The Golden Compass: An assault on the Catholic faith.
I was sitting in church this past Saturday night (yes, please don’t fall over dead in shock) and was reading in the Church Bulletin a note about how parishioners are advised to NOT see the upcoming children’s movie The Golden Compass. It mentioned briefly that it was bad without going into a lot of detail.
Which of course got me looking. Why would my parish tell me about this? Was Nicole Kidman showing too much leg or something? So, I did a little poking around, and the answer is more serious than that. It’s more than a subtle poke, and looks more like a direct attack on the Catholic Faith:
The books by confirmed agnostic Pullman trace the fate of a young girl, Lyra, as she becomes drawn into an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, meeting a host of strange characters along the way including a polar bear, voiced in the film by Ian McKellan.
Evil in Pullman’s books is represented by the church, called the Magisterium, whose acolytes kidnap orphans across England to subject them to horrible experiments in the frozen northern wastelands.
and…
With its 180-million-dollar big budget movie, New Line studios is hoping to repeat the box-office success of its “Lord of the Rings” series.
and… The author’s attack on organized religion has been toned down for the film, in a bid to attract as wide as audience as possible, something director Chris Weitz has acknowledged.
“In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic Church gone wildly astray from its roots,” Weitz wrote in the British Daily Telegraph.
Other reports talk about how the author is a committed atheist, and I guess that’s ok for him. The Catholic Church I’ve always belonged to allows free will – something that the author has chosen to exercise.
But I fail to see any redeeming qualities in spinning a children’s yarn which is little more than thinly disguised literary hostility towards my religion. As related in another news report:
In the story, a malevolent governing body called “the Church,” which answers to the “Vatican Council,” is known to kidnap children for experimentation. With the help of a golden compass that reveals a coded answer to any question asked by the user, Lyra, by the trilogy’s end, gets to the bottom of the missing children and kills a character called “God.”
Gee. Great stuff there. The Vatican Council experimenting on kids. What’s next, allegorical tales about the inferiority of blacks and the how jews control the world? Sorry – no matter how many cartoon/CGI animals you put in it, it’s called bigotry. It’s called prejudice. And no matter how they try to downplay it, the slime of what they’re doing still oozes to the top.
All courtesy of Hollywood. Thanks. Just thanks.
As mentioned, the author of the books in question (now a major motion picture) used his free will to denigrate my religion.
Just like I’m going to exercise mine in not spending one thin dime for it.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
We have the place surrounded, Sibby. Come out with your hands up, and let PP have his blog back.
PP – Thanks for posting this one – there is getting to be more and more info out there on this. The sad thing is that, if the guy wants to make political speech in his little bigoted world the First Ammendment protects his right to do it, he doesn’t need to use the guise of a movie and children to speak out to those that care to listen. What he has done, is used subtrefuge to mask his message – in something he calls art. It may be good propoganda methodology, but it is still unbridled bigotry. A good reason for all of us parents to be more diligent than ever about the calling we have to be involved in raising our children.
I’m with you, PP. If they were to replace everything that is pseudo Catholic in this movie with a bunch of pseudo Jewish references this movie would have never been made — and rightly so. However, this country being what it is, they have the right to make the movie and I have the right to see something else.
Dietrich Boenhoffer was a noted anti-Nazi and Minister in the German Confessional Church (a German denomination with roots to the Reformation and Luther) who had first fled Germany with the rise of Hitler but returned because he felt called to be with his people and make a stand against the scourge of Nazi-ism. While always humble and loving, he worked, taught, spoke and ministered with a quiet confidence in knowing what is good. He was put in a concentration camp in 1943 and specifically targeted by the Nazis for execution right before liberation by the Allies. One of his most famous quotes is the following:
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
They say that they’ve toned down or removed the anti-religioius aspects of the story from the movie. But you can be sure that the promotion of the movie will include a major push to sell the books – and that is where the real danger lies.
PP,
Thank you oh thank you for warning us of the evils of this movie.
Let’s homeschool all of the children of South Dakota to protect them from the atheists out there.
Get a grip dude.
Before getting all worked up about it, I encourage you to read the article in the December Atlantic Monthly on this. It is interesting that Big Hollywood pretty much scrubbed the anti-church message from the books.
Personally, I think books that are allegories against religion are just as interesting and useful as those that are allegories supporting religion. This movie and the books (which I haven’t read) don’t frighten me.
I always wonder why the Catholic Church gets so afraid of movies every now and then.
