AmericanPapist Comments
Oh boy. I really feel the USCCB has lost all it's marbles.
This has to be stopped in the same way the positive review of Brokeback Mountain was. I am tired of the USCCB essentially working against Catholic parents, and giving into this kind of secular attack. If they aren't going to help us, then would they kindly just shut the heck up.
I have sent the following email to Harry Forbes, (hforbes@usccb.org) Director of the USCCB Office of Film and Broadcast:
"I am simply astounded that the USCCB Office of Film and Broadcast would give this film a "A-II -- adults and adolescents" rating. This is a movie based on the book of avowed atheist Philip Pullman who has said the goal of his books is to "Kill God" and to destroy the Christian faith of our children. Even if (as the review says) "...the first book's explicit references to this church have been completely excised," why would you recommend a movie that would put money into the pocket of a person who is already said he wants to destroy the faith of our children? As a parent I am appalled that the USCCB would work against us this way, especially since the schools (through Scholastic books) are already promoting the books with "helpful" teacher guides and lesson plans. By the way, Scholastic is one of the partners in producing this movie. So, recommending the movie will allow Scholastic to further push the book which is does not have the "explicit references to this church...completely excised." It also rewards a devoted atheist writer who is out to destroy the faith of the Church, but worse, the faith of our children.
I find this passage from the review (which is attached) particular distressing:
Most moviegoers with no foreknowledge of the books or Pullman's
personal belief system will scarcely be aware of religious
connotations, and can approach the movie as a pure
fantasy-adventure. This is not the blatant real-world
anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" or
"The Da Vinci Code." Religious elements, as such, are practically nil.
What this means is the anti-religion, anti-Catholicism is subtle, and will not be recognized by the young people who will see this movie for what it is. This is a terrible problem, because then the kids will probably either want to read the book, which is does not have the "explicit references to this church...completely excised," or have it assigned to them in school with out the parents realizing it. For the USCCB to miss this, is simply naive and irresponsible.
This is a film that the USCCB should be fighting against as it will lead our young people astray....remember
Mark 9:41
/41 And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that
believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged
around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. /
Please reconsider this ill considered review and please look at this film as the Atheist Propaganda piece that it is."
OK, I am no book-burner and I spend most of my time writing about anti-Catholic English authors, but these books are hate literature and as such should be opposed by all tolerant people, theist or atheist. I speak ill of them at every opportunity.
On the other hand, I don't think it does much good to go on about the books or movie without having read or seen even one of them. I think it may hurt your credibility a bit, Thomas. If you want to blog about the books or the movie, go read them/see it and then talk about them.
peace
I have to give huge props to my kids' Catholic school on this. We received not one but three different papers on The Golden Compass in their for-the-parents folders this week, explaining Pullman's goals and reminding us of our job as parents to protect our kids from that kind of influence. At least in some places the word is getting around!
I think the USCCB has just lost their credibility to teach.
Dannyboy,
I'm torn about that. Considering all the other anti-Catholic stuff we're bombarded with, I'm just not sure I'm not sure I even want to waste my time reading this series of books because I don't want to subject myself to something that its pretty clear is anti-Catholic nor support the author or the company publishing them. Also, I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know that I am going to get burned. This is a book where the author is proud and outspoken about his desire to destroy the Christian faith, and this has been confirmed by others whose judgment I respect. If I have the time I may take it out of the library, but even then, I'm not sure if that's such a good thing, as libraries often base their purchases on the number of people sign out a book or author.
In college we all have read authors that had negative views of Catholics, but one, they were a product of their times, two, it was pretty obvious, and three we were a bit older than the target audience of this movie and books. This is a Trojan horse propaganda attack. We should expect our Church to call it what it is.
As far as credibility, I'm not a journalist or a reviewer, but I am still allowed to form an opinion and talk about it. I have no intention of being a primary source or observer, you don't have to believe me. I don't need to subject myself to the book or movie to make a decision about what I want my kids to be exposed to.
