Catholic bishops give thumbs-up to ‘Golden Compass’

[He_Man]

Guys, the bishops didn’t review this movie. Some secular consultant to the USCCB did. Their reviews are generally NOT proofread and voted on or critiqued by the bishops beforehand. Saying the bishops approve the movie is just plain wrong. At worst, they merely made a poor choice to be their reviewer.

Any review of this movie ought to include an analysis of the author’s purpose in writing it. To ignore the motive behind the creation of the story is to deny the genuine meaning of the art form of cinema. Art isn’t primarily about beauty, it is about making a point through beauty. If you argue that the point made by the art is irrelevant, you only reveal your own ignorance of art.

Their name is attached. The buck stops with them.

I realize not all the Bishops have screened this movie. But they shouldn’t allow whoever these clowns are that did to represent them.

I had to explain to one of my closest friends who loves the series why I wouldn’t be seeing it.

it was even harder to do when he pointed out that it was endorsed by the USCCB. Hard to explain that as a Catholic to a non-Catholic.

Thanks a lot, guys. Nice job.

 

[Contarini]

I could make a pornographic movie in the genre of Lord of the Rings, but what would that prove?

Since evrery major Christian/Catholic outlet has ripped the movie and the books, and the Bishops said it was “well-acted”, we can only assume one of two things.

1. the Bishops are right, and EVERYONE else is wrong and hysterical for no reason.
2. The Bishops are wrong (and they have been before), and the majority who oppose the books and movie are correct.

Or

1. A movie can be well-acted and still anti-Christian.

Why would you not consider this obvious possibility?

The reviewer (not, as you claim, the bishops themselves, who as far as I know don’t generally review movies in person) thinks that the movie has taken out most of the anti-Christian/anti-Catholic content. You can agree or disagree, and you can if you like agree with the Catholic League that this watering down actually makes the movies more dangerous. But to criticize the review for saying that the movie is “well-acted” is really quite odd.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

At the very least, the movie’s “villain” is the “Magisterium” - which is about the most thinly veiled reference to the Catholic Church there could be.

Actually it’s a hybrid of Catholicism and Calvinism–“Magisterium” has Reformational as well as Catholic associations, though of course the Catholic ones stand out to you.

The film’s main character, from what I have read, is a deceitful girl who tries to murder her own mother - her mother, apparently, having tat least once in the film to saved her daughter’s life.

There are certain kinds of criticisms one can conceivably make of a book/movie without having read/seen it (for instance, if I am told that certain horror movies involve dismemberment, torture, rape, etc., I can conclude that they are bad without seeing them), but one can’t possibly engage in character analysis like this on the basis of “what I have read” (if what you have read is not the book itself). You are discrediting yourself by this kind of statement.

Edwin

 

[Arnobius]

I think you underestimate the value of witnesses

I recall when The Last Temptation of Christ came out, the bishops were very detailed as to the content of the movie and why it was rejected. When I saw it myself, I saw their depiction was reported accurately.

Steeltemplar does not “discredit” himself by doing this.

 

[He_Man]

Or

1. A movie can be well-acted and still anti-Christian.

Why would you not consider this obvious possibility?

The reviewer (not, as you claim, the bishops themselves, who as far as I know don’t generally review movies in person) thinks that the movie has taken out most of the anti-Christian/anti-Catholic content. You can agree or disagree, and you can if you like agree with the Catholic League that this watering down actually makes the movies more dangerous. But to criticize the review for saying that the movie is “well-acted” is really quite odd.

Edwin

The fact that these geniuses can’t see that (and this was admitted by Pullman) that he treaded lightly in the first movie to suck kids in. Believe me, if you are familiar with the books (which we all should be in a fair debate on the topic), the last two are much, much worse.

Saying this movie is well acted is like saying an adult film star is attractive. Like that matters for squat.

If you want to help fund an avowed anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-God, anti-religion, child’s mind-molesting writer, by all means; that’s between you and God to discuss.

Since I have to stand face to face with Him one day though, I’d rather not have to explain why I sidled up to a man who at best didn’t believe in Him and tried to get others to disbelieve, or at worse, hated Him.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Actually it’s a hybrid of Catholicism and Calvinism–“Magisterium” has Reformational as well as Catholic associations, though of course the Catholic ones stand out to you.

If you research the book series, it is clear the author meant to attack the Catholic Church.

Regardless, it remains anti-Christian however you want to look at it.

There are certain kinds of criticisms one can conceivably make of a book/movie without having read/seen it (for instance, if I am told that certain horror movies involve dismemberment, torture, rape, etc., I can conclude that they are bad without seeing them), but one can’t possibly engage in character analysis like this on the basis of “what I have read” (if what you have read is not the book itself). You are discrediting yourself by this kind of statement.

Edwin

I am sorry, but it does not follow logically that I discredit myself at all. Everything that was stated was fact:

1. The girl who is the movie’s protagonist lies a great deal. (She is deceitful)
2. The girl tries to murder her mother.
3. The girl’s mother saved her life at one point.

