Yes, a lot of us have seen many movies about Jesus Christ. Usually, the nativity scene isn't a complete story and whizzes by quickly in the beginning of the movie. If you saw the blockbuster movie, The Passion of Christ which focused only on the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ down to its gruesome, bloody detail, the Nativity Story is a must-see for it focuses on the hardships that Joseph and Mary had to endure as they obeyed the will of God and bore divinity within their midst and all the hardships along the way. We have known Mama Mary and St. Joseph as Saints and often mistake them for being divine. This movie shows us that they were just as human as we are.
One of my favorite books is entitled "The Life of Mary as Seen through by the Mystics" by Raphael Brown and it truly depicts the hardship of our Blessed Virgin Mary endured as she traveled from her home to visit her cousin Elizabeth. Later when she was very pregnant, she had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Pilgrims who have traveled to the Holy Land can only describe the distance they had to travel in those days where a burro or a donkey carried the pregnant virgin, while St. Joseph walked the more than hundred miles in very rough roads or trails. This is not to mention how the Holy Family fled to Egypt which was the longest travel they had carrying the baby Jesus.
The Nativity Story stars unheard of stars like Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary and Oscar Isaac as Joseph and directed by Catherine Hardwicke. In my view, Keisha Castle-Hughes was a perfect actress to depict the Blessed Virgin Mary; she looked very innocent, obedient and spiritual. Alas, this movie isn't a blockbuster as compared to the Passion of Christ. In the spirit of Christmas, I think all Christians should watch this movie in the same fervor that we all watched the Passion of Christ.
All of the sudden, the Senate or their apologists are throwing new monkey wrenches along the way instead of embracing a Con-Con. For in-stance, former Senator John "Sonny" Osmeña is now saying that he is against a Con-Con because only those last-term Congressmen or women or their children would be participating as delegates in the Con-Con. I fully agree with his view on this, which is why Congress, if they are truly the statesmen they are and care for this country, they should make an agreement as to who should be allowed as delegates for the Con-Con and bar elective officials who can no longer run for public office because of a constitutional prohibition, including their immediate families.
But the problem we face is enormous in the sense that the Senate refuses to recognize the need for charter changes. These people have tasted power and globs and globs of money only a Senator can hold and they don't want to let go. I guess it is because House Speaker Jose de Venecia blindly sold a Parliamentary system of government insisting that a unicameral system of government would signal the end of political gridlock and an end to coups, which gave all governments after the Marcos government a sense of instability, except during the Ramos years.
Again let me reiterate what incensed the Filipino people the most is the prospect of some 70 outgoing members of Congress who are constitutionally bared from continuing office would in the interim be allowed to continue holding to their elective offices even after their considered vacated. That is more than enough to get the ire of the Filipino people. It's bad enough that we have barangay captains whose terms have been extended. It gets worse when Congress arrogates itself to extend their terms beyond what this present constitution provides. Now whether they like it or not, we shall have elections in 2007, hopefully including barangay elections!