Opus Dei Response to Director Ron Howard re 'The DaVinci Code'

Zenit News Agency ^ | May 15, 2006

[NYer]

"Catholics Are Victims of an Offense"

ROME, MAY 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The press office of the Opus Dei Prelature sent this statement to ZENIT on Friday in response to comments by the director of the soon-to-be-released film "The Da Vinci Code."

* * *

On Thursday the Italian press published interviews with Ron Howard, director of "The Da Vinci Code" film. In statements attributed to him, Howard said that "to deny the right to see the film is a fascist act," and also "to tell someone not to go see the film is an act of militancy and militancy generates hatred and violence." The Opus Dei is mentioned several times in these interviews. The phrases seem to refer to recent statements by Church authorities.

I would ask Ron Howard to keep calm and express himself with respect.

It is not wise to lose sight of the reality of the situation: This film is offensive to Christians. Howard represents the aggressor, and Catholics are victims of an offense. The one offended cannot have his last right taken away, which is to express his point of view. It is not the statements of ecclesiastics or the respectful request of Opus Dei -- to include a notice at the beginning of the film that it is a work of fiction -- which generates violence. It is rather the odious, false and unjust portrayals that fuel hatred.

In his statements, Howard also repeats that it is simply a film, an invented story, and that it must not be taken too seriously. But it is not possible to deny the importance of the movies and literature. Fiction influences our way of seeing the world, especially among young people. It is not right not to take it seriously. Artistic creativity certainly needs a climate of freedom, but freedom cannot be separated from responsibility.

Imagine a film that says that Sony was behind the attacks on the Twin Towers, which it promoted because it wanted to destabilize the United States. Or a novel that reveals that Sony paid the gunman who shot the Pope in St. Peter's Square in 1981, because it was opposed to the Holy Father's moral leadership. They are only invented stories. I imagine that Sony, a respectable and serious company, would not be happy to see itself portrayed in this way on the screens, and that it would not be satisfied with an answer such as "Don't worry, it's only fiction, it mustn't be taken too seriously, freedom of expression is sacred."

In any case, those who have taken part in the film's project have no reason to be concerned. Christians will not react with hatred and violence, but with respect and charity, without insults or threats. They can continue to calculate tranquilly the money they will make on the film, because the freedom of financial profit seems to be in fact the only sacred freedom, the only one exempt from all responsibility. They will probably make a lot of money, but they are paying a high price by deteriorating their prestige and reputation.

I hope the controversy of these months will not be sterile but serve to reflect on the relative character of financial profit when high values are involved; on the importance of fiction; on responsibility, which always supports and protects freedom.

[The statement added:]

The plan of Opus Dei's Communication Office in regard to this case may be found on the Web page www.opusdei.org, which explains in detail its position over these months.

[From] Manuel Sánchez Hurtado, in charge of relations with the international press, at the Opus Dei's press office in Rome

[Victoria Delsoul]

I simply pointed out one such diversion - that is not in MY Bible - and it was more than one scene -

The film's script is based on the New Testament - books of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - and books written by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and St. Mary of Agreda. But since it is a film, we must also allow for some artistic license without detriment to the truth; as such, this film was shot in the languages of that time - Aramaic and Latin.

The Passion of the Christ is about Christ's final 12 hours and His struggle during the last hours of his life. His pain, temptation, fears, and his total obedience to His Father for which his death -the price of redemption- in obedience to His Father provided a new covenant between God and man.

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” -John 15:13

Even though this film is mainly about Christ's last hours, there are also scenes of his childhood, his relation with his mother, and many different passages of his life.

“And Jesus being full of the Holly Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.” - LK 4:1,2.

Satan's first temptation: "tell these stones to become bread." (Mt.4:3)

Second temptation: "Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." (Mt.4:5-6).

Third Temptation: "I will give you all the world... if you will bow down and worship me." (Mt.4:9)

Gibson's portrayal of Satan's temptations occurred while Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane (this is where the artistic license kicks in) however, the meaning of such spiritual warfare is well conveyed as Satan appears at Jesus’ side and tells Him that saving people's souls is too great a task. Let's not forget that Jesus was also a man who hungered, thirsted, suffered, was tempted and ultimately died as a man. The only scene where a worm comes out the devil's nose represents the prevailing maleficence of Satan. The snake at the devil's feet that slithered over and onto Jesus as He prayed in total agony, symbolized Genesis 3:15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Jesus not only fights temptation but rises and crushes the snake which according the Genesis 3:15 indicates that Jesus would crush and defeat Satan by dying in the cross.

