Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[rkwright]

I don't really know what the book actually says, but I know there are lots of other good books out there, and the Vatican pretty much doesn't approve of it (boycott) - then I won't read it. Thats how I approach it... thats how I thought about da vanci code

[Saint Therese]

Same here.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817218' date='Mar 26 2009, 09:23 PM']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?[/quote]
One of my archaeology profs got in trouble when on a tour (in Ephesus, I think). The guide was sensationalising things and giving wrong info, and my prof was correcting him. Then when he was in Rome he overheard an Italian was taking some Americans on a tour identify the Temple to the Divine Claudius as the Pantheon. Yeah, tour guides aren't reliable.

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1817264' date='Mar 26 2009, 10:28 PM']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.[/quote]
Well, the way I see it, these works have already been written, and we can't change that. I first read The DaVinci Code in order to be able to dialogue with non-Catholics about it, to answer their questions of "Is this true?". I then read Angels and Demons. They were OK works of fiction, and I think we can turn them into something good, or at least mitigate the damage, by being aware of the claims made in them so that we can answer with what the Church actually teaches. If we are able to do that, then we can potentially dispel misconceptions or even get people to look at what the Church teaches and maybe even convert. Would I choose to commission such a work? No. But now that it's in the public domain, it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to be familiar with it so we can answer and correct the misinformation. Just my opinion, though.

[HisChildForever]

Out of curiosity, does the Vatican still ban book?

[Winchester]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817194' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:41 PM']These novels are fiction and they are presented as fiction. My opinion is that a lot of the responses here are overreactions.[/quote]
It's irresponsible and scandalous to write such things.

[Didacus]

In time I may read the DaVinci code. Its just very low on my 'to read' lilst. I'll have to live to be 400 years old to get to it, unfortunately (or fortunately).

There are so many other good reads out there, for example, I will definately read every phrase written by the Church doctors before reading smut like 'the Davinci code', and just that will take me close to 100year.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817238' date='Mar 26 2009, 05:01 PM']I would also like to see what you are like when you are confronted by something legitimately scary.[/quote]

I'd consider such a thing as scary. From the interview you posted, at the time Dan Brown wrote his novel, he apparently considered the basis of the 'plot' to be founded on fact and apparently hyped it as such, when it infact was not.

Also, when confronted with something actually horrendous, I would not characterize it with such a trivial title as "scary." That's the angst such small matters as these gets.

[i]If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... It's most likely a duck.[/i]

Edited March 27, 2009 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1817808' date='Mar 27 2009, 12:41 PM']From the interview you posted, at the time Dan Brown wrote his novel, he apparently considered the basis of the 'plot' to be founded on fact and apparently hyped it as such, when it infact was not.[/quote]

And where in the interview did you find this?

Because I found this:

[b]Angels & Demons is a thriller about the Illuminati's long-awaited resurgence and vengeance against their oppressors... but most of all, it is a story about Robert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist who gets caught in the middle.[/b]

The plot is based on a "what if" scenario.

And this:

[b]I imagine some controversy is unavoidable, yes, although it's important to remember that Angels & Demons is primarily a thriller--a chase and a love story. It's certainly not an anti-Catholic book. It's not even a religious book. Much of the novel's action takes place deep inside the arcane world of the Vatican, and yes, some of the factual information revealed there is startling, but I think most people understand that an organization as old and powerful as the Vatican could not possibly have risen to power without acquiring a few skeletons in their closets. I think the reason Angels & Demons is raising eyebrows right now is that it opens some Vatican closets most people don't even know exist. The final message of the novel, though, without a doubt, is a positive one.[/b]

I disagree with [b]an organization as old and powerful as the Vatican could not possibly have risen to power without acquiring a few skeletons in their closets[/b] because while Church leaders can be corrupt, that has nothing to do with the strength of the Church Herself.

[Edit.]

You know, I was thinking about something the other day but never brought it up. Forgive me if this becomes slightly off-topic.

