By Selwyn Duke
This weekend I saw Angels & Demons, the controversial film directed by Ron Howard and based on Dan Brown’s book by the same name. The movie is a sequel to the equally controversial The Da Vinci Code, also directed by Howard and written by Brown.
The film is as fanciful as it is controversial. As it begins, we learn that the pope has just died, and a Conclave — an assembly of cardinals who will elect a new pope — is soon to commence in Vatican City. Unbeknownst to the crowds and media gathered in St. Peter’s Square, however, a great evil lurks among them. The four preferiti, the cardinals most likely to assume the papacy, have been abducted by the shadowy Illuminati and are to be systematically murdered, one every hour starting at 8 p.m. Even more ominously, the conspirators have also stolen a canister of antimatter from the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, and have hidden it in Vatican City along with the preferiti. And, once the mechanical canister’s battery runs down — which is expected to occur at 12 midnight — the antimatter will cease being held in suspension, come into contact with matter, and detonate, creating a five-megaton blast that will destroy the holy city. The clock is ticking.
Read the rest here.
The sad part is I used to love Ron as a kid. This loser would never dare make an anti islamic movie, but he has no problem bashing Catholcis. He makes me sick.
Posted by: jack | May 18, 2009 at 08:28 PM
Selwyn?
Why on earth did you pay money to see such rot? Perhaps you viewed it free of charge, but then I ask, "Why dignify it (well, sort of) by wasting your breath (rather, typing fingers) on it?"
When are we all going to wake up and finger the anti-Christ Marxist rats that are diseasing our society? When are we going to call them what they are?
All big media and Hollywood work ceaselessly to deceive you and to lie to you. Kill your television. Unsubscribe to your newspapers and magazines. Forego the movies and videos. Our appetite for entertainment is why we have the corrupt government that we deserve!!!!!
I will repeat that many of the wealthiest Americans (entertainers and athletes) produce NOTHING of material, let lone moral value.
Wake up, America! Our ship has not yet sunk, but all hands on deck.
Posted by: Philip France | May 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
My guess is that Selwyn was asked to see the movie by his editor.
Posted by: desans | May 19, 2009 at 07:35 AM
Opie's motivation behind this film is two fold; greed and defamation. Perhaps the Catholic Church should adopt a "corporate" mentality in this matter and take Opie to court; there certainly will be monetary damages.
What if Opie made a movie about the Toyota Corporation and implied that while making the battery pack for the Prius they discovered, a rare compound found only in the root of an endangered rain forest tree root, would extend the life of the battery ten fold. To acquire the compound, a secret team of “enviro-raiders,” ravaged the eco system of the Bolivian rain forest and even killed puppies. Such a plot is nonsense but with Tom Hanks or Matt Damon at the lead surely there would be some crazy believers just as there are in the Catholic defamation of The Da Vinci code and Angels and Demons. Would Toyota sue? How close is this to yelling “FIRE in a crowded theater?” I demand Opie give all of the earnings from this movie and the Da Vinci code to the Catholic Church; I’ll boycott Happy Days reruns and whoever airs them. Heck maybe with such a threat Potsy or Ralf Malf will put the heavy on Richie; the residuals have got to be important to those guys.
Posted by: Walt | May 19, 2009 at 01:13 PM
I always thought it was Ralph the Mouth.
Posted by: sanders | May 19, 2009 at 08:38 PM
Maybe the Catholic Church has decided to meditate on 1 Corinthians 5.12. Clearly they should have been focusing on removing the corrupt and immoral priests over recent years instead of caring about what Hollywood has to say.
If the church decides to follow the example set out before us I don't think there is a need to worry about whatever lies or mistruths are presented. The truth is more appealing and if we focus on the lies we are not spreading the Good News anyways. We should just be who we are created to be.
Also, if you're Catholic you should not really care. After all, the Vatican newspaper gave it a decent review. The following is taken from telegraph.co.uk (also, I've read the full review from L'Osservatore Ramono):
However, in its first pronouncement on the film, Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano described Angels and Demons as "harmless entertainment which hardly affects the genius and mystery of Christianity".
While the "gigantic and smart commercial operation" is filled with inaccuracies and stereotyped characters, the camera work is "splendid", Howard's direction "dynamic and alluring" and the reconstruction of St Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel is "magnificent".