All true.

It is a fallacy to say that one needs to necessarily read or watch something in order to know basic aspects of it. Someone who has not read *Moby ***** could still tell you that it is about a man obsessed with hunting a white whale. Someone who has not watched Star Wars could tell you that it concerned a young man who inherits mystical abilities and an energy blade who goes with an old Jedi master, a rough but good-hearted smuggler, a giant furry alien, and two droids to rescue a princess. I could go on. But you get the point, I am sure.

 

[goofyjim]

So I won’t go see it. But to suggest, as someone did, that if you go view the film you are not loyal to God’s Church is nonsense. It is still just a film and has a right to be shown. Everyone has some hidden agenda in today’s media and to censor one means we would have to censor all. Let the film be shown and let the viewer make their decision.

As for The Last Temptation of Christ I really saw nothing offensive in that film nor do I expect to if I decide to purchase Brokeback Mountain.

 

[Joe_5859]

Rather than going off what the Kansas City Star says that the USCCB says about the movie, I think we would all do well to actually read the USCCB review for ourselves.

The secular news wants to be provacative and attention-grabbing (thus inaccurate headlines such as “Catholic Bishops give thumbs-up to ‘Golden Compass’”). First, it’s the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting doing the review, not the bishops themselves. Second, I’d hardly call the review a “thumbs-up” or “a rave” as the article suggests.

Yes, the review begins with the words “Lavish, well-acted”, but if you read the full review, you see that they address many of the issues people have raised.

They let people know that the movie is a watered-down version of the book. They let people know that the director has promised not to water down the sequels. They encourage parents to discuss the problematic aspects with their teens (i.e., not pre-teens or young children) IF they let them read the books.

I don’t know what people expect besides a call for a boycott, which would be beyond the bounds of their authority to call for.

 

[Contarini]

If you want to help fund an avowed anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-God, anti-religion, child’s mind-molesting writer, by all means; that’s between you and God to discuss.

Since I have to stand face to face with Him one day though, I’d rather not have to explain why I sidled up to a man who at best didn’t believe in Him and tried to get others to disbelieve, or at worse, hated Him.

I’ve been pulling my punches too much. Or rather, I shouldn’t be wasting all our time with this discussion at all. We have radically different ideas about God–indeed about everything.

This will be my last word on this subject on this forum. Perhaps my last word on this forum altogether:

Beauty, truth, and goodness are all that matter. They are the only way we know God. If there are those qualities in Pullman–and there are, along with a lot of propagandistic, prejudiced silliness and some untrammeled worship of the individual human will–then those qualities come from God. If you reject goodness or truth or beauty, you are rejecting God. Period.

Edwin

 

[AndrewLong]

The American Bishops also approved Brokeback Mountain until everyone started complaining.

The Golden Compass is blatantly anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-theist in general, directed at children. The author himself says that his books were written to push atheism and, though toned down from the books, the movie does the same.

/sigh

It’s unfortunate, and I don’t get it. People, such as the author of The Golden Compass, just use their amazing talent and skills (filmmaking, writing) to push their personal beliefs and agendas.

I’m usually okay with any movie, no matter what it is, until the writer/author/producer says he actually believes the nonsense he’s puttin’ out.

It’s why I love Star Wars more than any other movie – I am a Star Wars NUT – George Lucas has said before that it’s all made up, and they are no messages he’s trying to push on people, except personal growth and overcoming evil (I mean, aside the whole virgin birth thing…those are the new ones and they don’t count ). He made Star Wars because he loves space and heroes and most of all – making movies!

And yannow, that’s cool!

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m not sure this will be a popular thought on here, but bear with me. I think it could be why the Bishops are giving it a thumbs up. I wonder if in some way…we can look at this film, as a way to teach our kids the reality of some people’s feelings about the RCC. If there isn’t some duel meaning underlying, where although Pullman hates CS Lewis and Narnia, and the whole nine yards, that in some way this movie takes another turn, in showing the opposition to the Church, and the loathing of God by many. I still can’t conjure up the desire to spend my money on a movie that illustrates a disdain for God, but is he really portraying that? I have not read the books, so forgive my ignorance with the details of Pullman’s ‘message.’

 

[PerryJ]

The first movie may be okay; but, that doesn’t mean the second and third will be. It promotes books that are anti-Catholic. Plus is will make the indivduals that support these anti-Cahtolic beliefs richer more powerful and increase their ability to attack us the next time. Don’t go see it!

 

[He_Man]

I’m not sure this will be a popular thought on here, but bear with me. I think it could be why the Bishops are giving it a thumbs up. I wonder if in some way…we can look at this film, as a way to teach our kids the reality of some people’s feelings about the RCC. If there isn’t some duel meaning underlying, where although Pullman hates CS Lewis and Narnia, and the whole nine yards, that in some way this movie takes another turn, in showing the opposition to the Church, and the loathing of God by many. I still can’t conjure up the desire to spend my money on a movie that illustrates a disdain for God, but is he really portraying that? I have not read the books, so forgive my ignorance with the details of Pullman’s ‘message.’

