The Plot To Baptize The DaVinci Code

In what may be the premiere case of trying to have cake and eat it, too, Hollywood wants to both film Dan Brown’s trashy anti-Christian novel The DaVinci Code and market it to Christians as a Christian-friendly film:

"Filming is not yet complete on Ron Howard’s adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, but the controversy is already raging. An association called the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property has called on Roman Catholics to boycott the film, saying: ‘It attacks everything that Catholics hold sacred.’

"They have the backing of the Archbishop of Genoa, who described the book as ‘a sackful of lies against the church and against Christ himself.’ And even enlightened Catholics [unlike, presumably, the Archbishop of Genoa?] such as the commentator Barbara Nicolosi, who runs Act One, a seminar for Christian film-makers in Hollywood, says: ‘The book is particularly repulsive. It says Jesus isn’t Divine and that the Church is basically evil.’

"Normally, such outrage would be all good clean fun at the box-office, but the re-election of George W. Bush on a wave of devout heartland votes and the phenomenal success of The Passion of the Christ have changed Hollywood’s thinking. The Christian moviegoer is now a recognised and lucrative demographic that Hollywood cannot afford to ignore.

"Columbia Studios, which is making The Da Vinci Code, clearly feels that it cannot count on divine protection [and should count itself fortunate not to be the target of divine wrath]. It has called on the services of Grace Hill Media to help to prepare the groundwork for the film, which is to be released next summer, and defuse controversy."

GET THE STORY.

In a backhanded way, this whole plot substantiates the Christian assertion that Dan Brown’s novel is anti-Christian. There would be no need to spin the film as "Christian-friendly" were Hollywood unconcerned that the movie was offensive to Christian sensibilities.

The Plot To Baptize The DaVinci Code

In what may be the premiere case of trying to have cake and eat it, too, Hollywood wants to both film Dan Brown’s trashy anti-Christian novel The DaVinci Code and market it to Christians as a Christian-friendly film:

"Filming is not yet complete on Ron Howard’s adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, but the controversy is already raging. An association called the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property has called on Roman Catholics to boycott the film, saying: ‘It attacks everything that Catholics hold sacred.’

"They have the backing of the Archbishop of Genoa, who described the book as ‘a sackful of lies against the church and against Christ himself.’ And even enlightened Catholics [unlike, presumably, the Archbishop of Genoa?] such as the commentator Barbara Nicolosi, who runs Act One, a seminar for Christian film-makers in Hollywood, says: ‘The book is particularly repulsive. It says Jesus isn’t Divine and that the Church is basically evil.’

"Normally, such outrage would be all good clean fun at the box-office, but the re-election of George W. Bush on a wave of devout heartland votes and the phenomenal success of The Passion of the Christ have changed Hollywood’s thinking. The Christian moviegoer is now a recognised and lucrative demographic that Hollywood cannot afford to ignore.

"Columbia Studios, which is making The Da Vinci Code, clearly feels that it cannot count on divine protection [and should count itself fortunate not to be the target of divine wrath]. It has called on the services of Grace Hill Media to help to prepare the groundwork for the film, which is to be released next summer, and defuse controversy."

GET THE STORY.

In a backhanded way, this whole plot substantiates the Christian assertion that Dan Brown’s novel is anti-Christian. There would be no need to spin the film as "Christian-friendly" were Hollywood unconcerned that the movie was offensive to Christian sensibilities.

Happy Birthday, Betty!

Betty_boopToday, August 8, back in 1930 was the first appearance of Betty Boop, which occurred in the cartoon Dizzy Dishes by the Max Fleischer Studio.

This early incarnation of Betty was not much like her later self. For one thing, she wasn’t yet named Betty, much less Boop.

She also wasn’t a human being. She was a dog–a French poodle, specifically.

She was, however, modeled after a human actress named Helen Kane, who later sued Fleisher (unsuccessfully).

MORE ON HELEN KANE.

Betty inhabited a surreal world in which even the smallest inanimate object could take on a life of its own under the influence of Fleisher’s full animation techniques, and she went on to fame and stardom, working with greats such as Cab Calloway and Louis Armstrong.

She also became a starmaker herself, launching Popeye on his animation career.