Even if Pullman's fanciful universe has a patchwork feel, with elements culled from other fantasy-adventure stories -- most especially "The Chronicles of Narnia" (a work Pullman disdains)
Man that's alot of cognitive dissonance to paper over with one word.
There are great similarities between Pullman's line of attack on the Church and many on-line critic's attack on the Legion of Christ: both take exceptions and blow them into generalities and both take shreads of fact and twist them into "all there is".
But if you aren't Catholic, and don't know what the Papal Magisterium has done, taught, and lived, it might be easy to just assume "it's all about evil control of minds, bodies and spirit" and not about faith, hope, and love.
Likewise, or even more so, since 99.999% of all Catholics have no personal experience with the young up and coming religious congregation called the Legion of Christ, it's easy for critics to get out there with horrible tales long on lurid details but short on anything provable like time, place, date, eyewitnesses still alive and obviously neutral.
Easy to create a myth out of whole cloth when people have no experience of a person or group...harder to pass this off on those who do know what the target is.
There's not always fire when there's smoke and both love and hate does not need to be provoked by someone or something: both are acts of the will and thus God didn't have to love his creatures into existence and the Devil didn't have to hate his creator.
So too, sometimes good men and good organizations are hated for no good reason. Or not enough reason as we're all - including the critics among us - prone to make mistakes or even sin.
"I have not seen the movie, nor have I read the books."
Neither have I. Consequently, I would never consider being arrogant enough to lecture the USCCB for a review written by someone who has.
I was waiting for the myth of personal experience to be trotted out.
Okay: several good friends whom I trust have read the book, I've heard several advance reports of the movie. I don't criticize things in the movie per se, nor do I criticize specific things in the book itself.
If anything, those gaps, when fulfilled in, even more support my criticisms. If you read through the many other posts I've written on this topic you can find my links to others who have read the books and find even more offensive material in them than I mention.
Please do the comparable legwork before claiming I'm doing something unfair.
No need for ad hominem attacks, Jeffrey. And I really don't think it's about being arrogant or not. I have considered reading the books myself just so I can speak with more authority in denouncing them - especially since I found myself with free copies (lucky me!) - but I ask myself: Is it really worth it to open my mind to writing that in every way appears to promote evil? I'm an adult with a strong faith, so I'm not worried about it drawing me toward evil, but I prefer to safeguard myself from those things as much as possible. I've read a lot of direct quotes from, and plot summaries of, the books, and it seems quite obvious how bad they are. I'm assuming these quotes and summaries that I've read numerous places are accurate, since I haven't heard any defenders of the books contradict them. And if you don't believe these reports, believe the author himself, who is an avowed atheist and a self-proclaimed opponent of God and religion. I think the sticking your hand in the fire metaphor someone used earlier is quite appropriate.
How can the reviewers (under the collective mantle of the bishops) approve this movie and Brokeback Mountain and yet call Nacho Libre "Morally Offensive"? Straining at gnats and swallowing camels!
Jeffrey - "Consequently, I would never consider being arrogant enough to lecture the USCCB for a review written by someone who has."
1. Arrogant is a pretty strong word.
2. Thomas is commenting on a review by a reviewer, not a Bishop, not Catholic teaching (he's a hired hand, okay? And like other "hired help," always take what a layperson says with a grain of salt. Judgement is your responsibility.
3. Said Forbes (the reviewer) on his Brokeback review, ""Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible," says the article. "The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic."
Said Behr, a Christian reviewer about the same movie: "(It uses) "about 58 obscenities (including ,many "f" words), 15 strong profanities, one light profanity, and references to urinating; two extreme scenes of bloody violence include shot of castrated man and man's head is beaten bloody until he is dead, and scenes of violence where men fight and wrestle in a rough way, and homosexual sodomy scene plays almost like a homosexual rape; very strong sexual content includes depicted homosexual and heterosexual sodomy (with a hint of sadomasochism during one or more homosexual scenes), depicted homosexual kissing and groping, depicted intercourse between married couple, and implied intercourse and almost intercourse with women who are shown topless; upper female nudity in several scenes, full male nudity in bathing scene, rare male nudity, and upper male nudity; alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking; and, lying, men cheat on wives, sexual "repression" is seen as evil, family arguments, divorce, and negative portrayal of heterosexual fathers."
