Mel Gibson Slams Da Vinci Code

NewsMax ^ | 05/22/2006 | Carl Limbacher

[SirLinksalot]

Monday, May 22, 2006 12:44 a.m. EDT Mel Gibson Slams 'Da Vinci Code'

Catholic actor Mel Gibson has slammed "The Da Vinci Code" book and movie for attacking the beliefs that he holds sacred, World Entertainment Network reported.

"The Passion of the Christ" star has been outraged about the thriller's controversial plot concerning Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. [Editor's Note: Get NewsMax's special report "The Da Vinci Con" FREE with Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" – CLICK HERE NOW!]

Gibson says, "What worries me is that people will take this as fact.

"I'm not angry, per se, that it refutes everything I hold sacred, the foundations of my beliefs. The Da Vinci Code is an admitted work of fiction but it cleverly weaves fact into maverick theories in a way that will appear plausible to some."

The angry star was actually the first choice of Dr. Robert Lomas (the intellectual who inspired the Robert Langdon character) to play him. Tom Hanks plays Langdon in the film

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Funny how criticizing The last Temptation of Christ was perfectly the Right thing to do, but say just one bad thing about the Da Cinci Code, and tons of "It just fiction so get over it" people come out and call you overly intolerant.

Funny how those insecure in their own faith slam the movie saying they're concerned about those more ignorant than themsleves believing Brown's theories. Its laughable.

[frogjerk]

I think however, that you should believe in Him, not the Church.

How can I not believe in the Church that Christ instituted?

[frogjerk]

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Can. 1366 Parents, and those taking the place of parents, who hand over their children to be baptized or brought up in a non-Catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty. --

Nice try but there is no contradiction here. The first instance speaks in general to each person to freely choose or not to choose without coercion their beliefs. The second instance speaks to the faithful that are in full communion with the Catholic Church. They have already chosen their faith.

[frogjerk]

I already have actually, prove them fallible once, and the whole concept is destroyed.

No, you haven't as I have just replied.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?"

There's my problem right there.

You just don't get it, do you?

I don't need an interpreter, I don't require an intermediary either.

I have a serious question...which Pope was wrong?

Are Catholics human persons or not?

Which Pope was wrong?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Whch Pope was was wrong?

Love is when we join in prayer with heretics. John Paul II UUS:21, 05/25/1995

Heresy: is when we join in prayer with heretics. Piux XI, D.2199

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The second instance speaks to the faithful that are in full communion with the Catholic Church. They have already chosen their faith."

Freedom means freedom to change, and freedom for the children, as human persons, to change.

Or is Catholicism the rough equivalent of unretractable self imposed indentured servitude?

Freedom includes the ability to change one's mind.

[frogjerk]

I don't need an interpreter, I don't require an intermediary either.

If you don't need an interpreter then what is the meaning of John 6? Is it literal or figurative?

[frogjerk]

Freedom means freedom to change, and freedom for the children, as human persons, to change. Or is Catholicism the rough equivalent of unretractable self imposed indentured servitude? Freedom includes the ability to change one's mind.

One of the conditions of marriage in the Catholic Church is that if you have children they are to be brought up in the faith.

You are stating that Catholics married in the Church have the "freedom" to interpret the Sacrament of Marriage any way they want and to break oaths without penalty (excommunication, etc...)

You are stating that Catholic should have the freedom to believe what they want but still be able to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. This makes absolutely no sense.

As a Catholic, you have the "freedom" to change your mind and go another way from the doctrine of the Catholic Church but don't expect to be called a Catholic in full communion with the Church in the future.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You need someone to explain what's written in plain English?

Try reading and comprehending on your own someday.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"One of the conditions of marriage in the Catholic Church is that if you have children they are to be brought up in the faith."

So, the children of Catholics are not "human persons" since their freedom of religion is taken from them by the fact that they are born of Catholic parents, and, according to Catholic Cannon Law, anyone who gives the right of freedom of religion to children is to be punished.

Then, since there is a punishment for the act of allowing one's children to freely choose their religion, Catholic Cannon Law clearly takes away freedom of religion.

So, John Paul was wrong, thus he wasn't infallible, and as such, the Doctrine of Infallibility is wrong.

Next...answer the question on #366.

Is it love when we join in prayer with heretics, or is it heresy to join in prayer with heretics?

And if John Paul II joined in prayer with heretics, was he guilty of heresy?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Catholic Cannon Law

There's a law covering Catholic Cannons?

What about Methodist Mortars?

Heretical Howitzers?

~()):~)>

[Luis Gonzalez]

Orthodox ordnance?

[curiosity]

Braveheart, yes.. But the Patriot? That was a work of fiction while playing a fictional character in a historically correct timeline of events.

The British never committed anything like the atrocities portrayed in the film. They never burned down a Church full of innocent civilians, for example.

[curiosity]

Well, it's slanderous fiction. It's generally bad taste to make up bad things about real people who are revered by billions. What would people say if someone made a movie portrying MLK as a child molestor for example?

Nevertheless, I agree with you that it's stupid to make a big deal out of it. The Church should simply issue a statement pointing out the historical innacuracies and leave it at that.

[curiosity]

I don't think any British officer ever ordered innocents to be burned alive inside a church. I mean, it made for a good movie, but seriously!

Yeah, that was way over the top. For me, it spoiled what was an otherwise good movie.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Yes, there are Orthodox Ordnance Ordinances.

~()):~)>

[Zavien Doombringer]

Uh, I never said that the burning of a church was accurate, I said the time-line was accurate....

[frogjerk]

You need someone to explain what's written in plain English?

The Bible was written in plain English?

[frogjerk]

So, the children of Catholics are not "human persons" since their freedom of religion is taken from them by the fact that they are born of Catholic parents, and, according to Catholic Cannon Law, anyone who gives the right of freedom of religion to children is to be punished.

Great logic. So your kids choose what kindergarten to go to?