Virulent anti-Catholicism of 1837

[dianaiad]

“After all, my BA is only in English with a minor in Communications (film history), my MA is in English,.”

Am I the only one who thinks it’s bad debate form to make claims like the one above.

Only if a: it’s not true and b: it was not prompted by a comment like: “Diana, it isn’t possible for me to explain to you the subtleties of film making, the different origins of stories and the story tellers.”

It’s debating the (supposed) relative merits of the debaters instead of the arguments made. Is that good debate form?

Establishing bona fides. Though I will admit that it was a sarcastic comment and even if it does not cross the line, it comes very close to it. I should have resisted. For that I apologize.

There are plenty of degree-holding idiots, so how is the above claim a good debate argument. Look at what a few “experts” (MBA-holding idiots) have done to the housing market! A degree is no guarantee of intelligence or usable knowledge.

You are quite right. However, when the degree is in the area actually under discussion, it becomes more pertinent, I think.

" I"ve only been working in the community theater and film industry for 35 years"

A similar appeal. Of course this could mean that you’ve been selling popcorn and ushering people to their seats for most of your life.

Or it could also mean that I’ve been costume designer, director, producer and third soprano from the end in every chorus for 35 years, too.

Are we supposed to accept these claims as proof that your previous debate points are correct? :bowdown:

Which ones? Those degrees are only applicable to two areas; Literary history and the history of film. In those areas they might mean something–that I have studied and worked in both fields for awhile and can be expected to know more than the average person. In other fields, though? No more than the average anonymous poster. I haven’t claimed that they make me superthinker, either. What they DO is show that I, finally, was able to complete a degree after many years of study, work and sacrifice, far later than most people, actually. Two of my children were college graduates before I was.

Maybe I’m jaded, but as soon as I see these claims, I think they’re either exaggerated or false. I figure that really smart people don’t go around telling people why they should accept their pov.

Analogy: you are an archeologist, with degrees and papers and everything. Someone comes to you with a fiberglass bow with a pully drawing system, claiming that it is thousands of years old. When you point out the flaw in that claim, this person gets all condescending on your…self…and says that he can’t possibly explain the details and intricacies of archeology to you, because, well, you just wouldn’t understand. Wouldn’t you then consider trotting out your degree as an appropriate move?

Your claims may be true–you may have a degree–and they might not be exaggerated–maybe you produce films or direct plays, but there is no way that anyone reading those claims here can verifiy those claims, so making them here is useless.

Then making condescending remarks about my ability to understand the intricacies of any particular field is also useless. Question; you are unhappy about my mentioning my degrees and experience in the field; why aren’t you unhappy with the post that prompted it?

Actually, it’s worse than useless. I think that making claims like this, the person seems to be weak. The person isn’t able to express himself well-enough that other people accept his pov or debate point, so he appeals to his credentials. IMO, if the debate point were that strong, it would stand on it’s own.

The credentials of the person making the points are irrelevant. You can try to pretty-up (really prop up) debate points by claiming that you have authority (a degree-holding debater), but debate points stand or fall on their own merits.

Indeed. Unless one is attempting to establish points of fact,not opinion.
kalt;5215107:

As far as the movies debate, specifically, I think there are plenty of movies that are friendly to the CC, and there are plenty that are unfriendly.

Indeed there are. However, I’m willing to accept the opinion of the Catholics as to which are, and are not. Which is why I went to a Catholic site and got a list from respected Catholic critics of films that Catholics consider uplifting and positive toward the church.

I keep TELLING you guys; *it’s not my list. * It’s YOUR list.

Was there a better Catholic Character in film than Sr Bertrille?

I noticed, though, that this particular group didn’t put the Flying Nun on the list.

Oh, I do have to mention “It’s a Wonderful Life”. A great movie ruined by one whining line that goes something like this. “Everytime you hear a bell, an angel gets his wings.” It’s like nails on a chalkboard.

Sentimental, but perfect…

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you, Diana, for keeping this very academic thread alive. More people will read from the link I posted, and become wise to the apostasy of “restorationists.”

