the Church, and I never assume that I am wright and the Church is wrong. I simply present my perceptions in hope of finding convincing answers.

Having said that, I also have "issues" with +Paul, as I do with the "official truth" of other parts of the Bible. That is me.

Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us: Rom 9:6-8...

Let's look at this, verse-by-verse.

For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel

Clearly, not all were the "People of God" (meaning of "Israel"). That God is the God of the Jews. He makes that abundantly clear in the OT. Those who believe in Him become Israel, and are considered Jews.

There are also idolatrous Jews (that includes Christian Jews), and naturally they are not the People of God.

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants

Same as above. Being "genetically" a Hebrew doesn't make you a Jew if you are an idolater. Those who believe in the (Jewish) God of Abraham are true Israel.

It is through Isaac that your offspring will be named."

For obvious reasons. Again, being faithful is the key, buit it always pertained only to the Jews.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Very cleverly worded. The children of promise, which +Paul uses extensively in Romans makes it sound as if anyone who belongs to Christ is, like Him, a descendant of Abraham.

The only thing he left out (and Romans were no experts on Jewish history) is that nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that those who believe in the God of Abraham are, or become, Jews! For 1,300 years, those who converted to the faith of Abraham, became Jews.

+Paul was not believe he was creating a new religion. But he was too aware of the fact that pagan Greeks and Romans would never accept becoming Jews. And the Church had to survive; the Church was being strangled in Israel. That is a historical fact and even Christ warned the Apostles that they will be thrown out of the synagogues because of Him.

So, while Jesus never encouraged the Apostles to preach in gentile lands, and admits being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and appoints one Apostle for each tribe, and the Revelation speaks of 12 apostolic judges, it is clear that the number 12 refers to 12 tribes of Israel and not all the people of the world.

Of course, someone will bring up Matthew 28 and the Great Commission. Can I be blunt without being excommunicated? It was written when the Church was out of Israel struggling to survive in pagan lands. What else could +Matthew have written to make it acceptable to the Gentiles? I believe that part was added for reasons that should be obvious. In other words, I doubt Christ ever said that.

I doubt it because all the other Apostles go around baptizing in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity. In fact, there are hardly any trinitarian expressions in the NT, so Matthew 28 stands out like a sore thumb, out of context and out of place.

If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian

In the strictest sense, that is a possibility. In Mat 15:24, Jesus is quoted as saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Well, in Mat 10:5-6 he makes it abundantly clear that the house of Israel does not include the Gentiles:

"Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

In other words, preach to the Jews only. You see, when +Paul wrote his sweet letters to the Romans, Matthew's Gospel wasn't around yet. Romans had no clue what Jesus is quoted as saying. And neither could the Bereans check against Scripture that what Paul taught was as Christ said, because there was nothing written what Christ said yet.

So, +Paul was perfectly safe to tell Romans and Greeks that Christ told him what to preach to the Gentiles. And Bereans had nothing to verify that against Scripture! They could only verify +Paul's OT quotes against the Septuagint.

[hosepipe]

[... James 1:13 says that it is impossible to tempt God with evil. ..]

Amazing that some think God can be a moron..
The one that can ride the event horizon of a black hole like an amusement ride..
And chuck planets into it like skipping a rock on a lake..
A moron... amazing..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think God devised the Scriptures as the primary means for the Holy Spirit to reach God's children. I honestly don't know the extent of the Holy Spirit's work outside of Scripture, but I would never deny it.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the LORD." -- 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

As far as knowing God through nature, that's a little different. I do believe the beauty of God's creation is a gift. But I tend to like how Katherine Hepburn sized up the matter to Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen."

"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

8~)

[kosta50]

Nice try, but no sale. :) Your verses do not show that Paul didn't recognize Jesus as God. Here are some examples: Col 2:9-10 : 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

So, according to this the fullness of the Deity lives in us too. Does that make us Gods? It just so happens that this one is (along with ephesians written soon afterwards) is one of those disputed Pauline books as regards to authorship. Unlike his earlier works, its character is doctrinally ciritcal od Gnostics and their distaste for the body. Hence referencese to bodies.

