Becuase Everything Else Sucks

The ‘Angels and Demons’ Of Change In the Catholic Church

By D.C.
Published Friday, June 20th, 2008, 10:16 am
Filed under: Society/Culture: Religion, Society/Culture

Angel and Demon

Dan Brown’s prequel to ‘The DaVinci Code,’ entitled ‘Angels & Demons,’ is now in production. The movie however, has ran into a bit of a snag. While filming in Rome the cast and crew were denied entry into two churches by the Catholic Church. The two chruches in question are Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria, which are integral to the storyline of the movie.

Msgr. Marco Fibbi, a spokesperson for the Catholic Church, said the filming was denied because:

the movie “does not conform to our views,” “This is a prequel to ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and it’s clear that the theme is similar.”

I wonder if the Church has ever heard of the saying “any publicity is good publicity?” From the statements made by their spokesperson, it doesn’t seem like the church is going to break-away from its hardened views.

The Church wasn’t always like this though, and it is funny to see how strictly they are following their doctrines. For instance, when the Reformation was taking place in the 16th century the Church was more than willing to reevaluate their doctrines and principles. They actually changed a lot of the framework of the religion. For example, before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation the Catholic Church would offer indulgences. These were similar to ‘get out of purgatory free cards’ which the church sold or offered to people that fought for the church in crusades, etc. After the Reformation they decided to get rid of this aspect because it was seen as ‘buying your way into heaven,’ and portrayed the Papacy as corrupt.

I really do not understand why the Catholic Church cannot hold another council, where they reevaluate the doctrines and rules to fit with present-day society. If the church is afraid of someone voicing opinions against their teachings, then I would hate to know what they think of me! On second thought, maybe that is why they are unwilling to change anything, because they are ingrained with the idea that the Church is right, and that is final.

I would understand if they denied access to the movie cast and crew because they might damage the historical churches, but that is not the reason they have stated. They are hard-stuck in the mindframe that if someone is against the Church, they will not acknowledge that viewpoint. How is anything going to change? It is hard to express a different point of view than the Catholic Church when they ‘intellectually (and sometimes literally) excommunicate’ you.

Catholicism was willing to change 500 years ago to stay prominent, why won’t they entertain that idea today?

Source

Related Posts

16 Responses to “The ‘Angels and Demons’ Of Change In the Catholic Church”

  1. Why on earth would they want to let them use catholic churches for an anti catholic movie? Not to mention the Da Vinci Code is a worthless book anyway, so at least they have good taste.

    KazigluBey
    06/20/08 at 3:20 pm

  2. Yeah it sucks that the Church is denying them entry into those churches, but Dan Brown is just about the worst thing that has happened to American literary culture in recent years.

    Bernie
    06/20/08 at 7:29 pm

  3. Wow! You readers here do know about literature. Dan Brown is awful. The only worse piece of ‘newage’ (TM) that is the celestine prophecy.
    Now that is a book that should not be tossed aside lightly… it should be thrown with great force!

    Thanks to Ms. Parker for the wit.

    Nando
    06/21/08 at 7:49 am

  4. Can’t really blame them, the cabal has been greatly under scrutiny since the ‘d’avinci code’s success

    The Empirical Church of Rome is a colossal farce; there’s nothing to do with spirituality, its commerce. Yes, the richest corporation on the globe but with the largest number of poor and below poverty line backers for its congregation. Don’t figure eh. Every time I see footage of the “Papa” in the third world I could vomit. The Vatican could eliminate poverty with its abundance of gold and treasures in art alone, let alone the bursting coffers of their bank money denied their global parishioners.

    camelien
    06/21/08 at 9:09 am

  5. This is one of the worst comments that I have ever read on this blog! Why in the name of sanity would any entity want to offer up their facilities, resources - whatever to any other entity whose avowed purpose is to defame, injure or otherwise bring disgrace on the poor nincompoop that said “oh yeah fine go ahead and smear me using my stuff and would you like something to eat or drink while you’re at it?”. Give me a break.

    So tell me. do you know as much about Catholicism as perhaps you might know about Czechoslovakian poetry?

    I am not a Catholic therefore I do not feel equipped to tell those who are Catholics how they or their leaders need to change their religion to suit your idea of being “…prominent”. Additionally, I do not agree with the teachings of and the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. This does not mean that I should demand an audience with the Pope to get him straight on his beliefs and theology. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has half of all the Christians on earth as its adherents which represents one sixth of the World’s population may have escaped your exhaustive research on the topic. That’s fairly prominent. Perhaps the word that you were fumbling about for is “relevant”.

    I suggest you focus your comments and blogging efforts to subjects that you know a little something about.