Anyway, the Atlantic article is here (it is longer than the yahoo article, but I encourage you to read it with an open mind):
Sky, you could also sign up with SDCAC who want state vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools. Hey Lee and Sibby, if you want your kid to go to Mitchell Christian or wherever, pay for it yourselves like everyone else if it is that important, and quit trying to leech off the govmit to push your agenda of state sponsored religious schooling.
Sky – I think you’re missing the point.
If they did a movie where it was an allegorical tale about the inferiority of blacks or how jews control the world, it would be ridiculed and torn apart as bigotry.
So why is it not when they’re doing it to catholics?
That’s right. Free speech is free speech. Anybody should be able to say (preach) what they want. But I think PP’s point in #10 is valid — except I would make it even more contemporary: Replace Catholic with “Islam” and “Muslim.” The outrage would be deafening.
Timmy, do you think that the Jewish Anti-Defamation League should inform people that a movie is anti-Jew? Or that a women’s group would inform people that a movie is anti-woman? Or that the NAACP would inform people that a movie is anti-Black? Do you think that the standard is higher for films that cater to youth verses adults?
Sky, I have no problem with Hollywood’s freedom to make whatever movie they want. I also have no problem with the information about the content of a movie coming from sources other than the studios. The free-flow of information is what makes us informed politically, socially, and economically.
Historic facts are far more harmful to the Catholic Church than any book of fiction. The childish hysteria that gets fanned every five or 10 years when a movie like this comes out only increases the ticket sales. So thanks for joining the throng of flamethrowers doing the movie moguls’ bidding.
I don’t have a dog in this fiasco other than as a fan of entertaining film. Another favorite topic is how the first 1,500 years of the church has messed up Christianity for the rest of the world.
12:
I think a movie that is “anti-black” or “anti-jew” is different than a movie that is anti-religion. (And, by the way, all the anti-religious stuff has been stripped out of the movie, it is the books really that we are talking about).
An anti-religion movie or book is taking aim at some people’s religious views and trying to make a point that those religious views are wrong.
An anti-black movie or an anti-Jew movie would be about how individual blacks and Jews are bad or less than human or whatever.
An allegorical movie that is trying to point out religion is not necessarily hostile to people of faith (but it could be). I have not heard that this movie or the books that it is based on says individual people of faith are bad or less human or worthy of punishment. I think it is only saying religion is bad.
I wouldn’t call an anti-democrat or anti-republican book to be the same as an anti-black book. Because it is criticizing ideas, not personal traits. Same thing here. The books criticize ideas. So the comparisons are all wrong.
I know very little about the movie, however I’m certainly not afraid of it’s message. And I’m a bit curious after hearing all the warnings… apparently my entire belief system could be wiped away in two hours at the theatre.
I think it’s appropriate that we be wary of organized religion. History provides proof of all the pain and suffering it’s caused. Organized religion (the church) is not God talking, it’s people talking for God. And that is inherently dangerous.
Timmy, I agree with your points that they are different with regard to the overt offensiveness. To express bigotry about a natural trait (ala race) is different than ideas or beliefs.
However, this movie is geared to young children which makes the standard different and parental knowledge of the content important. The distinction you point out is beyond what I believe is appropriate for children. I thought Schindler’s List was a great movie but I didn’t take my young children. This is my primary beef.
It doesn’t hurt to remind children that there may be some people on the planet who may want to manipulate them for their own personal pleasure or to gain power over society in general. That’s all I want to add at this time. (Hiccup: “Klaudt”: excuse me.)
Troy: Glad to see we can find some agreement on this. The only point I reiterate is (and this is based on the magazine article I posted earlier, I don’t know jack about these books) that the movie has been scrubbed by a Hollywood wary of angering the Church. So I think the movie will be safer (it is a critique of a more generalized and faceless fascism and less a critique of the church any longer). The books are where the real critique is.
18. I forgot to add “under false or intentionally deceptive pretenses.” Ahh.. ahh ach (Jim Jones) choo!)
The first snippet there calls the author a “confirmed agnostic.” Is that even possible? I’m an agnostic precisely because I’m not ‘confirmed’… But later it says athiest. Hm. Doesn’t sound like anyone’s ‘confirmed’ on it.
It’s pretty obvious those who are castigating the movie have never read the book itself.
The movie is based on an adaptation of the first of a trilogy. The first novel is more anti-authoritarian than anti-religion. The word ‘catholic’ or ‘church’ is never mentioned anywhere in any of the three books.
