Should Seeing the Da Vinci Code be deemed a sin?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Thumper' post='981488' date='May 15 2006, 01:47 PM']
I'm with you up to point #4. Your list reminds me of playing the Sesame Street game "one of these things is not like the others." The first three points have to do with sin in connection to disobedience; your last point deals with sin in relation to knowledge of the truth.

If a Catholic believes the fictional aspects of The DaVinci Code, then that Catholic is either A) willfully denying the truth or B) ignorantly denying the truth. In Case A, I can see an argument being made that the person is sinning. But in Case B, ignorance would preclude culpability.

As to points #1 and #2--neither has happened; and I would be curious to hear if a bishop or priest has mandated #3.
[/quote]


It has to do with what Cardinal Poupard said... that he has no problem for people who see it as fiction... which means he does have a problem with people seeing it as true. In that case all Vatican athorities agree... therefore it would be a sin of disobedience to see the movie.

[i]"no objection to people seeing the film if they understand it is fiction, but many would watch this "nonsense" and think that it was true."[/i]

[zwergel88]

Of course it's not sinful. Numerous Church leaders have said that people are perfectly free to see the movie for entertainment purposes or so they can better speak to it, the important part is that people know that it is purely fictional.

I'm tempted to read the book, because I think that would put me in a better position to point out its glaring fallacies, but I don't really feel like it, and as yet have not.

[Seven77]

it can very well be a sin... whatever happened to concept of near occasion of sin?

1.entertaiment purposes would be the most sinful.

2.watching it to refute? thats silly.. an excuse for some. idle curiousity=sinful. you can very well refute it by reading any good book about it. we know the facts.

dont support blasphemy needlessly. be militant for Christ.

[Thumper]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='981564' date='May 15 2006, 12:35 PM']
It has to do with what Cardinal Poupard said... that he has no problem for people who see it as fiction... which means he does have a problem with people seeing it as true. In that case all Vatican athorities agree... therefore it would be a sin of disobedience to see the movie.

[i]"no objection to people seeing the film if they understand it is fiction, but many would watch this "nonsense" and think that it was true."[/i]
[/quote]

And how does that not fall under ignorance and thus remove culpability?

My take on what the Cardinal said is that he is expressing concern that people will think the movie is true--not condemnation for those who are genuinely confused by it. Then there's no culpability attached.

If the good Cardinal is trying to tell us that we are sinning in that circumstance, then he, and the entire teaching Church, owe it to the faithful to be explicit.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='Seven77' post='981618' date='May 15 2006, 01:10 PM']
it can very well be a sin... whatever happened to concept of near occasion of sin?

1.entertaiment purposes would be the most sinful.

2.watching it to refute? thats silly.. an excuse for some. idle curiousity=sinful. you can very well refute it by reading any good book about it. we know the facts.

dont support blasphemy needlessly. be militant for Christ.
[/quote]


By entertainment, I mean that for example, you know the movie is nonsense, but you just like fictional mysteries, or you love Tom Hanks or something. I wouldn't recommend it because you'd be giving it money, but it wouldn't be sinful.

As for refuting it. I do believe that it is necesarry to read a book that you want to refute. We may well know the facts, but the person who we are refuting won't view our arguement as credible. For example, I wouldn't trust a Canadian to tell me who to vote for in an American election, even though they may be very well informed. I think its just a matter of making yourself more credible.

I agree that it could be a near occasion of sin in you think that you are very succeptable to being sucked in and believing it, but if you know that you'll just think its nonsense I don't think that provides any near occasion.

Personally, I doubt I'll go see it, but I don't think it would be sinful if I did. I really like the "othercott" idea. There's alot of good scary movies out, maybe I'll check one out. I just don't want to be a part of making it the biggest grossing movie of the year, which it probably will be without my help or not. If I ever want to see it, I'll wait and borrow it from someone so I'm not giving it any money.

Edited May 15, 2006 by zwergel88

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Seven77' post='981618' date='May 15 2006, 02:10 PM']
it can very well be a sin... whatever happened to concept of near occasion of sin?

1.entertaiment purposes would be the most sinful.

2.watching it to refute? thats silly.. an excuse for some. idle curiousity=sinful. you can very well refute it by reading any good book about it. we know the facts.

dont support blasphemy needlessly. be militant for Christ.
[/quote]
well said.

