Worst Movies for Catholics

[Other_Eric]

I don’t think Star Wars promotes Manichean Heresy because for any movie to promote a heresy there has to be an intention to pass the “heresy” as a belief.

Star Wars is a fantasy movie. It is a movie that is very imaginative and can serve as an escape from reality. IMHO Lucas isn’t trying to indoctrinate anyone with this. At least not with the Original Trilogy (Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi). When Episode 1 came out and it had Anakin as not having any father I was disgusted as it was trying to pass him off as Star Wars’ own “Jesus”.

I noticed that you listed other cartoon movies too. I wonder if you would include The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland?

Besides heresy, Star Wars also promotes necromancy. You cannot imagine that a movie which constructs its entire moral framework around heresy and outright blasphemies is not an attempt to indoctrinate. What errors might the lessons even the original Trilogy lead unwary children into (who, by the way, are not the best at distinguishing fantasy from reality)?

• Feeling upset because you beat another child up at school? No worries, pain is a manifestation of the “crude matter” that our bodies are composed of. As an inherently “luminous being” it matters little what sins the flesh commits, since the body is nothing more than a thing to be discarded on the way to becoming a pure, non-corporeal entity.
• Got problems with another kid at school and don’t know how to handle it yourself? No problem! Just dial up grandma on the Ouija board. Her pure, spectral presence, unencumbered by the illusions of “crude matter,” will know just what to do.
  In Yoda’s admonition to Luke that he is, in reality a “luminous being” and in his direction to Anakin not to mourn those who have “become one with the Force,” he most definitely is passing off this heresy as a belief that it would be perfectly acceptable to for the audience to take home with them. This is in no way different from the sexual tryst that Jack and Rose share that encourages the audience to approve of pre-marital sex or the nude sketch scene that attempts to soften people’s mores about pornography. Both Titanic and Star Wars encourage their own errors. I find Star Wars to be the worse of the two as it is aimed at children.

The Wizard of Oz is far less serious in this respect but still problematic as Dorothy unquestioningly follows the advice of a “good witch.”

 

[Other_Eric]

Man was created in the image of God, not the other way around.

It means Man is created as a volitional, rational soul–a being capable of moral choice.

We’ve dealt with this on other links, but in the Incarnation, Jesus would have had a particular hair color, eye, and skin color–what it was hardly matter, other than it was one thing and not another–does it mean those of us who don’t share in Jesus’s partiucular human looks are not in the image of God? So women are right out because they’re not male and Jesus was?

In The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew, Aslan just literaly walks onto the scene, creating the universe of Narnia out of Song–there’s no Nativity of this “Son of the Emperor across the Sea” I imagine CS Lewis would argue there was the one Incarnation–but the Son will present Himself as He wills.

Unless you are a Mormon who believes Gods “has parts”, the idea that God is bound to human appearence–well, are you?

You cannot seriously believe that the differences between the species are akin to the differences in eye, hair or skin color among humans. If that were the case, there would be no sin in bestiality and the denizens of PETA might have a point.

Moreover, I do not think that C.S. Lewis would argue that there was one Incarnation–but the Son will present Himself as He wills. Instead, he would say:

Since our Beloved became a man, how should Reason in any other world take any other form? Do you not understand? That is all over. Among times there is a time that turns a corner and everything this side of it is new. Times do not go backward.(1)

There can only be two appraisals then of the character Aslan in the Narnia stories. Either he is a second Incarnation of the Son of Man, in which we must admit that the human body has no real eternal significance and the Body of Christ, given for all, is no real sacrifice, since Christ has several bodies at His disposal or that the episode wherein Alsan sacrifices himself to save Edmund is a mockery of Christ’s crucifixion which implies support for the Gnostic heresy of Valentinus which held that Christ’s body was heavenly and ethereal without any real substance.

(1) Lewis, C.S. Perelandra. Collier Books, New York. 1965. p. 62

 

[LilyM]

You cannot seriously believe that the differences between the species are akin to the differences in eye, hair or skin color among humans. If that were the case, there would be no sin in bestiality and the denizens of PETA might have a point.

Moreover, I do not think that C.S. Lewis would argue that there was one Incarnation–but the Son will present Himself as He wills. Instead, he would say:

There can only be two appraisals then of the character Aslan in the Narnia stories. Either he is a second Incarnation of the Son of Man, in which we must admit that the human body has no real eternal significance and the Body of Christ, given for all, is no real sacrifice, since Christ has several bodies at His disposal or that the episode wherein Alsan sacrifices himself to save Edmund is a mockery of Christ’s crucifixion which implies support for the Gnostic heresy of Valentinus which held that Christ’s body was heavenly and ethereal without any real substance.