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005...c/
05121607.html
I'm sorry...who's "arrogant?" Who's gone with the wind at the sound of his own lyrical critiques??
Is the reviewer even Catholic?? There've been Music Directors in my parish that weren't Catholic. Maybe the guy reviews b/c he took a couple of film classes at his local college. Maybe he writes for his local paper. Who knows???)
Warrior -- "think the USCCB has just lost their credibility to teach."
1. The review isn't Church teaching.
2. There are varied "levels" of Catholics on the payroll. Bad advice happens... which is why it makes sense to congregate and discuss knowledge about pop culture so we're stuck contributing our buck-fifty to the devil. The guy's a layman, same as us.
3. If we're that outraged, we should demand the guy's job and offer our own skills, not knock the Bishops and say they're no longer credible. Help them. Pray for them.
While bishops exercise authority in their dioceses, the USCCB is kind of an administrative support to them. In itself it's not really a teaching authority, and folks shouldn't consider it thus.
I learned about Pullman a few years ago, when the BBC was doing its "Big Read." All the pundits who were gathered for the night of the unveiling of the "best book ever" compared "His Dark Materials" with "Lion, Witch, Wardrobe."
What I found to be most offensive (and such obviously politically-correct bias) was that the pundits said how much they enjoyed Narnia as children, but were offended when they reread it later in life. They were put off by Lewis creating a Christian allegory. (Dread! Horrors!) Contrast that with the praise they heaped upon Pullman for being bold, telling the truth, breaking down the authoritarian chains that bind us, etc. Pullman has those PC lemmings eating out of his hand!
Having said that, perhaps the best course of action would have been to ignore the whole thing. There's no such thing as bad press and I regret any attention Christians have thrown Pullman's way. I've read that atheists aren't going to be happy with the watered-down version of the movie, so it could be a dud, just as DaVinci was.
Christianity Today's website have a good article entitled Fear Not the Compass, which puts things into perspective.
http://
www.christianitytoday.com...thecompass.html
To quote:
"Pullman has painted a picture of the church—represented by "The Magisterium" in his stories—that basically reflects only those ways in which the church has abused power. And he has used that selective reflection as an excuse to write off Christianity as a whole. That's sort of like condemning the entire produce section in a grocery store because a few of the apples were bad. (And "Magisterium" is not something Pullman just made up. It's a very real word referring to the church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. So he's not trying to cloak his intentions here.)
"It's interesting to note that Pullman's dismissal of Christianity skips over one little detail: Jesus. Pullman's story never makes any attempt to explore or refute the claims and ministry and person of Christ. He has, in effect, set up a "straw God" rather than a "straw man," and his fans are congratulating him for knocking down Pullman's flawed perception of God rather than the God of Christianity. He's not really undermining Christian belief as he thinks he is; he is undermining the abuse of authority, something altogether contrary to the gospel."
What the heck is up with the USCCB? I have posted your article on my blog and added your blog to my list of favorites. God bless, and keep on speaking the Truth!
PAX,
susie
"Pullman is perhaps drawing parallels to the Catholic Church's restrictive stance towards the early alchemists and, later, Galileo."
Ah, yes, the persecution of the alchemists. I didn't know St. Albertus Magnus was tortured by the Inquisition...
Good grief, it amazes me how little folks know about the history of their own Church. The Galileo thing was a huge mess, but it was an exception to a remarkable wealth of scientific support in the 16th and 17th centuries among the Jesuits.
It is instructive to recall one Pope who dabbled in ordinary science (and whose name escapes me) has passed into legend as a diabolical magician--not because of opposition within the Church but because superstitious folk *outside the hierarchy* couldn't tell the difference!