“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” - John 3:14-15

[irishjuggler]

The truth can be discussed without such ire...

"Truth"... haha, that's a good one. Get over it. It's a fantasy, a delusion. Look, there are a lot of books about UFOs and alien abduction, too. They're the domain of folks like you, wackos and suckers. You ought to check out another Ron Howard film, "A Beautiful Mind." You DaVinci Code believers remind me of John Nash when he was convinced that the Soviets were planting secret nuclear codes in comic strips.

[maine-iac7]

The restoration of the painting is the cause of the idiotic controversy.

actually = not

there are in existence, copies done by his pupils a few years after they finished the original, seeing that the original was deteriorating before their eyes...that have the original colors, used the original cartoons, and are far more faithful than the poor destroyed LS on the Milan wall -

These paintings show a much more "feminine John."

Leonardo ( He should be referred to as Leonardo, by the way, [actually baptised "Lionardo"]or the full Leonardo da Vinci - never just da Vinci, which is not his last name. For example, if you referred to the artist "di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni" even tho' this is the actual last name of another artist, or by the desigination "da Caprese", how many people would instantly know the artist meant?) was known to paint the same painting more than once...so no surprise that more were done of the LS when the original obviously wasn't going to survive...

[maine-iac7]

I would ask Ron Howard to keep calm and express himself with respect.

LOL

like the example set by the opponents of the book/movie?

[maine-iac7]

LOL

Like the "Christians" here who call me such things as "whacko, sucker, pyschotic, and being anti-Christian"?

Or presumptively addressed me as "you guy" (I'm a great-grandma :O) )

Being Christian is rather like having humility. (The definition of "humility": the minute you think you have it, you've lost it.") You can call yourself a Christian, but if you act otherwise, then are you "with" Christ - a Christian?

I consider myself a Christian in that I love the Lord, I study and try to follow HIS word - (over, for example, Paul's, which were often at odds with Jesus' - and why he and the original apostles, hand picked and taught for 3 years by Jesus, personally, were at logger heads for some time - Peter, particularly)

I prefer to believe Jesus, who tells us that the ONLY person between us and the Father, is Himself, Jesus - for one example.

As an artist, I am known for paintings/drawings of Jesus all my life. I have depictions of Him that I use as a slide-show screen-saver that gives me great comfort...etc etc. But I will stop there, as I also try to adhere to Jesus's admonition concerning pearls

Peace ;o)

[maine-iac7]

Amen

[maine-iac7]

Out of context much? Find me one judicial institution in the Middle Ages (and even into the Renaissance and beyond) that didn't use torture as a matter of course when trying to extract a confession.

I'm confused.

Are you saying that because torture was routine, used by others also, that it was then okay for the church, supposedly an institution that followed God's Law and His Son's teachings, to do the same?

And here I thought that those committed to following/teaching/making good money and having great power - using "Christianity" - would be held to a higher standard, indeed, should be setting the standard - as laid down by God and His Son.

By your standard then, if my neighbor robs a bank, it's acceptable for me to do also?

[Antoninus]

I'm confused.

You can say that again.

Are you saying that because torture was routine, used by others also, that it was then okay for the church, supposedly an institution that followed God's Law and His Son's teachings, to do the same?

Torture was a common method of extracting confessions in Roman law, upon which all European law has its foundation. In cases of heresy or similar, which were civil as well as ecclesiastical crimes, the accused were handed over to civil authorities for questioning. True, a cleric was often present in heresy cases because lay civil authorities were not well enough versed in theology to ascertain heresy and oftentimes it was found that the accusations were trumped up by the civil authorities themselves for political or financial reasons.

And here I thought that those committed to following/teaching/making good money and having great power - using "Christianity" - would be held to a higher standard, indeed, should be setting the standard - as laid down by God and His Son.

You're smarter than you thought. Torture was actually prohibited by Pope Nicholas I in AD 866. But unfortunately, the use of torture in judicial proceedings had deep roots and was revived. Nevertheless, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the subject:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[90]

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition."

By your standard then, if my neighbor robs a bank, it's acceptable for me to do also?

How you came up with this non sequitur, I'll never know.

[ichabod1]

Fake, but accurate?