(1) Lewis, C.S. Perelandra. Collier Books, New York. 1965. p. 62

I’m sorry, your quote from Perelandra seems to support your own view that it was essential for Christ to be incarnated in human form, yes? So you’re using CS Lewis in one book to argue against himself in another? :whacky:

As for Narnia - you appear not to have heard of the concept of ALLEGORY - an old technique popular especially in the Middle Ages but perhaps most familiar to those who have read Aesop’s Fables. One means of employing allegory is where in a moral tale animals are given human qualities so as to make the moral point of the tale clearer.

There are examples in the Bible - for example in Proverbs where the slug is described as guilty of the vice of sloth whereas the ant is a model of the virtue of being hardworking. In reality neither animal is capable of such moral characteristics

 

[Other_Eric]

I’m sorry, your quote from Perelandra seems to support your own view that it was essential for Christ to be incarnated in human form, yes? So you’re using CS Lewis in one book argue against himself in another? :whacky:

I think we can use C.S. Lewis’ own logic to help defeat the errors of his Narnia books.

 

[LilyM]

I think we can use C.S. Lewis’ own logic to help defeat the errors of his Narnia books.

I was editing that post - I think Lewis was rather employing metaphor or allegory in his Narnia books than being logically inconsistent.

 

[Other_Eric]

I was editing that post - I think Lewis was rather employing metaphor or allegory in his Narnia books than being logically inconsistent.

If it’s a metaphor that Lewis was trying to construct in the Narnia books, then it’s a very poor one, likely to lead to more error than anything else.

 

[aboverubies]

If it’s a metaphor that Lewis was trying to construct in the Narnia books, then it’s a very poor one, likely to lead to more error than anything else.

What about the other points that Lily brought up regarding Aesop’s Fables and the Bible? They deserve to be addressed don’t you think?

 

[matt1985]

I think the worst movie for Catholics and even non-Catholics out now would be “Epic Movie”. This film was filthy and didn’t make me laugh one time. It was probably the worst I’ve ever seen.

 

[Other_Eric]

As for Narnia - you appear not to have heard of the concept of ALLEGORY - an old technique popular especially in the Middle Ages but perhaps most familiar to those who have read Aesop’s Fables. One means of employing allegory is where in a moral tale animals are given human qualities so as to make the moral point of the tale clearer.

There are examples in the Bible - for example in Proverbs where the slug is described as guilty of the vice of sloth whereas the ant is a model of the virtue of being hardworking. In reality neither animal is capable of such moral characteristics

What about the other points that Lily brought up regarding Aesop’s Fables and the Bible? They deserve to be addressed don’t you think?

Narnia is no mere case of giving to animals human attributes in order to illustrate some moral. Instead, the story presents an animal, gives him divine attributes and implies that he is another incarnation of Christ. The character is meant to supplant the Messiah. This is not strictly a fantasy world either, but an alternate reality that is supposed to exist beside our own. There is no word for this other than blasphemy. Therefore, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is fittingly described as one of the worst movies for Catholics.

 

[gmarie21]

Narnia is no mere case of giving to animals human attributes in order to illustrate some moral. Instead, the story presents an animal, gives him divine attributes and implies that he is another incarnation of Christ. The character is meant to supplant the Messiah. This is not strictly a fantasy world either, but an alternate reality that is supposed to exist beside our own. There is no word for this other than blasphemy. Therefore, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is fittingly described as one of the worst movies for Catholics.

Yet, I would venture to say that most adults who read this as children would say that Narnia was a story that used fantasy to teach about morals. I know of some people who, because of reading the Chronicles of Narnia as children, understood Christ better than those who were trying to understand Christ with just the Bible. Immagination is a good thing and Lewis wrote these stories for children to read. I have yet to hear a Catholic priest or theologian complain about the Chronicles of Narnia. As for The Lord of the Rings, the only complaint, which was acknowledged by the author himself after the fact, was about the magic that was used in the book. Tolken regretted using magic in those books because he realized that it may lead some to believe that magic can be good. But Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia, even Michael O’Brien hasn’t criticized those books in his books, articles and interviews (Michael O’Brien tends to be very strict in interpreting children literature and movies, check out “A Landscape With Dragons”).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Narnia is no mere case of giving to animals human attributes in order to illustrate some moral. Instead, the story presents an animal, gives him divine attributes and implies that he is another incarnation of Christ. The character is meant to supplant the Messiah.

