I am so tired Hollywood and their AntiCatholicism

[Contarini]

If you are unwilling to explain what “nuances” make this objectionable, fine. But the fact that in several exchanges of posts you haven’t even tried to address my point about Nicholson being the “bad guy” indicates to me that you don’t have an answer. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you have already clarified?

The “Book of Daniel” was a show a year or two ago (on NBC I think) about an Episcopal priest with a very dysfunctional family. There was a female bishop who was having an affair, if I remember rightly. The whole thing was pretty sleazy and cynical.

Most Episcopalians weren’t upset–in part because we don’t get much exposure (like you guys do) and “any publicity is good publicity.” We were glad that NBC noticed we exist. But also, most Episcopalians don’t have as sensitive an attitude as Catholics. I’m not sure that’s a good thing–Episcopalians are way too world-weary and jaded to be good Christians, for the most part.

Myself, I thought the show looked pretty bad, so I didn’t watch it. There were better things to watch. I tried to watch an episode or two and didn’t think much of it.

Ironically, the folks who protested the show were the fundamentalists, who don’t love the Episcopal Church but didn’t like the sordid story line and the fact that the priest has a gay son.

This whole debate is probably silly, but I’m pushing it because I see the same attitude among fundamentalist Protestants and a lot of the folks on this board. You don’t like stuff that is edgy and dark, and you don’t like anything that addresses the fact that Catholics sometimes do bad things. Well, tough. When all Catholics are saints, then you’ll have a right to complain. It’s the job of fiction to portray the real world imaginatively, not to dole out politically-correct merit badges. Is there bias in Hollywood? Certainly, because most Hollywood folks are secular liberals. That’s why I’m very happy that there are people like Mel Gibson (he’s nutty, but he’s no nuttier than many other folks in Hollywood, and he’s nutty in a different way) who make movies that reflect a different perspective. I think the attempt to “blackball” Mel Gibson is shameful, BTW, given what Hollywood tolerates on other fronts.

Edwin

 

[Lost_Found]

If you are unwilling to explain what “nuances” make this objectionable, fine. But the fact that in several exchanges of posts you haven’t even tried to address my point about Nicholson being the “bad guy” indicates to me that you don’t have an answer. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you have already clarified?
Edwin

Like I say, I have addressed it and you keep ignoring it. I have throughout been discussing a specific example. You keep trying to generalize. And still, it is inexcusable to use the antagonist as the avenue to express anti-Catholicism. It didn’t relate to the plot in any way. Again, you didn’t see the movie and you are generalizing.

The “Book of Daniel” was a show a year or two ago (on NBC I think) about an Episcopal priest with a very dysfunctional family. There was a female bishop who was having an affair, if I remember rightly. The whole thing was pretty sleazy and cynical.

Most Episcopalians weren’t upset–in part because we don’t get much exposure (like you guys do) and “any publicity is good publicity.” We were glad that NBC noticed we exist. But also, most Episcopalians don’t have as sensitive an attitude as Catholics. I’m not sure that’s a good thing–Episcopalians are way too world-weary and jaded to be good Christians, for the most part.

Myself, I thought the show looked pretty bad, so I didn’t watch it. There were better things to watch. I tried to watch an episode or two and didn’t think much of it.

Ironically, the folks who protested the show were the fundamentalists, who don’t love the Episcopal Church but didn’t like the sordid story line and the fact that the priest has a gay son.
Edwin

Thanks for the info. But I don’t agree that any publicity is good publicity. For every person who chooses to challenge the movie’s stereotype, there were many more left with the impression that what they are seeing is true. You don’t see auto commercials of cars falling apart. So bad publicity does not equal good publicity.

But anyhow here’s the difference. I didn’t ask for the scene that I’m complaining about. I went to see a gangster movie, period. So I’m sittin’ there with my popcorn and out of the blue I’m on the receiving end of some really offensive cheap shots.