[maine-iac7]

Torture was actually prohibited by Pope Nicholas I in AD 866

Yet hundreds of years later - millions would die - the Church was responsible, directly.

below is an excerpt from post #53 - which is only a small part of the bloody history...

But y'all have the histories of the world at your own fingertips - for more.

",,,..."Despite this, the infamous Inquisition was set up by the Literalist Church specifically to eradicate the cathars, which it did with ferocious enthusiasm, burning alive men, women and children. From 1139 onwards the Roman Church began calling councils to condemn the heretics. Pope Innocent III declared that 'anyone who attempted to construe a personal view of God which conflicted with Church dogma must be burned without pity'. "In 1208 he offered indulgences and eternal salvation, as well as the lands and property taken from the heretics, to anyone who would take up the crusade against the Cathars. This launched a brutal 30-year pogrom which decimated southern France. Twelve thousand people were killed at St Nazaire and ten thousand at Toulouse, to give just two examples. "By 1215, the Council of Lateran established the dread Inquisition. During the next 50 years the toll of those killed by this infamous arm of the Church climbed to one million, more than in all of the other crusades against heresies combined. ********************and that was just the Cathars...

******cont before and after on post #53

[Antoninus]

You seem to enjoy spreading lies and grotesque bigotry. That's no skin of my teeth--you have revealed yourself for what you are. I will pray for your soul.

For any of those who wish to read the truth behind what you have written in such polemical and simplistic terms, I encourage them to visit the following:

Albigenses

Liars and Catholic haters like to paint the Albigensians as peaceful dissidents against the wicked Catholic Church when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The crusade against the Cathars was a confusing war with political as well as religious overtones. Nobles switched sides with frequency depending on who seemed in the ascendancy. The Pope was unable to control the excesses of those who supposedly fought under his banners. Wars are horrible things and atrocities were committed on both sides. The Catholic side eventually won.

The banner of the lost Cathar cause was eventually picked up by later Protestants who adopted them as their spiritual forebearers and used their defeat as a cudgel to beat the Catholic Church by inflating death counts to absurd numbers and creating fabulous stories. Apparently, there are still people around who buy into all the 400 year old polemical propaganda without ever seeking the actual facts.

[maine-iac7]

I will pray for your soul.

HOw presumptuous of you ;o)

Presumptuous: inconsiderate, disrespectful, or overconfident, especially in doing something when not entitled or qualified to do it.

For someone who belongs to a church that calls other Christians who belong to non-catholic churches non-Christians...a rather un-Christian judgement...to "pray" for me, I wont worry about it overly.

So the Insquisistions were carried out in defence?

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/ri.htm

haven't time to bother gurther - but you have access to GOOGLE

[Antoninus]

HOw presumptuous of you ;o) Presumptuous: inconsiderate, disrespectful, or overconfident, especially in doing something when not entitled or qualified to do it.

Quite the opposite, really. I pray for you so that God may give you a more discerning mind and not leave you so prone to accept polemical propaganda and conspiracy theories as fact.

Praying for someone is an act of love and compassion. Assuming you believe in God and in Christ Jesus, I would appreciate it if you would pray for me as well.

[saradippity]

I know many Catholics who don't find the Da Vinci Code offensive,because they understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

I too,know of many catholics who don't find the Da Vince Code offensive but it is because they bought into the prevailing zeitgeist and feel that their subjective,emotion based opinion,grounded in feeling not reality or truth or fact means something. It doesn't.But their inability to recognize that their opinion without a basis in facts,also makes them oblivious to whether a book is fiction or non-fiction. This is what makes them vulnerable and the targeted population for this type of tripe.

Surrounded by many others who also lack intellectual or spiritual depth,they create a danger,not so much to the Church,who Christ will accompany to the end,but to the survival of our nation as we know/knew it.

BTW,it is also quite obvious that some people who are very bright are among those that are cavalierly dismissing this as "just fiction,nothing to worry about",those are the real enemies of the Church but I do think The Da Vinci Code will boomerang and that is a somewhat informed opinion based on the reviews of the movie.

[Accygirl]

I also like to watch Lost, so therefore based on your logic, I must really believe that there's an Island in the South Pacific controlled by shady/ creepy psychologists conducting random experiments on unsuspecting Island castaways...

The Da Vinci Code is a summer beach book that's meant to be read for pleasure. Anyone who believes any religious conspiracies in this book is incredibly gullible to begin with.