I'm excommunicated again but I'm not sure if it's over mention of "Dogma" which, if you shelve fundamentalist beliefs, is one of the strongest statements I've ever seen from Hollywood in support of the existence of God (other than movies that simply retell the Bible or show Charlton Heston trying to channel Jesus).
The movie seems like it would be offensive and there are certain aspects (e.g. language) that will offend everyone's grandmother but overall the theme is consistently clear. Just as with me, the movie loves to hammer the church, but it does nothing to denigrate a belief in God.
It's an awkward script as some of it is brilliant and some of it is tedious. Various positions are presented by a foul-mouthed skater but there are other ways to do the same thing. Maybe they would have been better ... or not.
Americans believe progressively less in the church anyway as significantly fewer attend church on a regular basis. I don't believe that's because they have discovered a more profound faith but that's a different topic as I see it as the New Protestantism which isn't activism so much as apathy.
Perhaps there's offense over sniping at fundamentalism as there's a demand to accept it as legitimate. I would if there were any logical basis for it but it's not there. In my view, fundamentalism is destructive to faith insofar as it's based on false science. When the kid grows enough to learn the science is fake, the kid may well conclude the Bible is fake as well. I'd call that a fail if your purpose is to introduce Christianity.
All of the above may seem like it leads to a defense of Catholicism but it's not. One encouraging aspect in Catholicism is its aggressive pursuit of science. It's motivated by intellectual combat so they can war with scientists on the same terms. Fair enough. There are plenty of reasons to slam Catholicism but that's not one of them.
The movie seems like it would be offensive and there are certain aspects (e.g. language) that will offend everyone's grandmother but overall the theme is consistently clear. Just as with me, the movie loves to hammer the church, but it does nothing to denigrate a belief in God.
It's an awkward script as some of it is brilliant and some of it is tedious. Various positions are presented by a foul-mouthed skater but there are other ways to do the same thing. Maybe they would have been better ... or not.
Americans believe progressively less in the church anyway as significantly fewer attend church on a regular basis. I don't believe that's because they have discovered a more profound faith but that's a different topic as I see it as the New Protestantism which isn't activism so much as apathy.
Perhaps there's offense over sniping at fundamentalism as there's a demand to accept it as legitimate. I would if there were any logical basis for it but it's not there. In my view, fundamentalism is destructive to faith insofar as it's based on false science. When the kid grows enough to learn the science is fake, the kid may well conclude the Bible is fake as well. I'd call that a fail if your purpose is to introduce Christianity.
All of the above may seem like it leads to a defense of Catholicism but it's not. One encouraging aspect in Catholicism is its aggressive pursuit of science. It's motivated by intellectual combat so they can war with scientists on the same terms. Fair enough. There are plenty of reasons to slam Catholicism but that's not one of them.
5 comments:
I've seen the movie several times. While I can understand why some might consider it offensive, I find it excellent humor and religious parody at its best. The irony of Carlin as a cardinal is worth the price of admission alone. The script and language push boundaries, but the overall message is not at all problematic or offensive.
On the topic of the Catholic Church and science, there are a great many misconceptions that paint the Church as somehow being mutually exclusive with scientific theory or fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, check out this list of Catholic clerics that were scientists. It's a Who's Who of the giants in the industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
I was astonished to learn, while I was at Providence College, that all of the Dominican priests teaching in the sciences were PHDs in the field. (I was a Chemistry major.)
One of the most misunderstood issues between the Church and Science is the Galileo affair. For the curious, here's a rather lengthy (but very accurate and interesting) account of what actually happened.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
The Church has, over the years, consistently revised teachings of faith to conform with accepted scientific theory of the time period. The Galileo affair is most misunderstood today, since we have the luxury of 20:20 hindsight. At the time, however, there were several competing - but equally accepted - scientific theories, Galileo's being one of them. (It's interesting to note that Galileo was wrong about his theory of Tides, and was also wrong about the nature of Comets. He was partially right about heliocentricity, although the got it wrong about the sun being stationary.) Much of the issue the Holy Office had with Galileo was that he was obstinate in presenting his theories as fact, despite the contradictions that arose from the teachings of Aristotle, Kepler and Copernicus, all of which carrying greater weight with the Jesuits that were the major scientists within the Church.
That confirms it for me as I know your beliefs are authentic (as opposed to the many who just say the words). If any movie set out with a specific purpose of reinforcing a belief in God, it would likely be dismissed as propaganda or so. That this one got away with it is remarkable to me.
As to Catholic science, the reputation of the Jesuits (unknown if they're the same as the Dominicans) is known well for its academic excellence.
In my view, you're being a tad soft on Galileo as in previous times they would have burned him but he was still locked up for the rest of his life, even if it was in his house. That didn't stop him from writing and the fact that we know this means they must not have stopped him from publishing or he pulled a march on them and got it published some other way (the latter seems unlikely, tho).
Dominicans and Jesuits are two separate orders, and in their early years they were often at odds with each other.
Galileo was imprisoned, yes, but stupidity coupled with arrogance has a tendency to do that to a man. When Galileo was ordered to appear before the Holy Office, he had two major benefactors in his corner: the Jesuits (who were the Church scientists of the day) and Pope Urban. Yes, he was actually very good friends with the Pope, and Urban accepted most of what Galileo taught.
What was Galileo's undoing had less to do with his theories and more to do with the fact that he was extremely arrogant and a generally unlikeable individual, even among his friends. The tide turned when he published a paper introducing a character "Simplicio" that most understood to represent Pope Urban. The Pope,naturally, found it quite offensive, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Today, people remember Galileo for what he got right (although Kepler and Copernicus had already beaten him to it.) Even a blind squirrel, as they say, will occasionally find an acorn. Truth is, what Galileo got wrong was pretty much everything else. His contemporaries considered him an extremely bad scientist, and impartial examination does support that conclusion.
Priceless. Fascinating back story on the old boy.
Well put, Kannafoot. Your writing is quite good, do you have a blog? I"d read it! Mahalo.
Post a Comment