[God Conquers]

I don't think it would be sinful...

Stupid.

Maybe even really stupid.

On several levels.

Not sinful.

Unless stupidity is a sin.










I hope not.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Thumper' post='981619' date='May 15 2006, 03:11 PM']
And how does that not fall under ignorance and thus remove culpability?

My take on what the Cardinal said is that he is expressing concern that people will think the movie is true--not condemnation for those who are genuinely confused by it. Then there's no culpability attached.

If the good Cardinal is trying to tell us that we are sinning in that circumstance, then he, and the entire teaching Church, owe it to the faithful to be explicit.
[/quote]


I've clearly explained how it would be sinful. The Catechism clearly shows it. There is culpability attached if someone knows what the Cardinal said and takes any of the movie as non-fiction.

He is explicit... his statement is clear and there is no doubt that it would be disobedience in light of what other Vatican officials would say.

[Socrates]

[quote name='styx chyx' post='981456' date='May 15 2006, 10:54 AM']
I am glad to admit I own a copy of The Da Vinci Code, and I am going to watch the movie this weekend with my mother. We love this STORY. It is a great piece of FICTION. It is very ENTERTAINING AS A FICTIONAL NOVEL. Anyone with half a brain will realise as they take this novel off the FICTION shelf to purchase, or as they sit in the theatre to watch a MOVIE, not a DOCUMENTARY that, hey, this isn't 'real life'. It's just the same as 'The Mummy'. Does anyone believe that in the 1920s some Egyptologists/Architects etc were in Egypt and brought a mummy back to life? This story too is based on real people (Ankh-Su-Namun, Imhotep and others) but is completely taken out of context to make a good story. What's wrong with that? If anyone's uneducated enough to believe everything they see on the big screen, pray that next time they go to the movies they watch The Passion of the Christ!
[/quote]
There are a number of important distinctions that you are failing to make here.

While the novel itself (and the movie) is presented as fiction (the "murder mystery" and such surrounding the characters played by Tom Hanks et al.), Dan Brown claims the background premise of his book (concerning Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, the Church, etc.) is based on historically accurate fact and solid research. The novel opens with a page titled "FACT" which states "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
Thus, Brown misleads the audience into thinking his novel is based on solid research and historically accurate when they are not.

And besides this movie, there is plenty of "serious" "documentaries," magazine articles, and the like, also trying to favorably play up the gnostic ideas which are presented in TDC.

And unfortunately, many have bought into this lie. I and my family members have come across people who have read the book and are convinced that the ideas about Christ and the Church presented in TDVC are factually accurate. While this nonsense will not be bought by serious Catholics who have done their homework, unfortunately, many people are ignorant, and too lazy to try to learn the truth. It is particularly dangerous to people who are weak or "on-the-fence" Christians.

Movies like "The Mummy" do not present themselves as based on solid, serious history, and nobody buys them as such. As I have shown, that is not the case with TDVC, which many do accept as being based on solid historical research.
Furthermore, movies like "The Mummy" do not seek to undermine the basis of all Christian Faith, nor directly blaspheme Our Lord Jesus Christ, which TDVC does.

While I myself would not likely be led astray by watching this flick, nor would most other serious Catholics well educated in their Faith, there is no good reason for us to watch it. Just because we are not taken by a lie, does not mean we should contribute money to the spreading of a lie, especially a lie which blasphemes Our Lord and Savior, and seeks to undermine the Church.

When Catholics insist proudly on watching (and financially supporting) blasphemous anti-Catholic propaganda for the purpose of their "entertainment," this shows their priorities are indeed in the wrong places.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='981792' date='May 15 2006, 06:14 PM']
I've clearly explained how it would be sinful. The Catechism clearly shows it. There is culpability attached if someone knows what the Cardinal said and takes any of the movie as non-fiction.

He is explicit... his statement is clear and there is no doubt that it would be disobedience in light of what other Vatican officials would say.
[/quote]

Has the Church declared it sinful to see the movie? No. Will the Church declare it sinful to see the movie? No.

You are making a volcano out of an anthill IM. Your alarmist tactics can be applied in any number of ways. But to call this a sin of disobedience???!!!!! That is laughable.