Not quite - the One Who is incarnate for us as a man, is imagined as being a lion in that imaginary world. The same Person is involved but the two worlds are different: so the manner of that Person’s Presence in each, is different. It’s not that Jesus is Incarnate as Aslan, but that He Who is Incarnate among us as the man Jesus, is (imagined as) Present in Narnia as Aslan the Lion.​

The comparison is, not between Aslan & Jesus - but between each of them, & the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

So there is no blasphemy or error involved. ##

This is not strictly a fantasy world either, but an alternate reality that is supposed to exist beside our own. There is no word for this other than blasphemy. Therefore, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is fittingly described as one of the worst movies for Catholics.

How is this any more blasphemous than saying that there are creatures, as well as God ?​

2.

Christ came to be incarnated as a man, not a lion. To believe that Christ was incarnated as anything other than a man, even if in another reality, is to deny the intrinsic significance of the human body as made in the image and likeness of the Creator.

But Narnia is not in “our world” - it’s entirely different from ours. Unless you know of any Talking Beasts ​

There is a Divine Presence by way of an Incarnation as a man in “our” world, because we are human - in a world with Talking Beasts, a Divine Presence as a lion makes perfect sense.

Christ is what God-made-man in “our” world is called - He is not Christ in Narnia, because He is not a man in Narnia, but a lion. Genesis 1 is all very well for us, because we are human - but in a world of Talking Beasts, God’s provision for it, might be different; there is nothing inherently sacred about the human form, in all possible realities. Would fallen Martians have a human Saviour ?

“Our world” is not a model for Narnia - instead, both our world & Narnia are different, temporary, realisations of what in the Narnia books is called “Aslan’s country”, which is the Idea for both. That country is the original of both. ##

 

[patrick457]

If I might add on my former choice (The Last Temptation),

basically any movie that depicts Christianity (Specifically the Catholic Church) as hiding something that would shake Christianity’s foundations from the general public for 2000 years, like the DVC, or The Body, etc.

 

[child_of_God85]

Guess I’m goin’ to hell for liking movies like Cinderella and Harry Potter. Whats up with people on this board? I’m taking lessons to become Catholic from my Priest. I love the catholic faith, but most people on this board sound more protostant.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Back from the weekend, which is why I haven’t been posting

Gottle of Greer–thank you, your reply was most excellent regarding the Narnia/Aslan/Christ issue.

Narnia, while fiction, is not allegory–Lewis himself flatfly denied it was allegory–and as a Professor of “romance” literature, we can expect him to be an expert on what is or is not allegory.

Lewis wrote Narnia as a way of reaching children and otherwise non-receptive adults who might be resistent to the Christian message–because of either bad. trite, or even abusive evangelism or the influence of a materialistic culture–The Narnia books are a “sneak attack” if you will.

The talking beasts of Narnia are saphient beings–they are souled beings capable of moral choice. The are NOT the same as animals. To make Lewis a patron saint of PETA is a leap in rational that would have the Don himself chuckling

 

[Other_Eric]

Not quite - the One Who is incarnate for us as a man, is imagined as being a lion in that imaginary world. The same Person is involved but the two worlds are different: so the manner of that Person’s Presence in each, is different. It’s not that Jesus is Incarnate as Aslan, but that He Who is Incarnate among us as the man Jesus, is (imagined as) Present in Narnia as Aslan the Lion.​

The comparison is, not between Aslan & Jesus - but between each of them, & the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

So there is no blasphemy or error involved. ## ## How is this any more blasphemous than saying that there are creatures, as well as God ?

2. ## But Narnia is not in “our world” - it’s entirely different from ours. Unless you know of any Talking Beasts

There is a Divine Presence by way of an Incarnation as a man in “our” world, because we are human - in a world with Talking Beasts, a Divine Presence as a lion makes perfect sense.

Christ is what God-made-man in “our” world is called - He is not Christ in Narnia, because He is not a man in Narnia, but a lion. Genesis 1 is all very well for us, because we are human - but in a world of Talking Beasts, God’s provision for it, might be different; there is nothing inherently sacred about the human form, in all possible realities. Would fallen Martians have a human Saviour ?

“Our world” is not a model for Narnia - instead, both our world & Narnia are different, temporary, realisations of what in the Narnia books is called “Aslan’s country”, which is the Idea for both. That country is the original of both. ##

To get back to the original topic, we were asked to give examples of the worst movies for Catholics to see. I believe that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to be among them for the reasons I have already given. To debate those reasons is the subject of another thread.