You appear to have a learning disability in reading comprehension, perhaps you should consult with the school psychologist who serves your classroom. Otherwise, perhaps your conscious intent was to derail the thread. I never claimed that the movie industry portrays the Catholic Church negatively, although I have seen some movies and trailers that are profoundly anti-Catholic.

You are quite right, and I own you a sincere apology. It was NOT you that claimed that “Priests in films are never shown doing what it is they do. They are always drunk, and Irish. Or lately, like the last X-Files film, pedophiles living in colonies of defrocked pedophile priests. The Church is always the bad guy.”

that was Rebecca…and she is the one who has now just told me that lists of movies that portray Catholicism in a positive and uplifting manner are ‘meaningless’ to her.

My point, as Rebecca said, is that Mormonism originated with the restorationist movement, which is profoundly anti-Catholic. So anti-Catholic that the originator of the restorationist movement invited Bishop Purcell to refute his drivel. And, Campbell was soundly refuted. Now, if you refuse to read the debate, that is your own choice. Campbell did make some good points. Purcell refuted every one of the arguments your presented on this thread, and people here are using his counter-arguments. You are doing yourself a disservice by refusing to read it.

Bishop Purcell refuted that list of films that portray Catholicism in a positive and uplifting manner?

As for the LDS religion being profoundly different from other religions that originated from the restorationists, of course it would be. After all, once a Christian rejects the wisdom accumulated by 2000 years of Catholicism, his beliefs can go in almost any direction.

I see.

So your proof that we have ‘strong ties’ to the Campbellites is that our doctrine is profoundly DIFFERENT? Yep, that makes perfect sense.

G of G, your point was well taken. When my mother married a Catholic, and converted, her father’s family (Brit) was supportive, her mother’s family (Native/New Amsterdam Dutch) was opposed. I don’t know what the dynamics were in this very individual situation.

 

[kalt]

Only if a: it’s not true and b: it was not prompted by a comment like: “Diana, it isn’t possible for me to explain to you the subtleties of film making, the different origins of stories and the story tellers.”

Establishing bona fides. Though I will admit that it was a sarcastic comment and even if it does not cross the line, it comes very close to it. I should have resisted. For that I apologize.

You are quite right. However, when the degree is in the area actually under discussion, it becomes more pertinent, I think.

Or it could also mean that I’ve been costume designer, director, producer and third soprano from the end in every chorus for 35 years, too.

Which ones? Those degrees are only applicable to two areas; Literary history and the history of film. In those areas they might mean something–that I have studied and worked in both fields for awhile and can be expected to know more than the average person. In other fields, though? No more than the average anonymous poster. I haven’t claimed that they make me superthinker, either. What they DO is show that I, finally, was able to complete a degree after many years of study, work and sacrifice, far later than most people, actually. Two of my children were college graduates before I was.

Analogy: you are an archeologist, with degrees and papers and everything. Someone comes to you with a fiberglass bow with a pully drawing system, claiming that it is thousands of years old. When you point out the flaw in that claim, this person gets all condescending on your…self…and says that he can’t possibly explain the details and intricacies of archeology to you, because, well, you just wouldn’t understand. Wouldn’t you then consider trotting out your degree as an appropriate move?

.

Indeed. Unless one is attempting to establish points of fact,not opinion.

The only fact was your degree. That fact is unverifiable, so it’s useless in that way, also. (I say it’s unverifiable, because this is the Net and you don’t want to put your name and college on here. Also, you could use anyone’s name and credentials and use them as your own.)

FWIW, you didn’t need to pull out the degree comment. You clearly did your research (by degree or by Google) and had printed a bunch of movies that are listed on a Catholic site. (I’m taking your word for it there, because I have no interest in movies and can’t be bothered to read it myself ) Someone came a long and claimed that they were indie films. If I’ve heard of them, they sure as heck aren’t indie films.