The gripes about the movie is about as ridiculous as the situation teacher threatened with death because a teddy bear was named Mohammad.
If religious folks can’t handle a fantasy movie involving a talking, armored bear, your faith isn’t very strong is it?
Just more bellyaching and whining and playing the ‘victim’ card by Christians as per usual.
I don’t think the fear is that adults will be sucked in as much as kids. Not that Harry Potter was horrible but I know that some people had a problem with the series. I do question the motives of an atheist who from what I understand is an activist to convince people that God doesn’t exist. While we can say as adults that it’s only a movie, we all understand the influence this could have on our kids using the Harry Potter model.
When I was a teenager in Catholic high school, I distinctly remember two pop culture things that caused the church and my school administrators to freak out. One was the movie “The Life of Brian”. I remember a lecture we all got about not seeing this movie as it was anti Christian. Well, of course, the theater the following weekend was pretty much filled with my classmates, including me. I still think it’s one of the most hilarious movies I’ve ever seen.
The other incident was when Billy Joel put out the song “Only the Good Die Young”. I remember we were all going to hell if we bought that album or listened to that song as it was anti Catholic. Guess what? Within a week it became probably the top selling album in our school. 25 years later, I still like the song.
Neither one of these things diminished my faith in any way. If a 2000 year old system of faith is in any danger of collapse because of a silly movie that is going to be around for about 2 weeks, than it’s a pretty sad system. I do know that when the churches start whining about this, probably 10 times more Catholic kids will go see the stupid movie, but I”m pretty sure the Church will survive.
Jamie & Patti:
I’m not whining at all, and I have no worries about my belief system. I’m simply exercising my right as a member of a free market society not to financially reward that with which I disagree or find distasteful.
Believing that Jesus is God is central to how Christians define themselves.
the Big B,
It is totally your call if you do not want to see or support a movie. I’ve refused to see or rent some movies myself. Free choice and all that.
I find it very mind-blowing how so many religious folks are up in arms about this movie. They are crying wolf over nothing.
29. I agree. But I just wonder if you would think the objections to this film would be just as “mind-blowing” if was about radical Islam. The point here is…Catholics get trashed constantly and they are criticized for trying to defend themselves. Yet if this were an anti-Muslim-Islam film, liberals would be condemning it.
29. Or a movie that told untrue statements about the women’s suffrage and equality movement. Would it be crying wolf over nothing?
I think the critique of religion in these books (not so much the movie, I remind you) is just as applicable to Islam and Judaism as Christianity. The Author is criticizing the notion of God, not of any particular religion from what I understand.
32. Not even that, Timmy. But rather the notion of God, in the hands, hearts and minds of men, contrived in such a way as to control people socially and politically. This is the very reason America was established… to stop the madness of religious oppression. It doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves of that from time to time, in my opinion. And even beyond that, to point out that the “God” who seems to be behind such efforts is in fact a false one. Always has been, and always will be.
Bill, the story may be just as you claim and have those very merits for discernment by adults.
However, this is a story marketed to 9-12 years old. I’m not sure such matters kids can discern. They see things at face value and not for its more subtle references. Heck, some adults don’t. I went to Beowulf and the other three adults I went with (all intelligent) didn’t get it.
Here is what kids will see:
1) “The Authority” meant to be the Judeo-Christian God is a liar, mortal, and a mere super-angel.
2) Priests act as professional hit men, torturers and authorize occult experimentation on young children.
3) An ex-nun engages in occult practices and promiscuous behavior, and speaks of it openly with 12 year old characters.
4) Angels who rebel against God are good, while those who fight on God’s side are evil.
Really, take out the fact it is Priests and nuns, are items #2 and #3 appropriate content for 9-12 year olds?
Timmy, as much as they want to try to scrub it, the use of Priests and nuns does create a direct association with the Catholic Church (a particular religion) for not only Catholic kids but most kids. The evil “leaders” are referred to as the Magisterium. Catholic kids by the age of 9 know that the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church led by the Pope.
I wouldn’t let my pre-teen go watch a movie that portrays all Jews, all women, all blacks, all Irish, all men, etc. in any of their most heinous stereotypes or bigoted caricatures. I still can’t understand the merits of this movie for pre-teens.
Also, it will pique kids interest in the books which do not have the over anti-religion scrubbed.
BB (#26 post) hits the nail on the head.
If PP is worried about “nannystaters” how does he get his undies in such a bunch over this?
I know Pat and his followers would like to play a continuous loop of the 700 Club all day and make our kids watch it.
