Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[Veridicus]

Dan Brown did do research. He heard it from a tour guide getting paid to sensationalize the catacombs in Rome in order to bring in money for the tourism business. What could be less biased and dependable than a tour guide?

[HisChildForever]

If Dan Brown wanted to spread anti-Catholic filth, he would have mocked the teachings of the Church. He would have ridiculed the OFFICE of the Pope.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817209' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:10 PM']Seriously, I wasn't even sure who I was supposed to like and dislike by the end of that synopsis...but that is because I am Catholic. If I didnt' have a formed conscience, I would just assume that everyone was corrupt and Church power was being bought by the most power-hungry, insane, and ruthless men possible.[/quote]

Woah, this sort of insinuates that non-Catholics do not have a formed conscience.

Oh, I should ask if YOU have read the book. You seem pretty quick to extract the negatives from the story and ignore the positives.

And frankly anyone who makes that assumption after reading a FICTION novel is not someone I would ever take seriously.

Edited March 26, 2009 by HisChildForever

[CatholicCid]

So, we should assume then that Dan Brown is mistaken in claiming that the Illuminati was an organization from the 1600s? Would anyone wish to counter with historical fact?

And yes, I still think it was anti-Catholic

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817229' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:36 PM']So, we should assume then that Dan Brown is mistaken in claiming that the Illuminati was an organization from the 1600s? Would anyone wish to counter with historical fact?[/quote]

You must have missed my post. In the first article I presented, Dan Brown stated it as fact. in the second article I presented, he said this: [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] Obviously the man is not going to bore the interviewer with what he means by "histories." Please note that the SECOND article was from 2006, whereas the FIRST article was from 2001. We have to take into account that interviewers can distort words, and those being interviewed do misspeak.

This is what I mean by overreactions. You said earlier, after reading the first interview: [b]Really, reading through his interview is quite scary...[/b]

Come on. Seriously.

[HisChildForever]

Again, if Dan Brown blatantly stated that his book was NON-FICTION then I would take it to be anti-Catholic. The end.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817230' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:41 PM']You must have missed my post. In the first article I presented, Dan Brown stated it as fact. in the second article I presented, he said this: [b]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/b] Obviously the man is not going to bore the interviewer with what he means by "histories." Please note that the SECOND article was from 2006, whereas the FIRST article was from 2001. We have to take into account that interviewers can distort words, and those being interviewed do misspeak.

This is what I mean by overreactions. You said earlier, after reading the first interview: [b]Really, reading through his interview is quite scary...[/b]

Come on. Seriously.[/quote]

Considering that the 2001 article was written closer to the publication of the book, I would consider that more heavily then a later article, as it shows what he thought when writing the book.

And he said "[b]It is historical fact[/b] that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's."

That's quite a misspeak and/or distortion. Not, 'some historians say' or 'one thought is'... but 'It is historical fact.' Also, note that the first article seems to be a transcript of what was said... Quite hard to misrepresent that.

Considering he apparently said this, and then most likely thought it when writing the novel, I do find it quite scary. He should have done better research.

Anyway, if that's me overreacting, you should see me when I get graded exams back

Alas, I still see it as anti-Catholic (as in, not supportive or neutral concerning the Church).

-Edit-

Also, Please don't think I'll be out there with a picket sign, ect... when the movie comes out. I know some people discussed the sense of an "over outrage" over every little thing. I read the book. I enjoyed it as a detective novel. As said, it's fiction. I did think, however, that it was a bit unnecessarily harsh on the Church, did see it as harping on the Church, and it appeared somewhat 'anti-Catholic' to me. I'm not ripping my hair out over it; this is the first time I've thought of it since someone else mentioned it to me. I am, however, just calling it as I see it, which is a decent detective novel, but also anti-Catholic.

And that's the last I shall post tonight. Have a fine evening all!

Edited March 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Saint Therese]

I'm just curious as to why you are so defensive of this book. I have never read it and never will, because I don't care if its fiction; if it portrays the Church in a negative way through lies and half truths what good could it be?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817232' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:47 PM']Anyway, if that's me overreacting, you should see me when I get graded exams back[/quote]

I would also like to see what you are like when you are confronted by something legitimately scary.