Indeed there are. However, I’m willing to accept the opinion of the Catholics as to which are, and are not. Which is why I went to a Catholic site and got a list from respected Catholic critics of films that Catholics consider uplifting and positive toward the church.

I keep TELLING you guys; *it’s not my list. *

It’s YOUR list.

I know. I know. But they won’t listen. Even if you pull our your degree.

I noticed, though, that this particular group didn’t put the Flying Nun on the list.

Sentimental, but perfect…

[/QUOTE]

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, this has gotten ridiculous.

Diana insists that I use a list she found on the internet somewhere. As though all Catholics are interchangeable and all you need is a list and I’ll go, “oh, that’s what a Catholic is supposed to be, I’m glad Diana pointed it out. Now I know how I am supposed to think! Praise be to God.”

Perhaps you are under the idea that Mormonism is the model for how the world works. Everyone lock-step in group-think. It is not how I work. I could care less how many Oscars a film has won, or how much money it has made. There is pure **** that have done both.

I could care less that films made in the 1950’s were as swell as movies made in the 1950’s.

What this is like, really, is “12 Angry Men”, a study in bias and prejudice. Mormons thinking that are free from both.

Still haven’t heard anything about the actual document that Jerusha posted, from any Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

Ok, this has gotten ridiculous.

Diana insists that I use a list she found on the internet somewhere. As though all Catholics are interchangeable and all you need is a list and I’ll go, “oh, that’s what a Catholic is supposed to be, I’m glad Diana pointed it out. Now I know how I am supposed to think! Praise be to God.”

Actually, I found it on the National Catholic Register website. the “about us” information will be found here.

It is a very well respected Catholic newspaper and journal that’s been around since 1927. It is a comprehensive and very well thought of journal both inside and outside the church. The list is theirs. I did not present it as 'well, Rebecca, this is what you are supposed to think."

I simply gave you a rather long list of Oscar winning mainstream movies that have treated Catholics and Catholicism kindly, positively and well. I have seen at least half of them, and I haven’t come away from those movies thinking badly of the church, her members or the clergy. Quite the opposite. Perhaps you should actually see a few of them before you dismiss them?

As for me, I think that some of the movies on that list are misplaced; yes, they present Christian ideals very kindly indeed, but I don’t see that many specifically CATHOLIC references in them. (shrug) Ah well, as I said, it’s not my list.

Perhaps you are under the idea that Mormonism is the model for how the world works. Everyone lock-step in group-think. It is not how I work. I could care less how many Oscars a film has won, or how much money it has made. There is pure **** that have done both.

True…but not the point. THESE particular Oscar winners present Catholics and Catholicism in a very favorable light. That is, after all, the complaint you made, that there aren’t any movies out there that actually do that. What I honestly don’t get is why you are so incredibly upset over finding out that these movies actually do exist. I mean, if someone would give me a similar list of movies that were kind to Mormonism, I’d be very pleased. Your reaction simply isn’t making any sense. You know that, right?

I could care less that films made in the 1950’s were as swell as movies made in the 1950’s.

Not certain what decade you were intending to write there, but I get the drift…that’s fine, Rebecca, but the thing is, you presented yourself as a ‘film snob’ and proceeded to display an abysmal lack of film history knowledge. You then.condescend to me rather completely, telling me that you couldn’t possibly tell me the intricacies of story/screenplay/ film making.

Now me, I’ve not only seen many of these films, I’ve actually taken classes on 'em and written papers on 'em…and frankly, m’dear, you’re a ‘film snob’ like I’m a sommolier.

What this is like, really, is “12 Angry Men”, a study in bias and prejudice. Mormons thinking that are free from both.

Of course we aren’t. But this isn’t about what MORMONS think, is it? I know you want to make it about what Mormons think, but…

Still haven’t heard anything about the actual document that Jerusha posted, from any Mormon.

A: The ‘document’ Jerusha posted was a 290+ page BOOK, Rebecca, written in nineteenth century acadamese. Now, I read fairly fast, but great googly moogly!