Dan Brown said: [i]It is historical fact that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/i] As you stated, the Illuminati was not founded until 1776. Dan Brown later said: [i]Some histories claim the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's.[/i] So it is pretty clear that Brown has his facts messed up, and so you (and others) have jumped on him for this. However, Bishop Williamson of the SSPX has stated that there were no gas chambers in the Holocaust, and that the number of Jewish people who died in the Holocaust is incorrect. Clearly his facts are also based off of incorrect information, yet the reactions to Brown's statements - which follow the same idea, wrong information - are much more "loud" than the reactions to Williamson's statements. (I really mean this in general, I am not targeting anyone on this thread.) Basically, both men presented historical inaccuracies as fact. Why does Brown get treated more harshly than Williamson? While Phatmass members have disapproved of Williamson's comments, plenty have basically stated "He can have his own opinion, even if it's wrong." So why don't we say the same about Brown?

Edited March 27, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Veridicus]

That's a pertinent and valid question to ask. I think Brown's historical innacuracies have simply inflamed a wider audience. People take him seriously and he is hugely successful and his is MAKING MONEY off of his half truth and lies. Very few people take Bishop Williamson seriously and he isn't making any money off his lies; he is just making a public idiot of himself and thus being summarily dismissed.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Veridicus

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817866' date='Mar 27 2009, 02:36 PM'][b]The final message of the novel, though, without a doubt, is a positive one.[/b][/quote]

From someone who has read the novel; what precisely IS the positive final message of the novel?...based on the review/synopses it just seems like the Church is really corrupt and those in power are incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, science from faith, tyrant from prophet, etc. etc. It just seems like by the end of the novel you would have NO IDEA what good there was to trust in the Church at all. The "good pope" was theologically crappy; the "camerlengo" guy was more theologically-sound, but was a wackjob fratricaidal maniac...the hero is Langdon right? The Church failed and couldn't take care of its own politics, so the archetypical "Western enlightened scientist"-type 'Robert Langdon' has to show up and save the day. Now again, I've not read it...so what positive note (in terms of the Church or its leadership in the Vatican) does it actually end on...?

[Luthien]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817866' date='Mar 27 2009, 05:36 PM']However, Bishop Williamson of the SSPX has stated that there were no gas chambers in the Holocaust, and that the number of Jewish people who died in the Holocaust is incorrect. Clearly his facts are also based off of incorrect information, yet the reactions to Brown's statements - which follow the same idea, wrong information - are much more "loud" than the reactions to Williamson's statements. (I really mean this in general, I am not targeting anyone on this thread.) Basically, both men presented historical inaccuracies as fact. Why does Brown get treated more harshly than Williamson? While Phatmass members have disapproved of Williamson's comments, plenty have basically stated "He can have his own opinion, even if it's wrong." So why don't we say the same about Brown?[/quote]

They seemed loud to me, are you referring to the MSM or just phatmass?

[Madame Vengier]

Anyone who is offended by Dan Brown's "work" can just not read this books and not go to those movies. It's pretty simple. We have free speech in this country. I don't understand what the big stink is about. What would the offended parties have us do...set some buildings on fire and burn Dan Brown in effigy, like the Muslims did over the Mohammed cartoon??

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1817725' date='Mar 27 2009, 08:57 AM']It's irresponsible and scandalous to write such things.[/quote]


HCF isn't arguing that fact. She's saying the reactions of some people here are overboard. And they are. I mean, nobody goes this overboard when various other offensive and scandalous events around the world are posted here. There are worse, worse, worse injustices taking place in the world than Dan Brown's smut.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817937' date='Mar 27 2009, 05:08 PM']That's a pertinent and valid question to ask. I think Brown's historical innacuracies have simply inflamed a wider audience. People take him seriously and he is hugely successful and his is MAKING MONEY off of his half truth and lies. Very few people take Bishop Williamson seriously and he isn't making any money off his lies; he is just making a public idiot of himself and thus being summarily dismissed.[/quote]

With all of the outcry surrounding Williamson's views on the Holocaust, I think it would be safe to say that while people are not taking his content seriously (as in, not believing his views) they are taking HIM seriously. We can say the same for Brown. For example, I may not take his content seriously - by believing that as a work of fiction it is not offensive in any way - BUT maybe I should be taking HIM seriously (such as what drove him to write specifically about the Vatican and corruption within the Vatican).