Most scientists who did get the short end of the stick in Church history also held problematic theological views or dabbled in the occult, as with Giordano Bruno. (Galileo, of course, was an orthodox Catholic, but unfortunately got caught in a very complex wave that was partially his fault and that of the Holy Office at a justifiably very paranoid time.)
An attack against the movie because Ian McKellen is voicing a character... and then praise for Lord of the Rings and for Gandalf as an archetype of good.
Professed concern for the moral development of Catholic youth... and then a recommendation to "nip them in the bud" rather than explore and address them.
A comment about a "large movement to boycott the film" and then just two sentences later, an exhortation to "refuse to be marginalized from these public debates". Which is it, a groundswell of support or a marginalized group?
This post is barely coherent when you read it closely; it just comes across as the shrill cry of someone who thinks their professed faith is so weak that it can't stand up to an actual philosophical challenge. Pullman's book—if you actually *read* it—stands as an icy criticism of corrupt secular power; a corruption that our Church has, in the past, fought with and of which it is now largely free. Sure, Pullman is an atheist and sees his own work as an indictment of all religion, but the work can stand on its own. Those of us who have faith in God, and know the modern Church, can have confidence that any valid criticisms will stick but the many false ones will roll off like rain down a gutter.
As with *any movie at all*, parents should watch it with their kids and discuss any confusing or "thorny" spots afterward. But we cannot proceed as an enlightened society with the notion that some ideas are too dangerous even to hear.
Blahedo,
You've missed the point. If it was just the book alone, we'd ignore it completely. I have until this movie. I am frankly very sure my faith is okay with this book being around, and could even stand seeing the movie or reading the book. The problem is this movie and the book is getting promoted to kids as another Lord of the Rings or Narnia which it isn't. It is also the fact that USCCB is reviewing it as a movie to see by kids as well. This book is also getting promoted into schools with lesson plans, written by the publisher and one of the movie backers. Hence the outrage. As parents we have the right to choose to NOT have our children exposed to "thorny" issues that may be corrosive to our children's faith.
Unfortunately, it is very likely, based on past experience with schools lately, that as parents we will get blindsided by the schools since now a days schools feel they have the right to even give contraceptions to our children with out telling us, much less teach questionable "thorny" issues like this book brings up. Save the canard about an "enlighten society" as that's just doesn't apply to this topic. There are topics that have no business being presented to children, and parents have every right to not present them especially if the parents deem them harmful.
I acknowledge you have a *right* to try to keep your teenagers from seeing this. I'm saying you *shouldn't*.
I *shouldn't*? Nope, afraid I'll have to disagree with that. You're obviously very young and don't have any children of your own. Otherwise, you'd understand the disconnect with your position, the Church's teaching on truth, and what is appropriate for children. Of course looking over your blog, it's clear you don't agree with much of what the Church teaches. I guess I'm not surprised at that. Otherwise you'd understand God is truth, and unchanging truth at that.
Ok, you keep saying "children" and I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing. The USCCB review said the movie was appropriate for "adults and adolescents"—i.e. teenagers. If you're just saying that, say, a 6-year-old can't handle the distinction between fiction and reality, then ok. I was under the impression we're talking about 14-year-old and 16-year-old angsty adolescents here—ready to, with supervision, start tangling with the "thorny philosophical questions". Questions they're likely starting to come up with on their own, and questions they're absolutely certain to be presented with in another few years when they go to college. How much better to use this book as an opportunity to engage in the formation of their conscience, talking about the idea of a "straw man", and that Philip Pullman is able to expose his "Magisterium" as evil because he himself constructed it to be easy to knock down?
Of course, you have the right to forbid your teenage children from reading this book or watching this movie. Assuming they obey you, that just means that in a few years they'll be turned loose to be reading books and movies without your guidance. Whether they obey you for now or not, they'll not be discussing their thoughts about this book with you in any case. That's *not* the Church teaching on truth. I agree with the Church on more than you think.