B. Nothing in it applies to Mormons. Even Jerusha has had to admit that the doctrines and ideas presented by the Campbellites and argued in this book bear very little resemblance indeed to LDS doctrine and thought. So…why in the world would a Mormon feel called upon to defend it? Campbellites, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses have very little in common; just a word, in fact; ‘restoration.’

…and the Campbellites even define that word differently; the rest of us claim a divine revelation to start that restoration of the church. The Stone/Campbellites eschewed any such visitation or revelation; they ‘restored’ things by going sola scriptura.

All this is very interesting, but since Mormons are NOT Campbellites, it seems about as silly to ask us to defend their ideas as it does to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses to defend ours.

As to you, Rebecca–you need to relax and go see a movie. Several of them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(shrug) Ah well, as I said, it’s not my list.

Exactly. A real conversation, apparently, is not possible in such a forum. With real life experience. Reality. Googling around for lists that are not yours or mine. Pointless.

Your reaction simply isn’t making any sense. You know that, right?

I can only be who I am.

you need to relax and go see a movie. Several of them.

Fair enough.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I’ll pass on that.

Not because it is rated “R,” but because I don’t think I could handle watching what I am told is an extremely graphic portrayal of His crucifixion. Nothing against the movie…in this case, it’s ALL about what I don’t think I am ready to deal with, for many different reasons…none of which have to do with my religious beliefs, but do have to do with Mel Gibson’s insistence upon graphically realistic film making and my own ability to deal with it.

Well, as a Mormon you don’t even have a crucifix, so why is this any surprise?

Jesus Christ “dealt with it.” For real.

 

[dianaiad]

Exactly. A real conversation, apparently, is not possible in such a forum. With real life experience. Reality. Googling around for lists that are not yours or mine. Pointless.

It’s called evidence, Rebecca. Facts to refute an erroneous point. That list IS “yours,” that is, a list of major movies that portray Catholicism in a positive and uplifting manner complied by a respected Catholic source.

It was pertinent to the point of the conversation.

I can only be who I am.

Yes, and usually who you are is reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent, with an ability to communicate well and a logical mind. I’ll chalk this one up to a temporary aberration of some sort.

Fair enough.

Start with " A Man for All Seasons," then “Becket,” “Schindler’s List,” “Lillies of the Field,” “On the Waterfront,” and just for pure delight, “Moonstruck.”

I picked these because you said you liked “Twelve Angry Men.”

 

[dianaiad]

Well, as a Mormon you don’t even have a crucifix, so why is this any surprise?

Jesus Christ “dealt with it.” For real.

Yes, He did. My reluctance to see the movie has nothing to do with my religious beliefs (wait, I said that already…guess you missed it.)

It has everything to do with Mel Gibson’s film making style. I can handle it when the story is fiction; chalk it up to incredible special effects. However, Christ’s death on the cross was very, very REAL.

I watched my husband die of cancer. Took him a year and a half of suffering–nine months of it completely unable to eat or drink so much as a sip of water. I watched firemen get three of my children out of a car with the ‘jaws of life’ and cart them off to the hospital, where I was literally running from room to room, from compound fractures to bruised lungs to concussions to broken jaws to…you name it…stopping just long enough to go home and see my husband who was dying at the time.

I have seen enough, thank you. I don’t need the movie to appreciate the pain and suffering He went through. I don’t need to have it artificially portrayed in order to understand the sacrifice He gave.

Nor am I the only one who feels this way. Many others do as well, including Catholics. I have nothing against Gibson’s honest attempt to portray His suffering in a way that wrings hearts and souls; he needed to do it, and others need to see it.

I’m simply not one of them.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Yes, He did. My reluctance to see the movie has nothing to do with my religious beliefs (wait, I said that already…guess you missed it.)

Actually, no, I did not miss that comment. I still hold to what I said. My statement does not mean I missed yours. Also, disagreement does not mean a lack of understanding either.