Collosians 1:15 actually says "He is the image (Gr. eikwn, eikon) of the invisible God" in an attempt to assciate visible body with something godly (since the Gnostics considered the body as evil), for obvious reasons.

But he falls short of calling Him God. We say that a priest an icon of Christ, but no one thinks that he is Christ!

Phil 2:5-11 : 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness

Oh, no, no, no. The Greek text says "being in the form [morfwn, morphon] of God, not "the very nature of God!" The word for nature/essence is ουσία (ousia). The word morphon comes from morphe which means form/shape.

Someone changed the word "form" into "the very nature" of God and completely changed the meaning of the verse.

God the single essence did raise Jesus, who else would have?

The Church (Creed) says "He rose..." That seems sufficiently divine. +Paul uses the word God in place of Father in just about every reference to God and not to "single essence."

Don't you even say that during this time, He left to go into Hades?

Sure, and that's another curious issue. St. John Chrysostom says Death expected a body and found God. No mention here of any separation of Christ's two natures.

re "for the Father is greater than I." [John 14:28]. FK: "So is this verse wrong and not God-breathed? Wouldn't we both just say that it needs to be taken in context and needs a simple interpretation?"

Well, in context everything points to an unequal "single essence." Christ also is quoted as saying to the disciples not to worry and not to toruble their hearts, for they should be happy He is going to the Father. But, then, in the Gethsemane He is torubled and afraid.

[kosta50]

As always, thank you much on your "musings" (as you call them.

You said "So, if satan thought he could tempt Christ, he did not believe He is God." but here Satan knows he is speaking to God: Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?...

In the Book of Job, the satan is one of the "sons of God" (angels), which is quite consistent with Judaism's view of [the] satan (the accuser) as being a faithful servant of God.

The story changes in the New Testament. The book of Job is considered one of the oldest books of the OT and predates the Babylonian captivity. With the emergence of messianic and apocalyptic Judaism in the 2nd century BC, the nature of the satan begins to change into the familiar one we have: a fallen angel of God, devil himself (hence the proper name Satan).

Prior to the Persian influence, Judaism doesn't know dualism and therefore there is no "devil" per se; the satan remains a faithful servant of God, His "prosecuting attorney."

Even if we take the liberty of making the God of Job into Logos, the relationship between Him and the satan is that of cooperation and and adversity.

Moreover, concerning the Law of Identity, the Holy Spirit is multi-faceted: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. - Rev 4:5

Yeah, Seven Spirit of God; I would really like to hear how the Church addresses this. The Orthodox Church simply will not deal with Revelation. It's the only book of the NT that was listed as "questionable" past the 9th century and the only book of the NT that is never quoted or read in the Divine Liturgy.

---

On another subject: Can you tell me why did Jesus need to be led by the Spirit into the wilderness?

[kosta50]

Correction: cooperation and and adversity=cooperation and not adversity

[.30Carbine]

Yeah, Seven Spirit of God; I would really like to hear how the Church addresses this. The Orthodox Church simply will not deal with Revelation. It's the only book of the NT that was listed as "questionable" past the 9th century and the only book of the NT that is never quoted or read in the Divine Liturgy.

That's a great loss, considering the following:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
~Revelation 1:3

[.30Carbine]

On another subject: Can you tell me why did Jesus need to be led by the Spirit into the wilderness?

Some thoughts:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
~Hebrews 4:15

[T]hough He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
~Hebrews 5:8

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
~Isaiah 53:5

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
~Hebrews 12:8

Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
~Psalm 22:4-5

Psalm 119

1Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
2Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
3They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
4Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
5O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
6Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
7I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
8I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
9Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
10With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
11Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger,
and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know,
that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone;
but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD.
~Deuteronomy 8:3

And he said to them all,
"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
~Luke 9:23 (et al)

[.30Carbine]

So, according to this the fullness of the Deity lives in us too. Does that make us Gods? It just so happens that this one is (along with ephesians written soon afterwards) is one of those disputed Pauline books as regards to authorship. Unlike his earlier works, its character is doctrinally ciritcal od Gnostics and their distaste for the body. Hence referencese to bodies.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
~Galatians 3:26

They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
~Psalm 82:5-6

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
~John 10:34-36

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "... However, if I did not have assurance and was offered a last-second chance to trade my faith for Paul's before facing Judgment, I would do it. :)

Why? I thought you were "once saved, always saved"... How can you "just barely be saved"? Either you are or you aren't, in your scheme.

