Abduction REDUX

Sell your photos, earn money now!

---

The Mortara Affair, Redux

This trailer was an awesome opportunity to push our story forward. Meet our villain, The Grand Nabob. He hates his name but loves his job. The Trailer Redux mission allowed us to use scenes we shot but weren't able to use in the OG trailer! The screenplay is uploaded and we could not be happier with what we've written. Adding shots from our "Speechless" mission gave us more story to tell in the Trailer Redux. More from Alien Abduction. I would like to see a film where the alien get invaded by earthlings.

I like Dave, really good acting. I also like the Alien.

There is something strangely likeable about him. He's odd, funny, and somewhat believable. I'm wondering if 90 min. Oh believe me Diane, there is an entire universe of amazing characters just waiting to be unleashed! Really looking forward to brining it all to life. So many more people and aliens to meet! Thanks again for your support!! I love the sizzle reel! You guys are keep stepping outside the box which is what film needs. Refreshing to see something different than the rest. The sizzle reel didn't grab me as much as the trailers.

You’re all set! What do you want to do first?

Perhaps I just wanted to be entertained and there was nothing new to capture my interest. It was just a bit of a recap! On to the awesomeness of the new content on Monday! I'm looking to see you on the Big Screen - Alien Abduction is such a fun movie, but the only thing that worries me is getting abducted while watching your show You know I'm kidding - good luck guys in the next adventure and I'm sure to see you in the top 5.

If you get abducted, remember to at least hit pause so you don't miss the ending! I was hoping for a sizzle reel that edited together all your missions. It was a bit short compared to others. Though I am looking forward to your BeExpanding mission. That was our busy week! We had virtually no time with our editor and did both the trailer and the sizzle in just 5 hours! We were in the "Quick!

Record a voice over! It cracks me up because I sound like a WW2 news reel! The March of War! The Grand Nabob is a whole miracle of awesomeness unto himself!

She laughed out loud several times at the Top 15 reveal. I love that we've got the pre-school crowd locked down! So happy you're on the Top 15! This project totally deserves it. So glad to see you guys on the list! Top 5 here we come! Fingers are certainly crossed Gertray! All 14 of them. The wookie sound and the "Hello ladies," bits had me laughing out loud. Peter New is on his way to becoming my favorite alien. I also really dig the blue alien costume. The only part that is not believable about these trailers is where Patrick drops the beer. There is no way he would just let beer go like that, without trying to save it!

I guess that just shows how much in character he really got Suddenly none of this movie makes any sense! Many thanks my friend!! Very exciting this TOP 15! It looks like a movie that would be fun to make. Instead of Cyan for text, Red would be more dynamic. Cyan is too deep and calm. Like a Edsel. The trailer could have been longer. I barely got interested in the alien.

Listen to this article

The concept is great! Like a Edsel! This was really well done - very funny. My only beef was that the text should have been left on the screen about 2 seconds longer - it was difficult to read it all because it was only on the screen for such a short time.

Michelle I have to thank you so much for Watchlisting us. And I really appreciate the note. I could totally see them being on for another beat. The past weighs heavily on the present, which makes the nature of our future attitudes and actions so vitally important. Judaism is the root from which our own faith grows. Being cognizant of that reality, and respecting it in everything we say and write and do, is the only way bitter actions in the past might one day be redeemed.

I appreciate Archbishop Chaput's very positive contribution to this discussion, yet I strain to discover a direct articulation of his personal views. Rather than quoting from his three friends, I would have preferred a clear, public statement of the prelate's own opinion, grounded in doctrine as well as eccumenicalism, that categorically rejected the reactionary views of Fr. Cessario, and the decision of First Things to publish the review in the first place. It's not only that Archbishop Chaput doesn't articulate his personal views.

He brings his Catholic friend to say that such a baptism "would be robbery" but he is silent as to what he thinks the Church must do once such a "robbery" has occurred. So I ask myself: The Pope considered Edgardo Mortara's baptism to be efficacious, and that this created a new reality. He writes "Others have pointed out the doublethink involved in Catholic efforts to justify or 'contextualize' the abduction of Mortara, while at the same time condemning the Islamic abduction and forced conversion of Christian children.

His silence in the matter makes me wonder if to him it's "doublethink" at all. Perhaps he is certain that there is a qualitative difference in theology and spiritual reality between the forced conversion of a Catholic child to a non-Christian religion and the "robbery" baptism of a Jewish child. Perhaps he feels that to publicly state this truth would offend his Jewish friends; he just wishes that Father Cessario had not gone public with it. He could not have made more clear what he meant by "my own thoughts" and that he views the case as one of robbery, and the review as blaming the victim and sanitizing the abduction.