I too have not only seen a lot in my time, and have experienced it as well. I won’t go into details. I just find it interesting that those who don’t even have a crucifix (and not just Mormons) can’t even watch this movie. Yes, I know there are some Catholics who can’t either. However, they do still see the crucifix every time they attend Mass for the reminder of what He went through for us.

 

[Jerusha]

I did not see the movie. Given what I have been through, mostly from Brighamites, I already can identify with the crucified Christ. Those who can’t, should see it.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, no, I did not miss that comment. I still hold to what I said. My statement does not mean I missed yours. Also, disagreement does not mean a lack of understanding either.

I do have to ask, if you caught the statement, why you simply did not accept it. Why the snarky attack upon my belief system, when I told you that my belief system wasn’t involved? It isn’t. Some of those movies are so blatantly worshipful of Catholics and Catholicism that if my motive is as you claim it to be, I would have refused to get on the same block as the theater while they were being shown.

However, I did see them, and enjoyed them…good movies almost every one; great messages, uplifting—just great films. I have come to believe that most people tell the truth when they post online…even if they don’t intend to. I said that my religious beliefs had nothing to do with my reluctance to see the movie, and I meant it. My parents, my kids,and most of my Mormon friends and neighbors HAVE seen it, and recommend it highly,

I too have not only seen a lot in my time, and have experienced it as well. I won’t go into details. I just find it interesting that those who don’t even have a crucifix (and not just Mormons) can’t even watch this movie. Yes, I know there are some Catholics who can’t either. However, they do still see the crucifix every time they attend Mass for the reminder of what He went through for us.

Yes, but the crucifix is a symbol; when people look at it, it is not ‘the thing,’ but a symbol of ‘the thing.’ It isn’t CHRIST on the cross, it is wood, or marble, or plaster, or gold, or whatever the material used. It is not HIM. It allows those to view it to be at a remove; that is, if they are affected by it, they are affected–not by the crucifix, but by the meaning THEY give it. If they look at a crucifix and see Him, it is because THEY see Him, not because they see HIM. Others can look and not see.

Just as others use different symbols to reflect similar emotions/feelings/memories.

To become too attached to the symbol rather than what that symbol represents…that’s sorta the beginning of idolatry. In fact, it’s why many Protestants consider Catholics to BE idol worshipers, because they (the Protestants, not the Catholics) can’t see the difference between using a symbol to represent something else, and worshiping the symbol itself.

it’s a pretty fine line, actually…though as far as I can tell, most Catholics understand the difference and don’t cross it. That is, when they kneel in front of a statue of Mary, they are venerating Mary, not the statue.

 

[dcastlen50]

The Maryland colony was created specifically as a colony for Catholics.

I don’t think this is the fact. Yes, Maryland did allow Cathocism to some degree but it was not crreated specifically to be for Catholics. I could be wrong. Some one within Catholic Answers addressed this. and I had the article out for some time; now it is gone. Again, I can be wrong.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s called evidence, Rebecca. Facts to refute an erroneous point. That list IS “yours,” that is, a list of major movies that portray Catholicism in a positive and uplifting manner complied by a respected Catholic source.

It was pertinent to the point of the conversation.

Diana, you have not refuted anything, in my view. But if it helps you to think you did, I have no problem with that.

Yes, and usually who you are is reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent, with an ability to communicate well and a logical mind. I’ll chalk this one up to a temporary aberration of some sort.

If this is what you need to believe, fine. But, I suppose I am losing interest in these types of conversations. It isn’t you or even the forum. It is me.

Start with " A Man for All Seasons," then “Becket,” “Schindler’s List,” “Lillies of the Field,” “On the Waterfront,” and just for pure delight, “Moonstruck.”

“Schindler’s List” I could watch it again when I am in the mood to be depressed as hell. I’ve seen “Moonstruck”. “A Man for All Seasons” has been on my viewing list for a while as St. Thomas More is a Saint that I have an interest in. “On the Waterfront” and “Lilies of the Field” I have seen. (I recommend Sidney Poitier’s autobiography, “The Measure of a Man”.)

I picked these because you said you liked “Twelve Angry Men.”