My point remains that, as this is a movie that is aimed at children, the potential for serious error cannot be overlooked. That we are engaging in a protracted debate here about the meaning of the Incarnation and splitting hairs over the true meaning of “allegory” or whatnot tends to bear out that there exists the potential for a child to derive grave error from a movie such as this and should therefore not see it.

Movies that could lead children away from the Truths of the Church are fittingly described as the worst movies for Catholics.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

To get back to the original topic, we were asked to give examples of the worst movies for Catholics to see. I believe that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to be among them for the reasons I have already given. To debate those reasons is the subject of another thread.

My point remains that, as this is a movie that is aimed at children, the potential for serious error cannot be overlooked. That we are engaging in a protracted debate here about the meaning of the Incarnation and splitting hairs over the true meaning of “allegory” or whatnot tends to bear out that there exists the potential for a child to derive grave error from a movie such as this and should therefore not see it.

Movies that could lead children away from the Truths of the Church are fittingly described as the worst movies for Catholics.

Dogma, Stigmata, Last Temptation of Christ all received from pretty stern criticisms fom some pretty high Church officials. The Da Vinci Code was likewise slammed for it’s obvious errors.

But Narnia?–other than some fundamanentalists who critique Lewis as a crypto catholic/pagan, I’m afraid your’re alone on this

 

[Other_Eric]

Dogma, Stigmata, Last Temptation of Christ all received from pretty stern criticisms fom some pretty high Church officials. The Da Vinci Code was likewise slammed for it’s obvious errors.

But Narnia?–other than some fundamanentalists who critique Lewis as a crypto catholic/pagan, I’m afraid your’re alone on this

Then I am alone with Christ. (1)

(1) The New American Bible. Washington: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc. 1991. Matt 27:46. Available online at: nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew27.htm

 

[Rabbititus]

“Marie Antoinette” was horrible. I was hoping for some way awesome action and all I got was chocolate eating and girly shoe parities. Also, unless I missed some sort of clever means of showing the passage of time, they really screwed up in depicting a Catholic wedding.

• Harry Potter, Mary Poppins, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Cinderella,** Pinocchio**, etc.: Movies that promote the use of magic and witchcraft to achieve desirable ends. It ought to be noted that some of these ends, such as the willful disobedience of an authority figure in Cinderella. In others, such as Pinocchio, even the creation of life is subject to the intervention of magic.
  These are the types of movies that are most damaging to people who wish to follow the path of Christ.

Wouldn’t Cinderella’s “willful disobedience” be justified? The stepmother was obviously treating her poorly and subjecting her to emotional abuse. Cinderella’s dead father probably wouldn’t have wanted his daughter treated in such a way.

 

[tcheramie]

I think what we are seeing here is a division on what constitutes the worst movies for Catholics. One is a movie that is secular and has elements that speak directly against sensible morality (i.e. the nude scene in Titanic)

More importantly, I like to consider which movies are bad for Catholics because it perpetuates a negative image of Church in popular media.

So There’s movies like Stigmata, 40 days and 40 nights, Nacho Libre, The Three Musketeers, Keeping the Faith, The Last Temptation of Christ, The DaVinci Code, The Exorcist, Which I think directly target those who have an interest in Catholic Spirituality and

1. Portray the Church as an evil enemy or global conspirator who is hiding truths from the world.
2. Portrays Preists and Religious casting off their vows and compromising their chastity.
3. Shows scenes which are so evil and perverse that while they may be based on fact the mere fact that the movie exists is prone to cause scandal.

Some other themes I’ve seen are religious portrayed as heroes defying their superiors (Perhaps something that is seen in Sister Act) which is an offshoot of “the church is an evil organization” or is out of touch with the good in humanity. This is also the same stuff that makes the Harry Potter series troublesome. It shows good triumphing over evil, but it teaches kids that “they know better” than authority figures, and makes heroism out of their disobedience.

 

[CNCIBC9]

It seems to me that the films that are most dangerous for Catholics are the ones that, at first blush, are seemingly innocuous but which contain deep and abiding error. The worst of these are always going to be the ones that are marketed to children. My list includes the following:

• Star Wars: Promotes Manichean heresy. Encourages relativistic conceptions of Truth.
• Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe: Presents Christ’s Incarnation as completely arbitrary.
• Harry Potter, Mary Poppins, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Cinderella,** Pinocchio**, etc.: Movies that promote the use of magic and witchcraft to achieve desirable ends. It ought to be noted that some of these ends, such as the willful disobedience of an authority figure in Cinderella. In others, such as Pinocchio, even the creation of life is subject to the intervention of magic.
  These are the types of movies that are most damaging to people who wish to follow the path of Christ.

I’m going to go ahead and assume that you just don’t like any movies then?