Angels vs. Demons - Rome Blocks Da Vinci Sequel

VATICAN CITY — Were the makers of Angels and Demons, a movie based on a Dan Brown novel by the same name, seriously hoping to film scenes on the premises of Catholic churches in Rome? If so, they must have been dreaming.

The movie, which is a prequel to Brown’s more commercially successful potboiler, The Da Vinci Code, sees Tom Hanks reprise his role as Harvard professor Robert Langdon.

This time, however, instead of battling a murderous “Opus Dei monk,” Langdon is on a mission to save the Vatican from being blown up by a canister of antimatter. The storyline also includes the murder of four cardinals during a Vatican City conclave to elect a pope.

The entire film is set in Rome, and Sony Pictures applied for permission to film two key scenes on the premises of the churches of Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria. They are two of the 700 or so churches owned by the Italian Interior Ministry and run by Italy’s Church.

During the film, in Santa Maria del Popolo, home of two masterpieces by Caravaggio, a cardinal is buried alive, while in Santa Maria della Vittoria, another is burned.

Speaking to the Register June 19, Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the Vicariate of Rome, stressed that any film allowed to be made on church premises must be acceptable to the Church, and it was “never really up for discussion whether Dan Brown’s novels are acceptable.”

The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are, he said, “not in line with our concept of respect for the Church and the people of the Church.”

Father Fibbi added that it was the Church’s mission and duty to guarantee and protect what is sacred from being profaned, and made offensive to the religion.

Father Fibbi stressed that to describe the vicariate’s decision as a unique ban — as many news reports had done — was very misleading. The Diocese of Rome regularly refuses permission for films to be made on Church property for similar reasons.

“To be able to shoot in a church is exceptional,” he said, “because a church is a place of prayer where the liturgy and the sacraments are celebrated.”

Father Fibbi added that the vicariate had no direct contact with director Ron Howard or Sony Pictures. The request, which was to film on the steps of the churches rather than inside, was made last year to the Ministry of the Interior who, as always happens in these cases, asked the vicariate if they approved the request.

The refusal has only come to light now as the film, due to be released in 2009, was being shot during first half of June. Scenes were allowed to be filmed away from churches, in the square in front of the Pantheon, Piazza del Popolo, Castel Sant’Angelo and Piazza Sant’Agostino.

In contrast to The Da Vinci Code, which cast Opus Dei in a sinister light and passed on many other falsehoods as fact, the effects of this film are likely to be less.

“Throughout the world, the books of Dan Brown are now perceived much clearer and not as products of high culture,” said Manuel Sanchez Hurtado, spokesman for Opus Dei. “At the same time, the book, which is the basis for this film, isn’t new. It’s old and well-known. I think its impact will be minor.”

His views were echoed by Father John Wauck, an Opus Dei priest who set up a popular blog, The Da Vinci Code Catechism, to rebuff the errors of that book.

“Like The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons is a comedy of errors,” he said. “Dan Brown slips on some doctrinal, historical or artistic banana peel on almost every page. He gets things wrong — and never in a way that favors the Church — about the Eucharist, moral teachings, Copernicus, Galileo, the Devil’s Advocate, art and architecture ... the list is endless.”

Father Wauck, who is also a professor of literature at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said his reaction to this refusal of permission to film was the same as that of the Italian film director Franco Zeffirelli. Paraphrasing Zeffirelli, Father Wauck said: “If someone were to say to you, ‘We’re making a movie that will make your family appear ridiculous and evil, and we’d like to film in your house,’ I think that you would probably say ‘Find another house.’”

“I doubt that there will be a strong reaction,” he said. “I sense that people are all ‘Dan Browned-out.’” He remembers that once The Da Vinci Code

movie appeared in 2006, the interest level for his blog, which had been high, “just fell off the edge of the earth.”

Added Father Wauck: “The million dollar question on everyone’s mind in Rome is: Can Ron Howard and company manage to make another movie as spectacularly bad as The Da Vinci Code?”

Another increasingly common question that’s being asked is why Hollywood seems happy defaming the Church, yet will rarely make movies offensive to Islam or other religions.

For Father Wauck, the answer is simple: fear. “No one is afraid of Catholics,” he said.

“The Angels and Demons crew was filming the other day in Piazza Sant’Agostino, right under the nose of the largest Opus Dei institution in the city,” said Father Wauck. “They didn’t seem too concerned about being waylaid by any assassin monks!”

Quite right, I did err. And my brother is Catholic too, sorry. We've had discussions about religion, as well as with former Catholics in my Church. Plus, my son's best friend down the street is also Catholic. His mom is pretty open about discussing issues, so my bad, sorry for the blunder.

It's not my intent to hijack this thread about Dan Brown, but with this discussion, let me answer the questions posed to me by you and others...

Bottom line for me is this... Despite the theological differences where we disagree, one thing remains certain. Mary was the most perfect and virtuous woman on earth, she was called and chosen to be the mother of the Son of God.

Centuries before her birth, Book of Mormon prophets referred to Mary by name in prophecies of her vital mission (Mosiah 3:8). Describing her as “most beautiful and fair above all other virgins” (1 Ne. 11:13-20) and a “precious and chosen vessel” (Alma 7:10), they prophesied that Mary would bear the Son of God and was therefore blessed above all other women.

An LDS apostle had this to say about Mary. “We cannot but think that the Father would choose the greatest female spirit to be the mother of his Son, even as he chose the male spirit like unto him to be the Savior” (McConkie, p. 327).

Mary's willingness to submit to the will of the Father is also noted in the biblical account. When Gabriel announced that she would be the mother of the Savior, Mary was perplexed; yet she did not waiver in her humble obedience and faith in God. Her response was unadorned: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38).

Had Judah been a free nation, Mary could have been recognized as a princess of royal blood through descent from David. Being of that earthly lineage, Jesus was correctly called a descendant of David.

One thing of note here... As a faithful Jewish woman, she followed the customs of her day. At least forty-one days after giving birth to her first son, Mary went to the Court of the Women, where she became ceremonially clean in the purification rite, offering two turtledoves or two pigeons at the temple as a sacrifice (Luke 2:22-24).

Had she not given birth, as MGHinTN suggests, would such a purification rite be necessary?

Doctrinally, Latter-day Saints do not view Mary as the intercessor with her son in behalf of those who pray and they do not pray to her. We affirm the virgin birth but reject the traditions of the immaculate conception, of Mary's perpetual virginity, and of her “assumption” Mary, like all mortals, returns to the Father only through the Atonement of her son Jesus Christ.

As far as the Immaculate conception, I think the bottom line in our differing doctrine is about the fall of Adam. Latter-day Saints accept neither the doctrine of original sin nor the need for Mary's immaculate conception. Instead, we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression, because Jesus’ Atonement redeems all, including Mary, from the responsibility for Adam's trespass (Moro. 8:8). “God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God” (D&C 93:38). For Latter-day Saints, Mary was a choice servant selected by God to be the mother of Jesus.

There is some material here from the Encyclopeida of Mormonism. Hope this helps in understanding our differences, and why we think so.

Cheers.

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.