    Michael Robbins
    06/22/08 at 2:33 am

  6. @ KazigluBey. Nando, and Bernie: I agree that Dan Brown’s work is not the best reading ever, but I thought that the denial to film in a church is rather odd. Even if his books are not the most pro-Catholic literature, it is not really against Catholicism either because it is fiction.

    @ Camalien: I do agree that the Catholic Church is rather powerful in terms of wealth, and that it would be nice for the religion to help out with poverty, but realistically, so should every business that makes great wealth (not every CEO needs to drive around in a Porsche, or build a 27 story house for their family of 5).

    @ Michael Robbins: Personally I would like the Catholic Church to spread its wealth, but people have freely given them money and donations. I also think that a religious entity should not be ran like a business (ie: denying access to a church because a fictional book defames them). I also think that you should be able to criticize something that YOU see as wrong, just as you did in your comment. If I am not a Catholic, just that mean I shouldn’t criticize Catholicism? If I am not a Canadian, I shouldn’t criticize Canada? That would be a very tough world to voice opinions if every comment is governed by your affiliations.

    With regards to my comments on having a council meeting, I meant a meeting between Cardinals and the Pope, like they did with the Council of Trent. I think if the religious institution was looked at, and scrutinized, they would be able to make adjustments (it is not like they have never done this before). Pope’s in the Early Modern Period would be war-generals and waged wars against other states. Pope’s do not seem to do this now, because they made a conscious decision to change something about the Church.

    Also, just because Roman Catholics represent 1/6th of the world’s population, just not make them prominent. They may have this huge following, but how many of these followers doubt some or any part of the doctrine? What about Roman Catholics who are homosexual’s? Roman Catholics who do not go to church every Sunday? A figure does not tell us anything, it is a number that is meaningless without context. All the proposed Roman Catholics have various levels of how indepth they follow their religion. It is not a black and white subject, and the old saying ‘quality over quantity’ comes to mind.

    I am also very sorry that I know nothing about Czechoslovakian poetry, but that doesn’t mean I cannot learn.

    D.C.
    06/22/08 at 1:58 pm

  7. A few small remarks in reply to D.C.

    I didn’t just say that Dan Brown’s writing “is not the best reading ever,” I said it’s the “worst thing that has happened to American literary culture in recent years.” I think the difference of scale is important here, ;)

    Also, I don’t think you’re very familiar with the Catholic Church. To ask the Church to be accepting of oppositional views (in this case, letting those who demonize you use your facilities) is like asking the President to stop being so… presidential. You might as well ask it to stop existing (ideally I would advocate that as well, but in reality that’s a ridiculous request).

    Also, while it is true that criticism should be fair-game for any institution, one’s criticism should be focused primarily towards things that one has experience with, and potential influence over. I grew up in a Catholic culture, so I feel slightly more entitled to criticize the Church and its backwards feudalistic ways than some one who has had little experience with them.

    Bernie
    06/22/08 at 8:23 pm

  8. One last attempt to explain my questioning of your use of the word “prominent” in relation to the Roman Catholic Church.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    prom·i·nent
    Pronunciation:
    \-nənt\
    Function:
    adjective
    Etymology:
    Middle English promynent, from Latin prominent-, prominens, from present participle of prominēre to jut forward, from pro- forward + -minēre (akin to mont-, mons mountain) — more at mount
    Date:
    15th century

    1: standing out or projecting beyond a surface or line : protuberant2 a: readily noticeable : conspicuous b: widely and popularly known : leading
    synonyms see noticeable
    — prom·i·nent·ly adverb

    from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The Catholic church is very much prominent (i.e. “widely and popularly known”). So to criticize the Catholic Church for its lack of prominence is ridiculous. You9 obviously meant relevance not prominence. You may feel that Catholicism in its present form is not relevant to many people both in the Church and outside the Church. In that I tend to agree with you. That still does not support your assertion that the Roman Catholic Chruch is not prominent.

    If this is still unclear to you I give up. I have nothing left to say in regard to this posting of yours.

    I wish you the best in your academic endeavors.

    Michael Robbins
    06/22/08 at 11:22 pm

  9. P.S. to DC

    Sorry for the typos … I am very tired and I have mislaid my glasses so I failed to catch the typos before posting. I am not illiterate - just pooped and visually challenged this very early morning.

    MLR

    Michael Robbins
    06/22/08 at 11:25 pm

  10. to Bernie: I am sorry if my comments misconstrued your comments about Dan Brown’s plague upon the writing world :)
    Just to clarify my previous comments, I am Catholic, and was raised Roman Catholic since I was born. I was posing hypothetical questions, which looking back at them now do seem to make me out as a ‘non-Catholic.’ I am sorry for any confusion.

    to Michael: I am also sorry for my typos as well, as I was trying to write a dissertation draft at the time. I agree with you, that my use of the word prominent was an error on my part. Relevance would be a word that I could use to describe the element that the Catholic Church is missing. I also wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

    to all: I know my post may seem like I am asking the Church to forego on everything that, in our present time, makes them the ‘Roman Catholic Church,’ but hypothetically I think the Church should let go some of it’s doctrines that have become ingrained throughout the years. I cited instances, in the past, where the church changed the way it ‘did business,’ and I would hope that it had the power and the willingness to not become stuck in an endless loop of very outdated views of the world.