Posted by: Brian C | May 19, 2009 at 09:44 PM
Brian C.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste. I've been around for long, long years; stole many-a-man's soul and faith. I was 'round when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain. Made damn-sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate.
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.
Posted by: Philip France | May 19, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Why don't you just say what you really want to.
Posted by: Brian C | May 19, 2009 at 11:46 PM
He is saying that even Mick Jagger Know more than you
Posted by: sam | May 20, 2009 at 07:35 AM
Oh, is that what he is saying? That's entirely possible. Mick Jagger might know more than all of us on these boards. He's actually a fairly intelligent fellow. I'm not offended if this is the case. Although I doubt anyone here has enough clairvoyance to weigh one's intelligence based on one post compared to a knighted rock star that they probably do not know. However, it may be easier for someone to judge your intelligence based on your post.
At any rate, I do not think this is what Philip France was actually suggesting. I find it to be an interesting reference and would like an explanation of it if Philip is willing. If not, I won't lose any sleep over it.
Posted by: Brian C | May 20, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Dear Brian C.
In my previous reply to you, I was re-emphasing my original point: That Western society is being deceived. I did so by envoking the prescient lyrics of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in their song, "Sympathy for Devil".
I rail against big media and much of the entertainment industry as being useful idiots of Satan and too many of "We the People" follow, as lambs before the slaughter.
I agree with you that we should be speaking of the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and not of mundane and/or temporal ideologies. However, I take exception to your castigation of "corrupt and immoral priests", as though they are representative of the entire Roman Catholic clergy. You may not have meant it this way, but this was a vicious smear. The Roman Catholic Church is a bastion for the reduction of suffering in this world and for the witness of the "Good News" of which you speak. I admonish you to consider Philippians 1:16-18.
I am not a Roman Catholic. While I understand that reprehensible and unforgivable(by human standards) abuses took place, much of the so-called priest abuse scandal and controversy was blown out of any sense of of proportion by the anti-Christ and Marxist media and by evil lawyers who saw a wounded foe and pounced on its weakness like jackals tearing at a wounded buffalo.
I believe that our thoughts are much more alike than they are different based on your postings at this site. I wish you godspeed and the blessings of God's grace and I hope to hear more from you in the future.
Posted by: Philip France | May 20, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I can't remember ever hearing about a priest abusing a little girl. 99% of these pedo cases involve Homo's. So the problem is the homo priests. Homo's are not allowed to be priests so the problem is homo's who a sneaking into the priesthood.
the public doesn't seem to grasp this.
PS I grew up in NY and I have known hundrends of homos and every single one of them was attracted to children. It is is as simple as that. Homo = Pedo
Posted by: mike | May 21, 2009 at 07:37 AM
Thank you for a congenial response Philip.
I understood where the reference was from but it is hard to interpret someone's intentions whom you do not know. I also have problems with big media and whatnot.
I am not a Catholic either. I am fairly ecumenical with my approach to my faith and appreciate different branches of Christianity For instance, some Evangelicals and Protestants think that anyone in the Catholic church is not a Christian and vice versa. I do not think this is true and I agree with you in regards to all the great work that Catholics have been a part of over the years.
Perhaps I am too emotional with the Catholic church child abuse issue because I know someone who is receiving a settlement from the Catholic Church (he's actually donating it all back to his church) for abuse that he suffered under a Priest who was simply transfered when church authorities heard of his abuses on children. Surely, you and I agree that this was a horrible failure on their part to protect their most vulnerable. There have also been more publicized law suits arriving from such neglect and I am sure you remember hearing about them. At any rate, the reason that many law suits have been successful is that there is evidence in many instances that the church decided to cover up numerous abuses by their clergy.
My problem with their handling of the abuse cases was that it seems so slow and that they would rather simply sweep it under the rug (I realize this may be a somewhat subjective interpretation because I am not privy to the inner dealings of the Catholic church). However, due to the numerous reports of abuse cases and actual settlements it is fair to say that numerous tragedies occurred and through my personal relationship with someone that was abused I feel the response has been slow and has even had elements of deceit.
When I contrast the response of the Catholic church to child abuse and their response to the Da Vinci Code I am quite bothered. The response to the Da Vinci Code was incredibly swift and absolute. It rallied man people in a short period of time. Where was this outrage over the abuse cases? The Da Vinci code was extremely outlandish and it deserved a response from the church. I feel, however, that the response was a little over the top (especially considering other problems in the world and within the church).