This whole debate is probably silly, but I’m pushing it because I see the same attitude among fundamentalist Protestants and a lot of the folks on this board. You don’t like stuff that is edgy and dark, and you don’t like anything that addresses the fact that Catholics sometimes do bad things. Well, tough. When all Catholics are saints, then you’ll have a right to complain. It’s the job of fiction to portray the real world imaginatively, not to dole out politically-correct merit badges. Is there bias in Hollywood? Certainly, because most Hollywood folks are secular liberals. That’s why I’m very happy that there are people like Mel Gibson (he’s nutty, but he’s no nuttier than many other folks in Hollywood, and he’s nutty in a different way) who make movies that reflect a different perspective. I think the attempt to “blackball” Mel Gibson is shameful, BTW, given what Hollywood tolerates on other fronts.
Edwin

Well if you want to see Catholicism taken down a peg or two, that means that you must see it as way up there. And this you would not admit to yourself directly, although you just have indirectly.
Look, I truly believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Sorry, but I buy the whole thing, lock stock & barrel. I believe that the laying of hands on bishops started with Matthias and every bishop since has had hands layed on him by a previous bishop. I don’t believe this should be handled recklessly. In the scene in question, it doesn’t distinguish between the four percent Judases of the pedophile scandal and the ninety six percent who have given their entire lives to serve our Lord and the rest of us. Nor does it distinguish between the Church that Jesus founded, its teachings, and the individuals who are its members. Now, if they somehow demonstrated how there are Judases who have betrayed Jesus’s Church, that’s one thing. But it was handled much more recklessly than that.

 

[Adonis33]

Let me summarize blessedtoo…

Movies = expensive garbage. DVD = recycled garbage.
TV = worse garbage. Cable = recycled worse garbage.
History Channel = make me sick.
Food Network = garbage with a cherry on top.
FOX = garbage with a football helmut on top.
CNN = garbage with a news report on top.
EWTN = garbage with a Bible and Catechism on top.

You need more cans, garbage pick up only one day a week.

Phil P

Wow - now tell how you really feel.

I’m guessing you don’t own a TV.

 

[Contarini]

You’re right that since I haven’t seen the movie I’m really in no position to argue this. I still have reservations about the implication that you can’t have a character in a movie express ideas that some people might find offensive, and I question the idea that gangster movies don’t naturally involve discussions of Catholicism (ever seen the *Godfather *movies???). Scorsese is a tortured lapsed Catholic, and there are certain obsessions that come with that.

That was the point of my crack about “no publicity is bad publicity.” It was rather flippant and I didn’t mean it literally. My point was simply that when you are the biggest church in the world, certain vulnerabilities come with that. You’re going to be in the spotlight more than anyone else. If you never want to see your church mentioned on TV, I could give you the names of several dozen tiny Protestant denominations you could join (such as the United Brethren in Christ, who run the college where I teach–ever heard them vilified on TV?).

Well if you want to see Catholicism taken down a peg or two, that means that you must see it as way up there. And this you would not admit to yourself directly, although you just have indirectly.

You really don’t have a clue about me or what I believe. Which is fine–but then don’t tell me what I would or would not admit.

I don’t want to see Catholicism taken down a peg or two, in the first place. And in the second, I do see it as way up there in pretty much every way. It’s obviously the largest and most powerful religious organization on the planet, and it’s also the central expression of Christianity. I believe in the primacy of Rome (though not in all the modern expressions thereof), and I hope for union with Rome. I think being Catholic would be wonderful (if divine providence had pointed me that way), and I get fed up when I hear Catholics whining about how tough it is. If you really “buy the whole thing,” then you shouldn’t be complaining–you should be rejoicing that you get to belong to the True Church when we poor suckers are left dealing with doddering contraptions like Episcopalianism or Methodism. You should expect that you’re going to have a high profile, and you should just take it on the chin like a hero.