The Catechetical view is not to be used in this manner. And you have not shown how it is sinful, you just quoted the Catechism.....incorrectly I might add.

Where does your cute little quote from CNN state anything about the Church declaring anything sinful? It doesn't. Actually, it says:

[quote]Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, on Monday told Europe 1 radio [b]he had no objection to people seeing the film if they understand it is fiction[/b], but many would watch this "nonsense" and think that it was true.[/quote]

That is hardly calling the movie sinful.....on the contrary it is saying the opposite. He goes on to say:

[quote]Asked if he would go see the film, Poupard said: "I don't plan to, because life is short and I have a lot of things to do. I have so many friends who have described this nonsense to me that I don't have time for that."[/quote]

Are you saying that the friends of Cardinal Poupard have sinned by reading the novel and then describing it to him?

I have another question.......Just who do you think that you are, passing judgment on others like that? You don't have any authority to make that claim and your "cut and paste" justification isn't worth the time of day. You simply give this movie too much credit.

It is not sinful to see this movie. I wouldn't see it on opening weekend, thus contributing to the "blockbuster" status of the film, but I do plan on going once it has been out for a couple of weeks.

As usual IM, your tactics of "shock and awe" fall predictably short.

[ironmonk]

[b]1269 [/b]
Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to [u][b]"obey and submit" to the Church's leaders[/b],[/u]77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79



The Catechism does not say "obey and submit to official statements"... it says to "obey and submit".



The Cardinal knows it's complete fiction... What he goes on to say has nothing to do with it not being sinful. He does object to Catholics who would see it as non-fiction to see it. [b]THEREFORE it would be a sin of disobediance[/b]. From his statements AND the other Cardinals statements from the Vatican it verifies that we would be sinning if we saw the movie and thought any of it was true.

Why is context so hard for you to grasp? You ignore so much mentioned. My guess is that you're going to rush out and see it... therefore you have to defend it to get your conscience to agree. Sad.



[quote]Just who do you think that you are, passing judgment on others like that?[/quote]

Just ignore all logic... I'm not passing judgement. Saying something is a sin is not passing judgement.

This is not judgement either but an observation...
I know that your opinions lack logic and comprehension of the Catholic Faith. You seem to be skewed by the liberal virus that plagues our Catholic Faith. But there is hope, with prayer and study maybe one day you'll understand proportional reasoning and our obligation to obey and submit to Church leaders.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='982123' date='May 16 2006, 07:43 AM']
[b]1269 [/b]
Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to [u][b]"obey and submit" to the Church's leaders[/b],[/u]77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79
The Catechism does not say "obey and submit to official statements"... it says to "obey and submit".
The Cardinal knows it's complete fiction... What he goes on to say has nothing to do with it not being sinful. He does object to Catholics who would see it as non-fiction to see it. [b]THEREFORE it would be a sin of disobediance[/b]. From his statements AND the other Cardinals statements from the Vatican it verifies that we would be sinning if we saw the movie and thought any of it was true.

Why is context so hard for you to grasp? You ignore so much mentioned. My guess is that you're going to rush out and see it... therefore you have to defend it to get your conscience to agree. Sad.
Just ignore all logic... I'm not passing judgement. Saying something is a sin is not passing judgement.

This is not judgement either but an observation...
I know that your opinions lack logic and comprehension of the Catholic Faith. You seem to be skew by the liberal virus that plagues our Catholic Faith. But there is hope, with prayer and study maybe one day you'll understand proportional reasoning and our obligation to obey and submit to Church leaders.
[/quote]

Catholic bot has spoken.....all hail Ironmonk......NOT!!!!

I am a liberal????? Are you nuts?.....don't answer that!!! Have you NEVER read anything that I have written. I am all for submitting to the local Ordinary/compitent authority. I have supported this in the past, however, the compitent authority has NOT deemed this to be a sin.

You have gone on a nice rant, but you have not answered my question.....although I did answer it for you, because I knew this was how you would react.....I wonder why???? Oh yeah, because this is how you ALWAYS react. With ad hominems and ad hominem tu quoque. You also like to set up slippery slopes and strawmen, but that has already been made clear, by your action.

SHOW SOLID PROOF THAT CARDINAL POUPARD OR ANY OTHER BISHOP HAS DEEMED THIS TO BE A SIN REQUIRING CONFESSION OR RELENT.

