Posted on 05/27/2006 11:41:01 AM PDT by Coleus
A reader of the Window wrote asking me to explain why I found The Da Vinci Code anti-Catholic. That's a fair question, since as she pointed out, I didn't supply any examples.
Anyone doubting my word can consult the film's co-producer, John Calley. He told The New York Times (9/7/2005) that the movie was "conservatively anti-Catholic" but not "destructively so." I wonder if Mr. Calley sought any expert opinions on what would be destructive to the Church, or if he considered himself qualified to make that call. Why did he reject the request for a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, if he was concerned about its possibly being destructive? It's widely known that many of Dan Brown's readers believe his claim that the book is based upon "historical evidence." Since Calley is a former chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, it's safe to assume that other Sony executives are fully aware of the film's assault on the reputation of the Catholic Church. Peter Boyer has written a fascinating account in The New Yorker (5/22/06) of how Sony's marketing department tried to head off conservative Christian criticism of the film. "(Hollywood Heresy: Marketing 'The Da Vinci Code' to Christians").
Boyer chronicles Sony's attempt to inoculate itself against a Christian backlash by creating a web site for Christians to debate whether Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene; whether they begat children; and whether the Church has hidden this secret ever since. It's a sad day when Christian scholars get sucked into a scam like this just to be associated with Hollywood. Sony has not been deterred by the worldwide protest against the film. Why should it? Since The Da Vinci Code is already a financial, though not critical success, Sony has announced its intention of filming more of Dan Brown's novels. Angels and Demons, his 2000 anti-Catholic rant on the subject of science, is already under development.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Human Rights, told me, "What would have happened if Calley had said his movie was 'conservatively' anti-Semitic or African-American? Do you think the film would have ever seen the light of day?" Donohue has been the most visible Catholic leader making the case against The Da Vinci Code. I asked him to describe the difference between a film that is critical of the Church and one that is anti-Catholic. "Disagreement with the Church is fine, but when it becomes disdain or disparagement, you have crossed the line." Donohue used the example of the 1994 movie Priest. "In that film all five priests are dysfunctional, and their dysfunction is directly connected to their ministry, meaning the Church has created their dysfunction. You never meet a normal priest!"
He also said, "There is nothing anti-Catholic about good humor that is not designed to insult but to make people laugh. Mel Brooks, for example, puts forth good old American humor, no one is singled out, and there is no meanness. We all need to laugh at ourselves." The key to recognizing how anti-Catholicism works in this country is seeing the "sweeping generalizations that would never be used with any other group." The Da Vinci Code fulfills all of Donohue's main criteria: It represents the institution of the Church as corrupt from the top down. From Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) to the self-flagellating Opus Dei "monk" Silas (Paul Bettany), there are no admirable representatives of the Church. (There are no "monks" in Opus Dei as Peter Boyer points out.)
The effort to bring the film industry to some recognition of anti-Catholicism is not about censorship, but awareness. Many of those producers and artists making films are either blind to the bias that pervades their community or don't feel obliged to constrain themselves. As Terry Teachout, drama critic of The Wall Street Journal, informed me, "It's been my experience that any mention of Catholicism in a contemporary work of art, given the current climate of elite opinion, is more than likely to be anti-Catholic."
There was a time when the Church condemned films and tried to keep them from public viewing. The Catholic Legion of Decency, established by the U.S. bishops in 1933, was established for "the purification of the cinema." Its list of condemned films includes one of the most powerful evocations of the Christian faith made in Hollywood, Strange Cargo (1940) starring Clark Gable and Joan Crawford and directed by Frank Borzage, a Catholic. (For a list see the Wikipedia entry).
The pendulum has swung the other way with a vengeance. The film community effectively seeks to censor the Church with a steady barrage of distortion and falsity. Perhaps they will learn that their caricatures of the Church, such as Priest and The Da Vinci Code, simply create bad art, and that will give them pause.
well lets not split hairs - the heresy of Christ being a mere mortal is an affront to both Catholics and Protestants
The heresy of The DaVinci Code goes beyond that. It posits that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. A Christian, Catholic or otherwise, should be offended by that. While it may not necessarily shake your faith to see or read such a tale, it should offend your sensibilities that your religion is being disparaged. But, apparently, many Christians are quite happy to have their religion disparaged, and think nothing of it.
yes, I know, the author is a catholic who wrote the e mail for catholics and was responding to a question by a catholic.
Two staffers stopped by our office the other day to move a piece of furniture. They asked one of my male coworkers if he had been to see 'The DaVinci Code' yet. He shook his head 'no'. The younger of the two proclaimed it one of the best movies of the year - "Awesome!", he shouted. "I always knew the Catholic Church was holding back the truth", he then said. The older of the two chimed in with, "Yeah ... and the Catholic Church is filthy rich". My coworker pointed towards me and then made the sign of the cross over the two men. My coworkers know me quite well :-). Next week, the two staffers will get to know me too ;-).
(gonna sic the Opus Dei monkish hit squad on 'em?)
I'd agree with that - but add....
Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
....theres a gulf of sanity between us and the demons that would react to a cartoon
Selling tickets to the event?
I'll take two! ; )
Lol! Rest assured of a blow by blow description of the big event.
It is difficult to see that the Da Vinci code is anti-Catholic. It has been accepted Christian dogma for 1700 years that Jesus is equally man and equally divine. As presenting the idea that Jesus had a human side would thus seem to be standard theology.
In any case, the human male aspect of Jesus should be equally agreeable or disagreeable to not just Roman Catholics, but also to Orthodox, the 150 or so denominations of Protestants, the Mormons, Moonies, Christian Scientists, Mandaeans, Copts, and other Christians.
I have not seen Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Moonies, or Copts objecting to the Da Vinci code movie. And only a very few Protestants, who might just be cult members. The notion that the Da Vinci code is specifically directed at Roman Catholics does not seem valid.
Have you seen the movie? The movie is pure and crude anti-Catholic propaganda. It reminded me of an Eizenstadt movie or other early Soviet propaganda in its crude caricatures of churchmen and its patently false statements of early Church history. The word "Church" is constantly used in this movie as something very sinister, an organization which apparently has simply been killing off people and oppressing women for 2000 years and covering up the ridiculous "secret" that Jesus was simply a man and that Mary Magdalene was the truly divine being.
As Jesus said, he was IN the world, but not OF the world. He was fully God and fully Human, and He gave himself for the whole world.
"Be in the world, but not of the world."
Seems like we've seen many who have disregarded that message as of late.
What ya gonna do? witness to them? Or pronouce anethema?
no - IMO - He is wholly human and wholly divine - an unique being of God and the Holy Spirit
If he also had a family, like other mortals, wouldn't that also be a part of it? How would that dilute his message?
By claiming Christ as a mortal - the divine purity of his sinless atonement for our sins on the cross is lost as he is nothing less than every other slouch who carries Adamic sin and others sins -
There is nothing we can do ourselves that makes us Holy people - But that holiness is a must if we are to be in Gods presence - we cant be unholy or partly holy in Heaven. God noting this, sent His divine Son, concieved without sin, to bridge that gap
Tagline material!
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.