Even so, certain members on Phatmass are too eager to defend his [Williamson's] every move. And while none have posted here, I almost wonder if they would be so kind as to say "Hey, Dan Brown may be historically inaccurate, but he is certainly entitled to his opinion." I sincerely doubt this. For instance, IF Dan Brown is not trying to insult Catholics (in all fairness he either could or could not be) - just as Williamson never intended to insult anyone - then I would expect Williamson "supporters" to regard Brown with the same opinion.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1817943' date='Mar 27 2009, 05:14 PM']From someone who has read the novel; what precisely IS the positive final message of the novel?...based on the review/synopses it just seems like the Church is really corrupt and those in power are incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, science from faith, tyrant from prophet, etc. etc. It just seems like by the end of the novel you would have NO IDEA what good there was to trust in the Church at all. The "good pope" was theologically crappy; the "camerlengo" guy was more theologically-sound, but was a wackjob fratricaidal maniac...the hero is Langdon right? The Church failed and couldn't take care of its own politics, so the archetypical "Western enlightened scientist"-type 'Robert Langdon' has to show up and save the day. Now again, I've not read it...so what positive note (in terms of the Church or its leadership in the Vatican) does it actually end on...?[/quote]

[b]Warning: Spoilers (I would rather not use the tags)[/b]

It [i]has[/i] been a few years since I have read it. I do remember that no Church teaching was mocked, which is why I doubt an anti-Catholic theme. While the Pope was in favor of In Vitro it was clearly explained that the Church does not support this view. The Camerlengo did pervert the beauty of upholding Church teaching by assassinating the Pope and attempting to destroy the Vatican, but I believe this was Dan Brown edging in his opinion that religion and science CAN and SHOULD peacefully coexist, even if they can clash. If we look at the "flip side" we can argue that science is viewed negatively as well. The Illuminati (who never really existed in the book, as the Camerlengo used their image as a cover) were insane scientists who were spiteful against religion (and murderous as well). Science was turned from something that can be beautiful and inspiring into something dangerous and frightening (antimatter as a weapon). Both sides, religion and science, were exaggerated and as I previously mentioned, I believe the theme of this novel was that religion and science can coexist - and that the traditional "fight" of religion versus science is a waste of time and intellect, and that both parties can actually become dangerous if radical enough. I believe my theory is supported by the fact that Brown depicted the Church hierarchy in a negative light, not the Church Herself...just as he depicted a "branch" of scientists in a negative light and not science as a whole. Granted I could be completely wrong but that is the message I basically got out of it.

[quote name='Luthien' post='1817945' date='Mar 27 2009, 05:19 PM']They seemed loud to me, are you referring to the MSM or just phatmass?[/quote]

Phatmass.

[BG45]

I'll probably not be Mr. Popular for this, but I found my old livejournal reviews of TheDaVinciCode, so thought I'd post the more general of the two:

[quote]Why is it getting to people? By it I mean The DaVinci Code of course. Now why is it getting to people?

It's an attack on Christianity? It's an attack as old as Christianity, or nearly as old. Really, when the Disciples went out, who believed Jesus was Divine? Who believed he could go against the cultural norms and not marry? Who, besides those who were persuaded, those who came to faith in Christ? Even after, there was the heresies of Arias and Donatas around the time of the Council of Nicea, that questioned Christ's relationship to God the Father.

Perhaps you are looking at this wrong. Maybe it is not a burden, not an assault beyond comprehension on Christianity. Maybe it is something you should look at as an opportunity to bring souls to Christ. People will have questions, have questions already; why not try to answer them? Why not use this as an opportunity to witness?

As Christ said in Matthew. 28:18-20:
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

While we're on this line of thought, why are people afraid of this book and film? Why so vehemently opposed to it? Is it the free thought it engenders, or perhaps it is something more? Does it make those who fear it question their faith, question what seemed so black and white before?

If it is indeed that, then welcome to the Dark Night of the Soul. The temptation that insidiously pulls at the heart, tries to sway the mind away from Christ; it is the darkest time in a spiritual life. Now is the time to make a choice, to hold the shield of faith, or to cry out in despair and defeat.[/quote]