Blahedo,
I happen to have 4 children...21, 20 and 14 and 1. With the three older ones there were certain topics I did not discuss with them until they were in high school or until they brought it up, I felt they were ready, or I had it dumped on me by some Teacher who decided THEY would decide what was appropriate. There are 13 and 14year olds, heck there are adults (ie wiccans and witches), who cannot distinguish from fantasy and reality.
The long and the short of it is, my "job" as a parent is to give the grounding so they can face those "thorny" topics even if I'm not with them. In the first three I've been successful--all three are level headed and they still discuss many topics with me. The fourth I will do the same as I have with my other kids.
Don't assume that just because I find it reprehensible that the USCCB views favorably morally questionalble films that I don't discuss thorny issues with my kids. I just want to do it on my terms and with out supporting financially those who promote them.
Jeffrey Smith writes:
Neither have I. Consequently, I would never consider being arrogant enough to lecture the USCCB for a review written by someone who has.
AmP writes:
Okay: several good friends whom I trust have read the book, I've heard several advance reports of the movie. I don't criticize things in the movie per se, nor do I criticize specific things in the book itself.
and
Please do the comparable legwork before claiming I'm doing something unfair.
Jeffrey, your criticism is spot on, and it addresses an increasing trend of many Catholic bloggers: the raising of mediocre opinion and commonplace thinking to the level of responsible commentary. Pope Benedict XVI took note of this sort of folly in his book, Turning Point for Europe? where he notes that there is an increasing predilection among Westerners to live their lives on a derivative level through journalism and commentary from the ambit of the similar (a truly Kierkegaardian move, I must note!). Thomas accuses you of not having done the "legwork," yet his entire post (title included) is a circus display of an ill-informed blogger who indeed has not himself done the proper and noble "legwork" yet nevertheless criticizes the USCCB who has done the "legwork." A paradox! Thomas' post is written entirely second-hand (perhaps third-hand?), yet he audaciously posits his derivative take as a responsible and measured response. And then, of course, when one objects to such a misdeed, Thomas suggests that it is not he who has the problem! Ah, the hubris of the masses.
I've read all three of the Pullman books. I read them partly because I adore children's fantasy literature (Narnia, Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl and the Barimaeous Trilogy are all huge favorites of mine) and partly because my husband mentioned that he'd heard Pullman's trilogy had a Miltonic flavor. He wanted me (A.B.D. in a doctoral degree in English literature) to explain the Miltonic connection.
I raced through the trilogy very quickly and was horrified.
I have no intention of encouraging my children (who are 10 and 12) to read Pullman's trilogy or see the movie adaptation.
I'm not Catholic, so I didn't view Pullman's point of view as anti-Catholic so much as I saw it as anti-Judeo-Christian. The anti-organized-religion aspect of the books crescendos through the three books--it's not that apparent in the first one. By the end, however, Pullman portrays the Fall of Man as a good thing, and the Ancient of Days is not an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God, but as a battered, feeble, pathetic old creature.
These books are a devastating critique of organized religion, and are the closest I've ever come to viewing children's literature as poisonous.
My doctoral dissertation is about the intertextual relationship between books and film adaptations. I've done a lot of research on film reviews of adaptations. I think it's pretty safe to say that the reviewers in question have not read His Dark Materials, and if they have, have not read the entire trilogy. They probably have no idea what they're recommending. I'm sure the film producers are assuming the entire trilogy will be filmed, a la Harry Potter. I can't imagine the ruckus if the film represents Pullman's third novel accurately.
And now everyone can go back to abusing TP.
Why does every catholic expect all others to be catholic? It is a fantasy movie! Isn't there a real problem with humanity that you can work on?
Religion is a belief which you are able to choose between any religions. To impose your faith upon others based on Bible which is just book is wrong. I have always believed faith is something that you choose to believe in. Atheism is belief and so is any other religion. Every religion has a religious book that they have read which written by a man or a woman. The movie and the book are written by a man. It is up to each watcher and reader to make up their own minds about what they like better. Kids and adults over the age 13 can make their own decisions. Remember these are all books written by men or women.
I have always believed faith is something that you choose to believe in.