Pullman is an avowed atheist who thinks religion oppresses mankind and that the belief in God is beneath him.

Do you really think he has any good intentions at all?

 

[Steeltemplar]

I’ve been pulling my punches too much. Or rather, I shouldn’t be wasting all our time with this discussion at all. We have radically different ideas about God–indeed about everything.

This will be my last word on this subject on this forum. Perhaps my last word on this forum altogether:

Beauty, truth, and goodness are all that matter. They are the only way we know God. If there are those qualities in Pullman–and there are, along with a lot of propagandistic, prejudiced silliness and some untrammeled worship of the individual human will–then those qualities come from God. If you reject goodness or truth or beauty, you are rejecting God. Period.

Edwin

Evil does not often get its way by approaching with a demonic visage. In fact, it works by perverting what is good.

St. Paul spoke of how evil cloaks itself in the trappings of good:

13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.

In something like Pullman’s books and the Golden Compass film, any possible beauty is utterly marred by the ugliness of their attack upon God, any possible truth is overshadowed by their insidious lies, and any possible goodness is lost amidst the depth of the evil they promote. The fact that they use the appearance of goodness does not make them good in fact. Rather, it means that Pullman’s work is all the more deceptive and dangerous for children.

So rather than be deceived by this guise which the Golden Compass takes on, we should take the way of God and heed the reminder of St. Paul. We should not accept a devil in the clothing of an angel.

 

[whatevergirl]

Pullman is an avowed atheist who thinks religion oppresses mankind and that the belief in God is beneath him.

Do you really think he has any good intentions at all?

I said I didn’t know all the details…no need to be huffy about it.

 

[He_Man]

Sorry, didn’t mean to be huffy.

But the guy’s a dirtball, so it is hard to defend him from where I sit.

Anyway, wasn’t trying to provocative.

 

[whatevergirl]

Sorry, didn’t mean to be huffy.

But the guy’s a dirtball, so it is hard to defend him from where I sit.

Anyway, wasn’t trying to provocative.

ok. np.
I have a hard time writing people off, I suppose. Perhaps, to a fault. I look at everyone as redeemable…if they would but choose to follow our Lord.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I’m not sure this will be a popular thought on here, but bear with me. I think it could be why the Bishops are giving it a thumbs up. I wonder if in some way…we can look at this film, as a way to teach our kids the reality of some people’s feelings about the RCC. If there isn’t some duel meaning underlying, where although Pullman hates CS Lewis and Narnia, and the whole nine yards, that in some way this movie takes another turn, in showing the opposition to the Church, and the loathing of God by many. I still can’t conjure up the desire to spend my money on a movie that illustrates a disdain for God, but is he really portraying that? I have not read the books, so forgive my ignorance with the details of Pullman’s ‘message.’

I can understand where you are coming from. Potentially, yes, one could use this as a means of teaching our children the opposite of Pullman’s message. It would be something which would need to be done with care, of course. But knowing your enemy is a key to defeating him. So knowing the secularists is a key to defeating secularism.

The disdain for God is present in the movie. It just is not necessarily as obvious. Then again it can be quite effective, probably more effective, by not being blatant. Satan did not tempt Eve by saying, “Hey, let’s rebel against God.” He used a more insidious means to convince Eve to sin, planting doubt and giving a license to the sin by saying that, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

 

[whatevergirl]

I can understand where you are coming from. Potentially, yes, one could use this as a means of teaching our children the opposite of Pullman’s message. It would be something which would need to be done with care, of course. But knowing your enemy is a key to defeating him. So knowing the secularists is a key to defeating secularism.

The disdain for God is present in the movie. It just is not necessarily as obvious. Then again it can be quite effective, probably more effective, by not being blatant. Satan did not tempt Eve by saying, “Hey, let’s rebel against God.” He used a more insidious means to convince Eve to sin, planting doubt and giving a license to the sin by saying that, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

ah, yes…if there ever were a powerful tool in the devil’s arsenal, it’s doubt. self doubt and doubt that God loves us. I agree. I’m not taking my kids to see this, they know the reason–they accept the reason–so it’s a total non issue in our home. BUT–I can see that taking a child to see it…around the age of say 10…it could cause confusion. But, I wonder how many kids would take it literally…and not just chalk it up to another Harry Potter type flick?

 

[Edwin1961]

The American Bishops also approved Brokeback Mountain until everyone started complaining.

The Golden Compass is blatantly anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-theist in general, directed at children. The author himself says that his books were written to push atheism and, though toned down from the books, the movie does the same.

We just need to hope another retraction comes for this poor excuse for a movie as well.

Or have the Bishops gone apostacy on us?