To condemn him for endorsing and adopting as his own the views eloquently spoken by his colleagues, is unfair. Has Catholic doctrine changed to permit a baptized child to be raised by Jews?

I'm aware that following the Holocaust, the Church directed that Jewish children baptized by the Catholics who had saved them from death should be returned to their families — presuming any had survived. Was that action sui generis owing to the circumstances? There are persistent reports extending through several papacies that many Jewish orphans were kept away from the Jewish people and raised as Catholic.

It's clear that Archbishop Chaput does see a baptism such as Edgardo Mortara's as accomplished by "robbery. The law of the Papal States forbade a Catholic child to be raised by a member of another faith. Pius IX was quite clear: Edgardo Mortara's baptism was valid. That is why he resisted the international pressure to return the boy to his family, and as near as I have been able to determine, the law in the Papal States was consonant with Catholic doctrine in this matter.

If Catholic doctrine today is different, I believe that Archbishop Chaput would have said so. I do not doubt his good intentions or his desire not to offend. But in the absence of an explicit statement or a sequence of statements that construct a logical chain that cannot be construed otherwise, my questions stand. Fair enough I suppose -- my post was directed to the comment that one must "strain to discover" Archbishop Chaput's views, a comment that you appeared to endorse. It is enough that he likens such an act to a robbery -- an immoral and criminal act -- and one under which "God is not served.

I still think that "God is not served" says nothing about the validity of such a baptism from the Church's vantage point, and nothing about what the Church's own legal system says of any actions that must be taken or must not be taken if such a baptism is valid. But unless those systems forcibly impose themselves on Jews, we don't have a dog in that fight.

Navigation menu

My main interest is less in what the Church sees as theological reality than in its conduct. I am appreciative that the Popes will make no more Father Pio Edgardo Mortaras who seek to convert their own families away from Judaism. But Archbishop Chaput's careful language makes me think that this is not a change in fundamental teaching but a pragmatic decision that the time is not ripe to implement those teachings.

To clarify Catholic Doctrine on some matters that you might be confusing: Illicit baptisms retain their sacramental validity I. Whatever the opinions of a given cleric may have been, or whatever the laws or ecclesial policies in certain times and places might have judged, it never was and is not now Catholic Doctrine that a baptized child can not be raised by Jewish or any other parents.

A certain case was made for such kidnappings based on Catholic teaching. Catholics believe that the Church in the broad sense of the Catholic people owe baptized people some instruction on the Gospel message and some guidance on how to lead a Christian life so that they have at least a chance of living out their baptism if they choose. But, the conclusions that some people draw from Doctrine are not doctrines themselves.

The authority of parents is also part of Catholic Doctrine, as is the teaching that it is forbidden to violate natural law regardless of the ends pursued. This is what Vittorio Messori writes: It is a grievous thing to sever familial bonds. But the honor we give to mother and father will be imperfect if we do not render a higher honor to God above.

This is why he said that he came bearing a sword that would sunder father and son. Archbishop Chaput, and the Catholic Church in general, fail to address their doctrine which states that Christ "came bearing a sword that would sunder father and son. Edgardo Mortara is merely one victim of this doctrine. I wonder if Archbishop Chaput is wiling to address this issue. For further information cf. First, let's note the descriptive words Archbishop Chaput uses throughout his piece: And notice at the end of the article he writes, "Judaism is the root from which our own faith grows.

Baptism, no matter how many theological arguments you may put up about efficacy and new reality and rendering a higher honor to God, is not magic. Baptism must be considered within the context of intentionality and community. Morisi, and the Vatican regrettably, treated it like magic, as though her actions, well intentioned though they may have been, would magically "save" the soul of the child if he died.

Welcome to 500px!

This kind of superstitious, and erroneous, theology can be understood, given that Morisi was probably under-educated. The child's parents would not have consented, which would have been their right. The child was not of the age of consent. There was no intention nor assent nor will to baptize, except for Morisi doing it without the parents' consent. One can't ignore this fact. Judy Hirsch, the scripture you reference does not pertain in this instance.

The scripture was meant to say that father and son would be at odds due to disagreement about the teachings and life of Jesus. There was no such disagreement here. A woman came between parents and child, and sundered their God-given bond. She was the illicit sword.

And let us remember that the question of baptism prior to being of the age of consent has been a point of disagreement itself over the centuries. For further information cf.: Completely leaves out vital fact that the young boy was not traumatized and wanted to be raised Christian.

• Die Entwicklung der Marke Kaffee HAG (German Edition)
• The Story of the Renaissance
• Was macht einen guten Psychoanalytiker aus?: Grundelemente professioneller Psychotherapie (German Edition)
• The Last Fortune
• Lesson Plans Dry
• Travel France: Planning a Trip to France, Tips about the Best Things to Do in France And The Best Of Tourist Destinations In France