I had to write a paper for that one.

 

[dianaiad]

I did not see the movie. Given what I have been through, mostly from Brighamites, I already can identify with the crucified Christ. Those who can’t, should see it.

What, the “Brighamites” tortured you, whipped you, almost flayed you, hung you on a cross crowned with thorns and stuck a spear into you?

And you didn’t sue?

 

[kalt]

Who cares who “wrote a paper” on the topic? As if writing a paper equals expertise? Maybe it was a really ****** paper.

Your debate points stand on their own merits. The fact that you “wrote a paper” is irrelevant.

 

[dianaiad]

Who cares who “wrote a paper” on the topic? As if writing a paper equals expertise? Maybe it was a really ****** paper.

Your debate points stand on their own merits. The fact that you “wrote a paper” is irrelevant.

Well, at least you are an equal opportunity curmudgeon.

I think that her writing a paper on it is interesting and relevant.
Here’s the thing:

Before a debate point can ‘stand on [its] own merits,’ a couple of things must be true: first, the facts upon which that point depends must be obviously true, or demonstrated to be true by common knowledge or expert opinion.

Since this is true, if there is an expert around who can either confirm or debunk a particular ‘fact,’ then the opinion of that expert trumps everybody; perhaps not in personal opinion, but in matters of accepted fact? You betcha.

In order to be recognized as one, an expert needs to establish his or her bona fides; degrees, years of experience, like that.

So while your idealistic stand that the words written stand apart from the author is nice, it doesn’t really work; what the author knows is important to what he or she writes.

You really wouldn’t base life changing decisions upon a discussion on diabetes between two 16 year old Life Science students, would you? How about between two nurses specializing in diabetic care, would you?

This is why I do not accept the word of anybody but true believers regarding what any belief system teaches. EVERYBODY else has an unknown bias (and if the bias is known, you can bet your bippy it’s against that belief system and what s/he says is worthless anyway).

So yeah, I think it’s nice to know if the person I’m talking to actually has some knowledge of the subject he or she is spouting off about. “Writing a paper” demonstrates that.

As well, I’ve been posting around the internet for close to fifteen years now and I have discovered that people can’t lie for long. They can try, but truth comes out; claiming to have degrees one does not have? That always comes back to bite you.

 

[Jerusha]

Diana, you have been bitten by a rabid doG. :stretcher:

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, you have been bitten by a rabid doG. :stretcher:

:ehh:

 

[kalt]

Well, at least you are an equal opportunity curmudgeon.

I think that her writing a paper on it is interesting and relevant.
Here’s the thing:

Before a debate point can ‘stand on [its] own merits,’ a couple of things must be true: first, the facts upon which that point depends must be obviously true, or demonstrated to be true by common knowledge or expert opinion.

Since this is true, if there is an expert around who can either confirm or debunk a particular ‘fact,’ then the opinion of that expert trumps everybody; perhaps not in personal opinion, but in matters of accepted fact? You betcha.

In order to be recognized as one, an expert needs to establish his or her bona fides; degrees, years of experience, like that.

So while your idealistic stand that the words written stand apart from the author is nice, it doesn’t really work; what the author knows is important to what he or she writes.

You really wouldn’t base life changing decisions upon a discussion on diabetes between two 16 year old Life Science students, would you? How about between two nurses specializing in diabetic care, would you?

This is why I do not accept the word of anybody but true believers regarding what any belief system teaches. EVERYBODY else has an unknown bias (and if the bias is known, you can bet your bippy it’s against that belief system and what s/he says is worthless anyway).

So yeah, I think it’s nice to know if the person I’m talking to actually has some knowledge of the subject he or she is spouting off about. “Writing a paper” demonstrates that.

As well, I’ve been posting around the internet for close to fifteen years now and I have discovered that people can’t lie for long. They can try, but truth comes out; claiming to have degrees one does not have? That always comes back to bite you.

This is the Net debate. There are no experts here, unless they are well-known experts.
Self-proclaimed expertise is irrelevant.