Heh. Heh. That's your belief, pal. Don't impose it on me. ;)
CS,
the pundits said how much they enjoyed Narnia as children, but were offended when they reread it later in life. They were put off by Lewis creating a Christian allegory.
No, most who are offended by Lewis's works cite his moral lapses rather than the structure or source of the story. (I, for one, am put off by the poor quality of the writing and the threadbare characterization.)
I am always amazed how people view the God they consider almighty. On one hand, His power is never ending...BUT, on the other hand, He is viewed as a cow we can sneak up to and tip with a simple movie.
AngllHugnU2
Author of IM with God
I am always amazed how people take reasonable critics of anti-religious films and assume the critics must somehow be worried about God, instead of the people influenced by such films.
That is precisely the point, Dr. Peters. Those who would assail what AmP is doing don't even understand the target audience he is seeking to protect nor why it is important to protect and/or educate them. The word we are looking for to describe what Pullman's works are attempting is "insidious". They're just books and just movies, you're in no danger. Such it is with poison - taken in a small dose most poisons are harmless; those same small doses taken repeatedly over a period of time will kill the taker. What we're talking about here is far worse than hemlock for it is a spiritual death we fight, not just a physical one.
As Christians we simply do not have a choice whether we speak against these works - it is our duty. That some cannot or will not see that is not a fault in the command.
Not to sound entirely condescending, but I think we might be giving kids too much credit here. Heck, I was raised on Tolkien and Lewis (Walter Hooper is my brother's godfather!), and the Christian symbolism didn't really occur to me until I was about 12 or 13, and this was after I'd sat through numerous academic lectures on the two works. The Narnia series inspired me to check every oaken closet in every home in search of a wintry lamp post-not to ponder the dogmas of the Christian faith present within Aslan. As far as younger kids go, I do not believe that they will see this film as theologically incendiary unless mom and dad exhort it into being such.
There is, however, a potential issue within slightly older audiences-shall we say from the ages of 11 and up? This audience might catch on to the underlying message (if it is that present), but even then I slate that to some degree of unlikelihood. "The Amber Spyglass" came out when I was about 12/the age of the target audience, and I recall most of my friends reading it. They were more fascinated by the story (and the fact that the main characters kiss! Gross!) than by the philosophical slurs. And, upon their current reflection, many of my friends say that they feel the book to have more of a "question authority" message to it, rather than a "pipe-bomb St. Peter's Basilica" one.
These books (and maybe these movies) are part of the youth popular culture, and I think parents should let their kids watch it. You, as Catholics, have a duty to somewhat adhere to the times, and if this becomes as big as it's slated to be, then there's no distracting your children from it. Talk to your kids about it, tell them what you want them to understand about it, and let them partake in some cinematic fun. They will probably be more interested in the polar bear fights than anything else, I reckon. If your children end up worshipping Satan after they see this film, then it is more of a commentary on your parenting abilities than the power of one film.
The attacks on this film remind me of post-Columbine months, when several right-wing speakers and parents blamed Marilyn Manson for the shootings (the boys were reportedly fans of his). Marilyn Manson did not ambush that school-apathy and a disrespect of gun control did. It’s easy to blame society for our short-comings.
A note to Thom-this entry kinda bummed me out, man! One, you didn't read the books, which really does put you at a huge disadvantage for any good credibility, and you know better than that. Two, you take the USCCB list seriously, and even take the time to point the flaws in its logic. (Shooting fish in a barrel?) Whether or not I agree with your argument becomes void because your whole argument is based on something fallacious and misrepresentative of Catholicism, anyhow. We're talking about the same list that gave "A Clockwork Orange" an O/AIV, even though the graphic nature of the film is integral to its incre
-dibly Catholic message. And the same list that, at one time, gave "The Parent Trap" an AIII for "unfunny pranks" and "amateur ear piercing"! Maybe I'm inventing things, but I seem to recall complaining to you about the list during your Ave days, and you sympathizing with me regarding its horrible inaccuracy.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
