Movie Angels And Demons Full Of Lies

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817866' date='Mar 27 2009, 03:36 PM']And where in the interview did you find this?

[color="red"][url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=92091&view=findpost&p=1817180"]I discussed it here.[/url] Took a quote from the interview you posted from 2001. [/color]

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.

[color="red"]A "what if" scenario based in historical fiction that he believed to be fact at the time. Again, I know the book itself is fiction. But, from the interview you posted from 2001, he stated that the Illuminati, which the book is about, had plotted vengeance against the Vatican. He stated this was historical fact. It is not.[/color]

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.

[color="red"]I disagree with that as well, since what he is referencing is his own mistaken historical research. The "skeletons" he is referencing is the Illuminati, which he believed to have existed in the 1600s and to have vowed vengeance against the Vatican at that time. This is quite amazing for them to have done so, especially if the Illuminati were formed in 1776. As he said, the book "opens some Vatican closets most people don't even know exist." So, he apparently thinks that the Illuminati vow of vengeance in the 1600s is one of these "closets," then the interview is more fictional then the book... And he wasn't speaking fictionally then.[/color]

[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.

[color="red"]I do not think I have jumped on him. I barely know the man
Seriously though, as I've stated before, the interview you originally posted showed that Brown apparently thought it was historical fact that the Illuminati existed in the 1600s and plowed vengeance on the Vatican. I've just noted that he apparently thought some of his fiction was in fact, fact. You proceeded to suggest that he had his statement distorted or misquoted. I proceed to suggest how that did not seem plausible due to the apparent transcript of the interview.[/color]


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]
Please check through the posts before making broad statements. I did discuss the Bishop Williamson statements. My general thought was that his statements should not effect the salvation of his soul, but his errant opinion was wrong, scandalous, and could show his incompetency to function as a Bishop. That, however, is actually another topic.

On the matter, my thought would be the same. Regardless of his poor research, penning such fictional novels should not effect Brown's entrance into the Church if, God willing, he chose to do so. (If he believed, though, some of the aspects of his books to be true which might go against Church teaching, he might have some errors to clear before being allowed to finish RCIA )

[Veridicus]

[quote name='BG45' post='1818179' date='Mar 27 2009, 08:55 PM']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]


Not to be a know-it-all...but i've actually read that there were groups of Jewish celibates and thus celibacy was not "completely unheard of"....see the "Essenes" popularized by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1818661' date='Mar 28 2009, 02:34 PM']Seriously though, as I've stated before, the interview you originally posted showed that Brown apparently thought it was historical fact that the Illuminati existed in the 1600s and plowed vengeance on the Vatican. I've just noted that he apparently thought some of his fiction was in fact, fact. You proceeded to suggest that he had his statement distorted or misquoted. I proceed to suggest how that did not seem plausible due to the apparent transcript of the interview.[/quote]

I understand that and I agree his inaccuracy was a huge one. But when Dan Brown said "some of the factual information revealed there [in [i]Angels and Demons[/i]] is startling" he never said what factual information he was referring to. You yourself asked "what factual information?" So I do not understand why you automatically connect that to his inaccuracy regarding the year of the Illuminati. In fact he discussed the Vatican [u]only[/u] in that answer, not the Illuminati.

However, you seem to be fixated with this one point as your sole argument against the interviews. You should look at my theory behind the plot of the novel, which in my opinion is a pretty rational one - even though my post was primarily to Veridicus (who also has yet to acknowledge it) I thought that you would have read it as well. And since you read the book you would know what I am talking about.

[quote]Please check through the posts before making broad statements. I did discuss the Bishop Williamson statements. My general thought was that his statements should not effect the salvation of his soul, but his errant opinion was wrong, scandalous, and could show his incompetency to function as a Bishop. That, however, is actually another topic.[/quote]

I was speaking generally and made that quite clear.

[BG45]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1818683' date='Mar 28 2009, 04:03 PM']Not to be a know-it-all...but i've actually read that there were groups of Jewish celibates and thus celibacy was not "completely unheard of"....see the "Essenes" popularized by the Dead Sea Scrolls.[/quote]

True, but that is if the Essenes actually existed. It seems that there's a [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090316/wl_time/08599188542100"]lively debate going on about their existence right now.[/url]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1817194' date='Mar 26 2009, 03:41 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 is not an over-reaction to be ticked off when someone states "Everything I say about documents, secret organizations, rituals, [etc.] are completely accurate" and then proceeds to spew untruth from every orifice. If he had not started the first page of DaVinci Code this way, I would not have any reason to waste energy in this discussion. But Dan Brown did say this, and Dan Brown lied to me by being exceedingly inaccurate in what he claimed accuracy. And Dan Brown has thus lied to millions and millions of readers; and most people don't take the time to sort fact from fiction and lies from truth, thus there are a lot of doped and misinformed people in the world because of his claim to be "completely accurate" in the details presented as fact in his novel The DaVinci Code. This really underlies my general distrust of anything else written by him.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='BG45' post='1818861' date='Mar 28 2009, 06:05 PM']True, but that is if the Essenes actually existed. It seems that there's a [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090316/wl_time/08599188542100"]lively debate going on about their existence right now.[/url][/quote]


That's an interesting article. I still think they existed, but I'll let the experts figure it out. The tricky thing is...imagine 2,000 years from now when they are digging up ruins and all they have is Church documents forbidding the use of contraception; will future historians assume that all one billion catholics in the world didn't use contraception because of these few documents they will have found? It has to be amazingly difficult to piece together the past from such little evidence.

[HisChildForever]

Veridicus, you asked me what the positive message or theme of [i]Angels and Demon[/i] is, and I told you, and you have yet to acknowledge it.

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

It has 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.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1819212' date='Mar 28 2009, 10:21 PM']Veridicus, you asked me what the positive message or theme of [i]Angels and Demon[/i] is, and I told you, and you have yet to acknowledge it.

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

It has 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]


Sorry: If that is the true point of the novel, then that isnt' so bad. That's not what I got outa the Wikipedia entry; And in my honest opinion, there is only so far you can denigrate the hierarchy before you completely undermine what the Catholic "Church" is. It's apostolicity, it's episcopacy, it's hierarchy; without legitimate bishops and popes we have nothing, we would be nothing. I hope everyone else who reads his books comes to the same positive conclusions that you have.

Todd

Edited March 29, 2009 by Veridicus

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1819314' date='Mar 29 2009, 12:12 AM']Sorry: If that is the true point of the novel, then that isnt' so bad. That's not what I got outa the Wikipedia entry; And in my honest opinion, there is only so far you can denigrate the hierarchy before you completely undermine what the Catholic "Church" is. It's apostolicity, it's episcopacy, it's hierarchy; without legitimate bishops and popes we have nothing, we would be nothing. [b]I hope everyone else who reads his books comes to the same positive conclusions that you have.[/b]

Todd[/quote]

Regardless of how you interpret the novel or how I interpret it, it should just be understood that the main theme is religion versus science. [i]Why[/i] Dan Brown chose Catholicism as the religion is another thing entirely, of course. But I think we just also have to recognize that science was not painted very pretty, either. Therefore if Dan Brown is making a mockery of Catholicism, he is being crafty about it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1819353' date='Mar 29 2009, 12:06 AM']Regardless of how you interpret the novel or how I interpret it, it should just be understood that the main theme is religion versus science. [i]Why[/i] Dan Brown chose Catholicism as the religion is another thing entirely, of course. But I think we just also have to recognize that science was not painted very pretty, either. Therefore if Dan Brown is making a mockery of Catholicism, he is being crafty about it.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about the DaVinci Code?