I said IF I did not have assurance (i.e. if I was some other type of Christian) I would trade. The reality is that I do have assurance so I would not trade with anyone. At the same time I have a firm belief that Paul's faith was stronger than mine is now, so I want to be like Paul.

IF Paul and the Apostles were clear on things concerning the Trinity, there wouldn't have been so many heresies on the subject - heresies that continued for 500 years.

But you know better than I that there were plenty of heresies on things even more basic (and core) than the Trinity, such as Christ's identity. There are heresies about everything.

Note, there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it.

That is unknowable. Are you telling me that screwups like the Corinthians got tons of things wrong, but on these issues they got it exactly right? You just can't know that, especially given the specious coverage of them in scripture. The argument that "everyone" knew just doesn't wash. The Bible spends plenty of ink on the identity of Christ, and none, or next to none on the critical issues you raise. That makes no sense. What, everyone understood the meaning of the Eucharist and Apostolic succession, but not everyone understood who Christ was? That is impossible.

You seem to forget that God is quite capable of acting even TODAY in our world. As such, God can enlighten men in the history of the Church. God CONTINUES to gradually reveal more about Himself through the one-time "tradition" given by Christ to the Apostles.

What? I would expect that from the Episcopalian leadership, not from a Roman Catholic. :) (The HS is doing a new thing, etc.) Whatever happened to always and everywhere believed?

Paul is no different than any other person who has been given revelation from God. It is not ALL INCLUSIVE.

I agree with you that Paul, like everyone else, participated in sanctification and grew in faith even after his ministry began. However, I don't see how this addresses whether men today have a greater understanding than did Paul. I mean, if there was a celebrity "Jeopardy", and every category was "God", who would you bet on from recent times to beat Paul? :)

FK: "Did Jesus keep secrets from Paul, etc.? I doubt it."

Did Jesus keep secrets from Mary?

Yes, He absolutely did! Her faith in Him as God was not realized at least until Christ was 12. We know that. Of course, this also forces me to amend my statement, since I just agreed that Paul continued growing in faith. Our faith is given to us on God's time table, and it is also grown on God's time table.

Again, I do not believe that God has revealed Himself fully to ANYONE.

I agree.

I am saying our UNDERSTANDING increases. If I give you a math book at the beginning of a college semester of calculus, do you understand it all on day one??? Again, I thought you were beyond such mindless mantras repeated by other of my separated brothers...

Well, it must be pretty mindless, since I don't even know which mantra you are talking about. :) If the Bible is like a calculus book that nobody understands at the beginning, then it doesn't square with your holding that each new council or papal decree is something that has always and everywhere been believed. Those are opposite ideas.

FK: "And, Protestants do not see Mary as only an incubator. We honor her for her great faith and devotion to God."

... but after what I have read on Free Republic over the last few years, I find that as BS. You do not honor her one bit. She has been dishonored continuously here. IF Jesus really IS fully human, I can imagine what He must think about all these Protestants who "honor" her with their incessant attacks that strive to make her as just another person, rather than one who has been blessed above all other women.

What? We don't honor her as you do, but none of the Protestants here I call friends has anything against Mary. We would all say that Mary was uniquely blessed above all other women. We also honor her humanity. Perhaps our expression of that is what you take to be an attack. I have never seen anything that I have perceived to be an "attack" against Mary by any Protestant on FR. That's not to say there haven't been any, I don't know. In any event, you know who my buddies are. NONE of us ever thinks anything negative when we think about Mary. TRULY. :)

[DarthVader]

Bravo!!