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817233' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:48 PM']I'm just curious as to why you are so defensive of this book. I have never read it and never will, because I don't care if its fiction; if it portrays the Church in a negative way through lies and half truths what good could it be?[/quote]

It's not that I'm so defensive of the book, it's that I find the reactions of most Catholics to be ridiculous, particularly when the Catholic in question has never even read a single page of Dan Brown. The CHURCH is not portrayed negatively, MEMBERS of the Church are. There is a huge, huge difference. [b]Everyone also keeps forgetting that the main character, the hero of the novel, is actually on a mission to SAVE the Church - he is searching for the canister of antimatter that the Illuminati hid in Vatican City.[/b] In most novels there is A versus B. Everyone here is discussing the A while ignoring the B.

The problem is this phrase, "anti-Catholic." I find that too many people assume "X" and "Y" are anti-Catholic when they really are not. Reading about a FICTIONAL Pope in favor of In Vitro is not what I would consider anti-Catholic. Individuals spewing blatant lies about the Church, such as "Catholics worship idols and I have proof" would be what I consider anti-Catholic propaganda.

[Saint Therese]

[i]But what good could it be[/i]? Or produce?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817241' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:06 PM'][i]But what good could it be[/i]? Or produce?[/quote]

It produces entertainment. It. is. a. fictional. story.

[Saint Therese]

Really? Thanks.for.explaining.that.to.me.
So what you're saying is that entertainment is a good, in and of itself?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817249' date='Mar 26 2009, 06:14 PM']Really? Thanks.for.explaining.that.to.me.
So what you're saying is that entertainment is a good, in and of itself?[/quote]

No, that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that the purpose of the novel we are presently discussing is to produce entertainment for the reader.

I had to seriously emphasis the point I have been making throughout this entire thread because clearly many people are NOT getting it. Furthermore, you never read the novel, so you really cannot properly judge it.

And I definitely do not appreciate that pointless remark you made on the Family Guy thread. I was not even thinking about that show as fiction or non-fiction, I read a particularly gross part in that spoiler tag and acknowledged it.

Edited March 26, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817228' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:34 PM']Woah, this sort of insinuates that non-Catholics do not have a formed conscience.[/quote]

The vast majority of non-Catholics DO NOT have an informed conscience regarding the papacy, papal office, church hierarchy, etc., etc., etc., etc. So Yes, I am PRECISELY saying that. Anyone who claims that the common American consciousness has a historically and theologically accurate view of Catholicism is quite wrong. This books panders to misconceptions and sensationalizes scandals.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817228' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:34 PM']Oh, I should ask if YOU have read the book. You seem pretty quick to extract the negatives from the story and ignore the positives.[/quote]

And I have previously stated in this thread that I have NOT read Angels and Demons; hence my statement's preface "based on reading the synopsis". I read the entire Wikipedia page concerning it. I HAVE read "The DaVinci Code" where Dan Brown began the book with "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents ... and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" and then proceeded to fracture, twist, mutilate what little facts he had into nonsense spoken by his 'expert' characters. And what positives would you cite? Paper-thin characters? Sloppy prose? Libel and denigration of respectable catholic groups like Opus Dei? Pseudoscientific appeals to "antimatter containers'?....maybe the next Dan Brown novel will have "Dilithium crystals" and "beryllium spheres" and "Romulans" and "SpacePopes" running intergalactic slave trades.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817228' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:34 PM']And frankly anyone who makes that assumption after reading a FICTION novel is not someone I would ever take seriously.[/quote]

Most people in America already have a negative view of the Catholic Church and Dan Brown panders to this sentiment and further codifies it in the social consciousness. You don't have to take these people seriously. But these people are still having kids and misdirecting social thought and teaching in our universities and writing books and voting just like the rest of us. So in a way, their false opinions do matter.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Veridicus

[Saint Therese]

My question is, even though it is a work of fiction, what good will it be, or produce? Will that possible good be affected by its fictional but negative portrayal of Catholic figures (if not the Church)? And should Catholics not be concerned with not only if a book is morally offensive in and of itself, but how others, non Catholics will be affected by it? Many were sucked into the lies of the Davinci Code, especially the unchurched.