This may be a better response for them. It does not give the movie as much free publicity like was done over The Last Temptation of Christ (I don't think that movie would have been seen by half the people it would of if not for the protests).
Posted by: Brian C | May 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Dear Brian C.
I am pleased to know more of you and of your views. I thank you in advance for your patience in allowing me to challenge your views.
First, I wish to make clear that any abuses of children are the most despicable and reprehensible crimes that can be committted. Perpetrators of such crimes deserve the penalty of death, in my opinion.
I also have no intention of mitigating the guilt of those who have perpetrated crimes of such horror, but please hear me out.
Many, if not most of these alleged abuses are being tried in cases in which the allegations are decades-old. I attended a Roman Catholic high school in which corporal punishment was not abnormal and, generally speaking, had the support of the majority of parents. Such embarassment and humiliation could logically lead to the place where the subjects of such humliation might seek vengeance through the liberal courts of modern times and result in a lucrative "reward". The potential for such rewards might pursuade someone to alter their memory from a humiliating spanking to their interpretation of such humiliation as sexual abuse, regardless of the facts. With a rabid, anti-Christ press piling on, how is this defensible?
The relocation of abusive priests is reprehensible and utterly disgraceful, but what if the accused has demonstrated a record of overwhelming support from the rest of his clergy over decades and stands in opposition of a single accusor? Does not the Diocese have an obligation to weigh the allegations of the accuser against the record of the accused?
You seem to me to be a thoughtful and intelligent man. As such, you know that the mainstream media is thoroughly, if not throughly anti-Christ. Once again emphasizing that my belief that the abuse of children is worthy of death; does it not give place to a thorough understanding of the facts prior to rendering a verdict? We cannot rely on a rabid, anti-Christ presentation of "facts" to render such a verdict. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Philip France | May 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Hi again Philip,
Your argument is quite sound and I agree that it is hard to know what news is trustworthy these days. I agree with you that a lot of sexual abuse claims may not be valid but the sheer volume of settlements seen in Ireland, Canada, the US and so on are too shocking to ignore.
However, the Catholic Church is no longer denying these claims. In fact, a new report came out today about the abuse of children in Ireland. There are a whole bunch of different stories that you can find on that that came out today.
Even Pope John Paul II said this in Australia last year: "Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country. I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that, as their pastor, I too share in their suffering." I think Pope John Paul II was a good man with a kind heart and I believe he grieved heavily over this.
To answer your question: No, we cannot rely on the mainstream media to give us a fair account of matters relating to the church. However, I have heard too many apologies from the Pope and the Catholic church for the sexual abuse of children that I find it justifiable in believing this was a fairly widespread problem. My personal conversations with other people who are closer to the issue than myself (my aforementioned friend and a college friend of mine who is in the priesthood) have also influenced my opinion that this happened on a fairly large scale. I'm not simply basing my thoughts on the media but on what I have heard from Christian sources and the Catholic church itself.
It seems like our main disagreements may be the extent of the sexual abuse in the Catholic church and how the Church should respond to farcical and heretical movies. At any rate, I've enjoyed the thought-provoking discussion.
Posted by: Brian C | May 22, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Fair enough, Brian C.
However, data that I have seen demonstrates that incidents of child abuse within the Roman Catholic clery is less than it is within the population at large.
In advance, I will concede your point that pastors generally possess a unique position of trust among the vulnerable and these percentages should be far less than the general population but I trust that you will acknowledge that the radical Left took deliberate aim at religious institutions and "planted" individuals for the purpose of disparaging their good name and reputation in order to promote their heinous cause.
Please permit me to be even more profound:
The devil, Satan by name, was once Lucifer, the angel of light and one of just three of God's archangels. As the erstwhile angel of light, Satan understands the power of light in influencing images. These images we perceive through only one of our five senses but it is perhaps the most powerful. This explains why a free society elected a totally unqualified imposter and crypto-Marxist to its highest office. I implore you to read Matthew 2:8 and beseech you to focus on the word "sheweth" to emphasize my point.
Fair enough?
Posted by: Philip France | May 22, 2009 at 10:35 PM