Look, I do understand where you are coming from. My preceding remarks are partly tongue in cheek, but I’m trying to get you to see it from another angle. It’s natural to be upset when the Church is attacked, but straightening out real misconceptions is one thing and getting riled over every negative reference to Catholicism is another.

Edwin

 

[Lost_Found]

Yes, we know. For you, being “way up there” is to say “the most powerful religious organization on the planet”. That would make it “wonderful” to be part of. Well I should inform you that we’re not political morons. The people of this thread already know, as did my Irish ancestors, that they can trade off the truth for worldly power any time. Your Anglican/Episcopalian ancestors didn’t like to admit that any more than you do here.

“Buying the whole thing” is just another way of saying not compromising on the truth. It means you have to be on the lookout for the truth. When you see a lie, you speak up. So your claim that we are “whining” doesn’t hold up. Because if our main concern were being criticized politically, we would either bury our Catholicism, or join a more politically astute faith such as Protestantism or more recently, Science. No, here we simply have people preoccupied with the truth and alerting us that there are liars on the radar. And we should all rejoice for having people like that, not shut them up. Really the only person whining on this thread is you, since your empire is being ridiculed for not upholding the truth in some stupid movie called Daniel. But mostly, whining that the Catholics don’t appreciate their belonging to “the most powerful religious organization on the planet” and how Episcopalianism is not. Well you’re right, we don’t appreciate it, but we don’t care to.

So if you ever reach the point where you consider the Eucharist (Jesus), the rest of the Sacraments (all Jesus), and upholding the absolute Truth (Jesus) without compromise and in every imaginable way - as outweighing those unmentionable things that hold you back, know that Jesus has been calling you to His Church which he founded for you and I and the rest, all admittedly sinners in need of his grace.

Catholics aren’t pretending to be perfect here. But Catholicism is the recognition and upholding of Perfection, and it ends up being manifested in the Word made Flesh Jesus Christ.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, we know. For you, being “way up there” is to say “the most powerful religious organization on the planet”.

You are distorting what I said by quoting only part of it. The size and power of Catholicism is relevant for this discussion because it explains why Catholicism gets to much flak. I did not say that I would want to be Catholic primarily for that reason. You are bearing false witness by quoting me selectively. Why should I trust your report of a movie I haven’t seen, when you engage in obvious misrepresentation like this?

The people of this thread already know, as did my Irish ancestors, that they can trade off the truth for worldly power any time. Your Anglican/Episcopalian ancestors didn’t like to admit that any more than you do here.

Huh? I’m not quite sure what you are saying except that you are trying to insult me.

“Buying the whole thing” is just another way of saying not compromising on the truth. It means you have to be on the lookout for the truth. When you see a lie, you speak up.

What was the lie? And do you speak up when other churches religions are lied about too? Wouldn’t that be Christian?

So your claim that we are “whining” doesn’t hold up. Because if our main concern were being criticized politically,

I never said that. I respect your loyalty to Catholicism.

You are distorting everything I said. I expressed respect and admiration for your Church and you spat it back in my face, because you are determined to see everything as an attack.

Really the only person whining on this thread is you, since your empire is being ridiculed for not upholding the truth in some stupid movie called Daniel.

I never complained about Daniel–you claimed that only Catholics were portrayed negatively in the media. I didn’t find Daniel a very interesting show, but I had no interest in protesting it or complaining about it.

You really are determined to put the worst construction on everything, aren’t you?

But mostly, whining that the Catholics don’t appreciate their belonging to “the most powerful religious organization on the planet” and how Episcopalianism is not. Well you’re right, we don’t appreciate it, but we don’t care to.

Again, this is dishonest, because you are implying that that is the main thing I appreciate about Catholicism. I do think that it’s unseemly for members of a church as large and influential as yours to be talking all the time about how everyone is picking on you. But most of all, it’s unseemly for people who believe they have the truth of Christ to play PC games by yelling “I’m offended” every time someone says something bad about them.

Edwin