After 1934, though, her overt . . . (ahem) . . . attractiveness had to be toned down due to Hollywood Production Code regulations.

Betty continues to be popular today, making an occasional appearance, as she did in a famous cameo in the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Boop-oop-a-doop!

MORE ON BETTY.

WATCH OR DOWNLOAD PUBLIC DOMAIN BETTY CARTOONS.

(Of special note: Minnie The Moocher.)

Hiroshima: 60 Years Later

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Sixty years later, Hiroshima remembers the atrocity:

"Though Hiroshima has risen from the rubble to become a thriving city of 3 million, most of whom were born after the war, the anniversary underscores its ongoing tragedy.

"Officials estimate about 140,000 people were killed instantly or died within a few months after the Enola Gay dropped its payload over the city, which then had a population of about 350,000.

[…]

"The true toll on Hiroshima is hard to gauge, however.

"Including those initially listed as missing or who died afterward from a loosely defined set of bomb-related ailments, including cancers, Hiroshima officials now put the total number of the dead in this city alone at 237,062.

"This year, about 5,000 names are being added to the list."

GET THE STORY.

On August 9, Japan will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on another Japanese city, Nagasaki, which has been the epicenter for Catholicism in that country. For a Catholic perspective on the atomic bombings of Japan, see this e-letter by Karl Keating, written to commemorate the anniversary last year. For an overview of Catholic principles of just war, see Catholic Answers’ Answer Guide: Just War Doctrine.

Protestants & Communion

A reader writes:

Under what circumstances outside of imminent death (or equally

concerning situations) can/should a priest invite Protestants to come

to receive Communion (or, in my particular instance, to "come as the

Lord calls you")? 

The Code says the following:

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the

judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave

necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly

also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [in context, this is other than Eastern non-Catholic Christians and thus means Protestants],

who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on

their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to

these sacraments and are properly disposed.

The other conditions are thus those that would involve a grave necessity in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, not the individual priest.

Also it is right out for the priest to issue a general invitation for them to come since in that case they are not "seek[ing] such on their own accord" but being prompted by the priest.

Would a Catholic silent retreat be such acceptable?

Definitely not.

Is it appropriate for me, as among the laity, to confront the priest

and hope to change his mind about such an invitation? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Is it

appropriate for me to approach the Protestants directly to correct any

mistakes the priest has made? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Would it be appropriate to approach the

Protestants directly only after the Priest made it clear he thought he

was right (because, regardless of Church teaching, he thinks it

wrong)?

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Do I have any other obligations? 

It depends on your relationship with the parties involved (the priest and the Protestants) and on the circumstances. If you have a close relationship with any of them then you may have a stronger obligation to do something about the situation than if you have a more distant relation. (E.g., if you are married to or close friends with one of the Protestants then you have a stronger obligation to correct the person than if you don’t know him at all.)

Such obligations are also defeasible, which is where circumstance comes in. For example, if the only way you could effectively deal with the situation were to jump up during the silent retreat and yell "What that priest just said is FALSE! DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM! BEWARE! BEWARE!" then this would cause problems great enough that it would defeat any obligation you were likely to have in this regard. The act of doing something that disruptive could scandalize the audience you are trying to help and push them away from the Church.

Tell my pastor and/or bishop?  Write

the priest’s bishop or ordinary?  Continue talking with this priest?

If you’ve talked to the priest already then you might continue to talk to him if you perceive that it has a significant likelihood of bearing fruit. However, if you do not foresee that then the thing to do would be to escalate to the next higher level (the pastor, the bishop, the priest’s religious superior, etc.). If that doesn’t work, contacting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be the final recourse.

This is a very serious matter that the Church takes very seriously. The CDWDS does get complaints of this nature and it does act on them (though not always in a way visible to the public; for example, I’ve seen copies of letters that were privately sent to bishops telling them to straighten a priest out on matters such as this).

My own inclination would be very strongly to pursue the matter further, but working up the chain of command one step at a time so that the problem can be solved on the lowest level possible (which might still be the priest himself).

If you do take it to the next level, be specific, giving names, dates, and exact quotations to the extent possible.