Your view is extremist and it is alarmist. It is not my lack of catechetical knowledge (that statement actually made me chuckle out loud), but rather your misguided understanding of this paragraph of the Catechism AND faulty application of what is there (because Cardinal Poupard has not said this is sinful) that is appalling.

How about giving some original thought and stop with the cutting and pasting. It is more becoming.

[ironmonk]

Please show proof that the teaching of the Catholic faith allows us to disobey and not submit to Church leaders.

1 + 1 = 2

Vatican cardinals say "don't do it" (one says don't do it if you look at it as non fiction) + CCC 1269 = doing it is a sin if we look at it as non fiction OR if our direct Bishop/Pastor says not to see it

I don't think it would be a mortal sin, but most likely venial... but it is still a sin of disobediance if the criteria are met.

"obey and submit"

There is not really much more to say on the subject... unless you can show us with Catholic writings where it is ok to disobey and not submit.

God Bless.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='982134' date='May 16 2006, 08:16 AM']
Please show proof that the teaching of the Catholic faith allows us to disobey and not submit to Church leaders.

1 + 1 = 2

Vatican cardinals say "don't do it" (one says don't do it if you look at it as non fiction) + CCC 1269 = doing it is a sin if we look at it as non fiction OR if our direct Bishop/Pastor says not to see it

I don't think it would be a mortal sin, but most likely venial... but it is still a sin of disobediance if the criteria are met.

"obey and submit"

There is not really much more to say on the subject... unless you can show us with Catholic writings where it is ok to disobey and not submit.

God Bless.
[/quote]

Apples and oranges, Max. Apples and oranges.

No one has said that seeing the movie would be sinful. No where. No place. No how.

Again, I will ask and I will continue to do so until you ACTUALLY ANSWER THE PROPOSITION.

SHOW SOLID PROOF THAT CARDINAL POUPARD OR ANY OTHER BISHOP HAS DEEMED THIS TO BE A SIN REQUIRING CONFESSION OR RELENT.

You can't apply CCC #1269 [u]until[/u] the compitent authority actually says this is a sin. Duh.

[Jaime]

[quote]Why is context so hard for you to grasp? You ignore so much mentioned. My guess is that you're going to rush out and see it... therefore you have to defend it to get your conscience to agree. Sad.
[/quote]


Cam legitimately argues his point that its not a sin, you assume that he's trying to rationalize his own *ahem* "sinful" behavior

I legitimately argue that Bush is prochoice and you assume that I must've voted for Kerry and am rationalizing my *ahem" sinful behavior.


There's a pattern here. And it isn't a Catholic one.

[homeschoolmom]

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='982140' date='May 16 2006, 08:35 AM']
Cam legitimately argues his point that its not a sin, you assume that he's trying to rationalize his own *ahem* "sinful" behavior

I legitimately argue that Bush is prochoice and you assume that I must've voted for Kerry and am rationalizing my *ahem" sinful behavior.
There's a pattern here. And it isn't a Catholic one.
[/quote]

DING DING DING DING DING

*points to nose*

[Desert Walker]

Hmm...

It has probably already been said but...

Financially supporting a thing that can lead to someone's apostasy seems glaringly sinful to me.

I don't care what the Church says, or doesn't say, about it. In the end, God will judge us according to our OWN judgement, not the Magisterium's.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='982206' date='May 16 2006, 09:23 AM']
Hmm...

It has probably already been said but...

Financially supporting a thing that can lead to someone's apostasy seems glaringly sinful to me.

I don't care what the Church says, or doesn't say, about it. In the end, God will judge us according to our OWN judgement, not the Magisterium's.
[/quote]

A hypothetical cannot be a sin. You don't know what is in a person's heart. As far as caring about what the Church says or doesn't say, you really should. The Church is her arbitrator on such matters. She will define or remain silent on such issues. To this point, the Church has not made a statement which is binding on conscience. And I don't think that she will.

[cmotherofpirl]

I am not going because I would probably start arguing back during the movie, just like I argue with the history channel. I am also not going to give money to support a man who lies about his fictional sources. But I don't see going as sinful unless you are weak in your faith because of your own personal failure to studyit. Now that is sinful.