Let kids watch things and make their own decisions. It’s part of growing up.
35. I don’t see anyplace where PP is calling for some kind law or government action against this film or its ilk (which is the kind of thing nanny-staters are always looking for). He, and anyone else who thinks they might not like this movie, will just not pay money to see it. As for this comment: “Let kids watch things and make their own decisions. It’s part of growing up.” That’s fine, but it depends on how young the children are. Parents need to take responsibility. Would you want your little kid to see a porno movie? I think not.
34. I think parents should monitor what their kids watch, absolutely, no question about that, Troy. Again, just as with Jon Lauk’s book, I’ve not seen this movie and so am not qualified to comment beyond what I’ve already said.
Sky, BB was in high school. Big difference. I was one of those Catholic kids who listened to the song, saw the movie, and in fact read the Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Walden all in one summer. And you are right, it didn’t cause me to become an atheist.
But this movie is geared to pre-teens of which a large percentage of the kids are still believers in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. This is a subject matter for which they are not yet prepared. Let’s not cause them to grow up any faster than they have to and let’s not confuse what is appropriate for adults or even teenagers is automatically appropriate for pre-teens.
Finally, your shot on watching the 700 club is a shallow attempt to denigrate Pat’s political views. It would be comparable to me to take the following words and accuse you of advocating that we should start showing our kids S&M movies in kindergarten and let them make their own decisions.
“Let kids watch things and make their own decisions. It’s part of growing up.” Sky is Falling
Let me tell you a story. I’m in one of those corporate team building conferences. The moderator ask us to tell the meanest things your parents did to us in our childhood. My colleague tells how his parents in their “enlightened” attitude of always being honest never allowed him to believe in Santa Claus. He said it all came home to him when watching home movies with his in-laws of their youth on Christmas and the absolute joy of seeing what “Santa” brought his wife and her siblings. He went onto say that this brutal honesty in his childhood is why he is so cynical and negative while his wife is so open, trusting, and generous. He concluded by saying that their “enlightened” parenting is a permanent thorn in their relationship because their attitude was more a desire to be able to feel good about themselves verses a concern about him.
Most people I know can remember the exact moment when they found out there was no Santa. Who remembers it fondly? Most child psychologists attribute the increase in teen suicide and depression to lost innocence at an early age. Can you think anything more to destroy innocence than the idea that the over-riding “forces” of nature are actually evil?
38. Don’t tell the kids, but I’m Santa at our house and there are 4 of them who totally believe in me. (..and maybe a couple of the adults… hey, what can I tell ya, I’m good… so’s the outfit.) Anyway, 2 years ago they almost found me out. Last year, I was sure they would but I redoubled my efforts and sold it one more time. The gig is up again in two weeks. …I’m trying to talk someone else into doing it.
Ho. ho, ho.
p.s. …and to all you who don’t care about that kind of story, please, don’t bother telling me. I already know.
To the rest of you, Season’s Greetings.
This movie sounds like a sleeper just like the thread is mostly a sleeper.
Want to see a movie with meaning go see Bella! In theaters now.
Hey Troy,
Did you know if you put the Beatles White Album on the turntable, put the needle down on the beginning of “Revolution #9,” the voice says “turn me on dead man?” And on the cover of Abbey Road, Paul McCartney’s not wearing shoes, signifying that he’s really dead? And at the end of “I Am the Walrus,” you hear a creepy voice saying “Paul is dead?”
The plot of the books and the movie is that reason and free will can overpower irrationality and mind control. Or was the plot for World War II? I think that’s a principle that we can agree upon, unless your Catholic guilt forces you to continue siding with enforcing irrationality and mind control.
It’s a frigging movie, boys. Relax. You don’t have to buy the ticket for your kids or yourself. But your continuing rant will do nothing except make the box office receipts soar. Just like you fools did over “The Life of Brian” and “The DaVinci Code.”
Merry Christmas,
The Dawg
Troy,
I’m not sure that you should try to link the loss of the belief in Santa to teen suicide and violence. If that were so, there would be a heckuva lot more suicides and violent youth.
I remember discovering the ‘truth’ about Santa and I didn’t bother me much. I understood the intent behind it and appreciate it more now as an adult.
Penny: I was using the loss of Santa prematurely as an example of inappropriate destruction of innocence in kids out of fealty to adult principles and adult sensibilities. The fact you don’t remember it bothering you is you discovered at the appropriate age. The link I’m drawing relevant to this movie is I’m not sure it is good that kids who still believe in Santa should be exposed to plots that present that the “force of nature” as evil.
Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as armegeddon talk. This movie by itself is unlikely to lead to significant a permanent psychological damage. However, if kids are constantly bombarded with adult realities prematurely because of an attitude of “Let kids watch things and make their own decisions”, it can have a cumulative devestating impact.
If you think your faith is that shaky that it can be disturbed by a CGI polar bear, then you shouldn’t see it.
Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
I don’t think anyone’s faith is going to be shaken by the movie. But by the same token – like any good consumer – I’m going to register my disagreement and take my movie watching dollars elsewhere.
“Most moviegoers with no foreknowledge of the books or Pullman’s personal belief system will scarcely be aware of religious connotations, and can approach the movie as a pure fantasy-adventure. This is not the blatant real-world anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” or “The Da Vinci Code.” Religious elements, as such, are practically nil.”
This is a review by someone who as actually seen the movie. It was written by Harry Forbes and John Mulderig. They write for the CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE. Does their opinion change yours on this one way or another. Troy, PP I’m interested to see what you think after reading their review.
Interesting, Penny. Here’s the link:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/07mv242.htm
The movie is rated PG-13 which sounds right.
PP and Troy probably wouldn’t take their little friends
to it regardless, because of the rating, right guys?
Me? I think I’ll wait ’till it’s on DVD or HBO.
p.s. You know the movie I would never take kids to?
Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ.”
I could hardly stand to watch it myself. It was more gratuitiously violent than almost any other movie I have ever seen. (…right now I can think of one more so… “Reservoir Dogs”, maybe?) And in my opinion, it was also extremely anti-semitic.
And yet, the church leaders almost insisted that all Catholics should go see it.
I’m sorry, but I don’t recommend it to anyone of any age, and won’t watch it again myself. I’m not so sure the Church officials always have such good judgement some of these things.
p.s. I’m off the hook to do Santa this year. The grand kids are going to New Jersey. Whew.
Penny, I think that Forbes is a great critic. I read his reviews often for myself. He is very insightful, especially on movies for adults. And, I now see the rating which addresses that it is not fit for pre-teens. Unfortunately, the marketing of the movie has been on the cartoon network and shows geared to early elementary age kids.
Bill, regarding the Passion of the Christ, I agree the movie is very violent but I don’t find it gratuitous. If one uses it to reflect on the Passion as it occurred in the eyes of Catherine Emmerich, the mystic who wrote the Delorius Passion from which Gibson got much inspiration, to fully enter (spiritually and emotionally) into the Passion, the violence is critical. The Scourging builds up on the significance of the scene of Mary and Mary mopping up the blood (symbolizing the Eucharist), the act of compassion of Pilate’s wife, and pilgrimage prayer at places like the “Church of the Holy Stairs” in Rome. The walk to Calvary and its violence enhances the significance of pilgrimages to the Via del Rosa in Jeruselem.
But I agree for raw entertainment purposes, the violence appears gratuitous. If used to enter into the suffering or to make sense of suffering of the world and the magnitude of Christ’s suffering for us, it is immensely powerful. Good Friday service has never been the same for me since I saw that movie. I watch it every Good Friday before we go to Church.
52. Maybe it’s because when I went to art school, and so learned to detach from the subject and look objectively, Troy.
You can’t draw a picture of a stunningly beautiful nude woman unless you can disengage. In fact, you can’t even catch your breath.
In the same way, when I watched Gibson’s movie, from a detached perspective, it became very clear what the director is interested in showing me, and it was brutal indeed, inhumane actually.
On reflection, I think it’s also important to understand that Jesus is not the only person who was ever tortured in order to spare those s/he loved.
And so, from my persepctive at least, the fact that Christ was persecuted is not the cool part.
First, the things he said in the Semon on the Mount, and the Prayer he taught us to say seem to me profound enough to make him a master spiritual model.
Then if he really did come back from the dead…
Anyway, you get my point. Any of us can get a really nasty ass whippin’ when we don’t deserve one.
There’s nothing sacred about that. In fact, it happens all the time. I don’t need to see 20 or 30 solid minutes of that. There’s no mystery in it.
Just saw the movie Saturday. If all the cry babies on this post saw the movie they’d wonder why anyone raised a flap to begin with. Next time, let the eggs hatch before you count the chickens. There is no anti-Catholic anything in this movie. Stop being such morons.
So who can dispute that our culture is not under attack with the intent to destroy it.