Protestants & Communion

A reader writes:

Under what circumstances outside of imminent death (or equally
concerning situations) can/should a priest invite Protestants to come
to receive Communion (or, in my particular instance, to "come as the
Lord calls you")? 

The Code says the following:

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the
judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave
necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly
also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church [in context, this is other than Eastern non-Catholic Christians and thus means Protestants],
who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on
their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to
these sacraments and are properly disposed.

The other conditions are thus those that would involve a grave necessity in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, not the individual priest.

Also it is right out for the priest to issue a general invitation for them to come since in that case they are not "seek[ing] such on their own accord" but being prompted by the priest.

Would a Catholic silent retreat be such acceptable?

Definitely not.

Is it appropriate for me, as among the laity, to confront the priest
and hope to change his mind about such an invitation? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Is it
appropriate for me to approach the Protestants directly to correct any
mistakes the priest has made? 

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Would it be appropriate to approach the
Protestants directly only after the Priest made it clear he thought he
was right (because, regardless of Church teaching, he thinks it
wrong)?

Appropriate? Yes. Obligatory? Not necessarily.

Do I have any other obligations? 

It depends on your relationship with the parties involved (the priest and the Protestants) and on the circumstances. If you have a close relationship with any of them then you may have a stronger obligation to do something about the situation than if you have a more distant relation. (E.g., if you are married to or close friends with one of the Protestants then you have a stronger obligation to correct the person than if you don’t know him at all.)

Such obligations are also defeasible, which is where circumstance comes in. For example, if the only way you could effectively deal with the situation were to jump up during the silent retreat and yell "What that priest just said is FALSE! DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM! BEWARE! BEWARE!" then this would cause problems great enough that it would defeat any obligation you were likely to have in this regard. The act of doing something that disruptive could scandalize the audience you are trying to help and push them away from the Church.

Tell my pastor and/or bishop?  Write
the priest’s bishop or ordinary?  Continue talking with this priest?

If you’ve talked to the priest already then you might continue to talk to him if you perceive that it has a significant likelihood of bearing fruit. However, if you do not foresee that then the thing to do would be to escalate to the next higher level (the pastor, the bishop, the priest’s religious superior, etc.). If that doesn’t work, contacting the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments would be the final recourse.

This is a very serious matter that the Church takes very seriously. The CDWDS does get complaints of this nature and it does act on them (though not always in a way visible to the public; for example, I’ve seen copies of letters that were privately sent to bishops telling them to straighten a priest out on matters such as this).

My own inclination would be very strongly to pursue the matter further, but working up the chain of command one step at a time so that the problem can be solved on the lowest level possible (which might still be the priest himself).

If you do take it to the next level, be specific, giving names, dates, and exact quotations to the extent possible.

Wisconsin Neighborhood Needs To GET A LIFE

BluebirdEXCERPTS:

Al Emmons of Greendale, Wis., has been displaying the statue on his home’s chimney located at Bluebird Court.


However, neighbors complained that the bird diminished the historic integrity of the community and went to officials to get Emmons to remove the statue.


"It’s just an unhealthy obsession," Emmons said. "It’s such a silly thing to get upset about. That’s also what the big to-do is, is that everyone is wondering why would they get so upset about having a blue bird on a guy’s chimney that the kids made."


The Village’s Historic Preservation Board ordered Emmons to take the blue Big Bird off the chimney or face a $100 a day fine.

GET THE STORY.

Rescate Stay Home!

A reader writes:

I don’t know if this is of any interest to you, but EWTN has THIS ARTICLE  about a Chilean band that is slated to perform at World Youth Day who openly deny the authority of the pope.

Incidently, here is THE OFFICIAL WYD WEBSITE if anyone wants to complain:

Oh, no, this is of quite a lot of interest to me! I read about this band earlier today and was going to blog on them. It’s an outrage that a group of artists who deny the role of the pope as the vicar of Christ and who have attacked B16 in particular would be invited to perform at World Youth Day. Assuming the press reports are accurate, they should never have been invited.

Incidentally, the group is from Argentina rather than Chile. (The latter is where they gave an interiew dissing B16 and the papacy.)

HERE’S THE CONTACT FORM ON THE WYD PAGE.