    Now do I think this will happen overnight? No. This is going to take some time. For instance, Homosexual marriages have started to become legal in the United States. Even though the Church does not acknowledge these marriages now, what happens if they become legal throughout the ALL the states? I should hope that the church would be able to look at itself, and realize that it is holding onto a long held belief that really has no place in our modern world.

    Also, I would hope that a religion that is supposed to be about SUPPOSED to be about peace, love, and praising God would be able to come to grips with accepting people for who they are. People that have sex before they are married and still want to be a part of the Catholic religion should be able to. People that are homosexuals should be able to participate in a religion if they believe in that particular God. Really it SHOULD be up to people on how they are in touch with their God.

    D.C.
    06/23/08 at 6:22 am

  11. My only comment is on the one about homosexual marriages becoming legal in ALL states…..It does not matter if same -sex marriages are legal in ALL states OR if abortion were legal in ALL states…The Roman Catholic Church is not going to change its’ Doctrine based on “what the United States does”. Those issues as well as, married priests and female priests are United States issues. The Universal Church does not follow the misguided path of immoral and corrupt Americans.

    HIM
    10/30/08 at 10:55 am

  12. No offense to any of you intended, (personally I could care less, you grabbed my attention by making a big deal out of nothing) but your arguments are beside the point… The churches in this case “belong” to the Catholic Church…. as far as they’re concerned, the only reason they need to deny Dan Brown & Co. the right to use their churches is that they don’t want to… if you asked to borrow my house for a movie, I can (and probably would) say no, just because I don’t want strangers in my house, but for someone else it might be because they don’t like to story being told or they feel the film’s some form of attack on someone or something they care about (in this case their religion) so who cares if they don’t let them use the church? They could just make a freakin’ set to make the parts in those churches….

    Personally I loved both books (Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code) and I have nothing against the church as a whole even though I’m not Catholic (tho the rest of my family is). So Chill out and find something important to talk about like all they ways people are getting killed in this world outside of natural causes and the way the worlds governments and banks have messed up the economy or something….

    (Wow… I just meant to say get over it and my hands ran away with me!!! Oh well….)

    Also, the issues of same-sex marriages, premarital-sex, sodomy or whether or not it’s okay to eat on Sunday and all that, is also the “property” of the Catholic Church and they don’t have to (nor are they likely to in the near future) change their positions on it ever. If someone wants to do one of those things then that’s a sign that they’re not really in the right religion, the bible however is the bible and a person could pick that up and read that believe whatever he or she wants without having to listen to anyone so give it a rest…. plus the Church represents and answers only to their God, not the U.S of A, so what would they care if the US decided to make Animality a legal right? They can and should reject it as part of their religion, no matter what the U.S. says…. the US doesn’t dictate Religion.

    So THERE!!! (I know so mature, eh? You’re right, I’m not, I’m an extremely immature person, but hey… that’s my right as a Citizen of the United States of America… :-P)

    JK
    03/11/09 at 9:21 pm

  13. Oh and Michael Robbins? You’re right about the “wordage” issue….don’t worry we all know it….

    JK
    03/11/09 at 9:22 pm

  14. Everything else aside-these books were both trashy reads that this pinhead Brown simply exploited the Catholic Church with in order to get some cheap publicity. At least the Church had the good taste not to let these beautiful churches(which my wife and I had the pleasure of seeing a few years ago) be used as backdrops for Opie’s Opus.

    bob cumbers
    03/27/09 at 8:49 pm

  15. i have nothing against dan brown or someone…i am a catholic but i really do not mind dan brown writing a novel against catholicism…but respect the holy place…people should not misunderstood it…everything dan brown has written is a product of his own imagination and is a wild one…it is so nice to have a critic like him…i consider it as a good literature…but please do not take this seriously…it is just a novel…and no basis whatsoever…it is up for the people to interpret his literature, and this would challenge people’s faith on their own religion…he is definitely shaking the faith of the catholics…the topic is not this one though.this is all about the denial of the Church on the filming in one of the churches which they should not take it negatively…Sanctuary…not for publicity!they still have another option, and that is to make their own dummy churches if they really want it! so, peace y’all!:) ecumenically speaking!hehehe

    Girard
    05/14/09 at 1:13 pm

  16. Unfortunately from your post, you still have a “million things” to learn about the catholic church, of which if you have already had you wouldn’t need to write this post.

    Aaron
    12/24/09 at 10:11 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.