Current times would suggest they were.

I'm rather sick and tired of Catholics having an opinion on the Da Vinci Code based upon nothing but pure hearsay. SURELY we are more intelligent than this, brothers and sisters?

I have had my fill of people telling me that I should not have gone to see the movie, that it is evil, and that I'm a bad Catholic for having done so.

What a load of ... Ahem.

Seriously, quite apart from the self-righteous judgementalism that is taking place here, I fail to see how any thinking person can expect to be taken seriously when talking on a matter they know nothing about.

You cannot intelligently engage in an argument on the Da Vinci Code unless you've either read it or seen it. Taking other people's words for it is like saying that a particular version of crib notes on Shakespeare's Macbeth is the only way of interpreting the play. Its like saying that Christopher West is the be-all-and-end-all on the Theology of the Body.

STOP READING CRIB NOTES AND START FORMING INTELLIGENT OPINIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Taking someone else's interpretation of something is like Chinese whispers. Deviations from the original intent will propagate and grow and then you have mass-misinformation on your hands.

Either read it or see it. WITH AN OPEN MIND. You'll STILL probably come to the conclusion that the story line and the theory are both a load of rubbish. I know I did. But MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND AND STOP BEING SO WILLING TO BE LED BY SELF-PROCLAIMED EXPERTS.

I've seen the movie. I can at least engage in a semi-intelligent defence of the Truth based upon that. I intend to read the book at SOME juncture in the near future, at which point I will be equipped, along with my informed conscience that continues to be informed with every passing day, to arrive at REAL conclusions under the guidance of the Magisterium that more clearly represent the reality of the situation. Armed with this, I am then properly equipped to engage in serious discussion where it is raised.

Perhaps my tone in this post is a little on the aggressive side. That is actually rather unusual for me, as those of you who have known me from this board will attest to. But I'm just SO sick of uninformed people judging me for having gone to the movie, and then when they try and argue the various contentious points from the story they are spouting rubbish and don't even know it because THEY HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK OR SEEN THE MOVIE.....

Ok, ok, I know, this is getting circular now, I'm repeating myself. Its just so darned exasperating...

This rant is over for now.

Not only is the tone in your post aggressive, but your post itself confuses people taking issue with the book and movie with people taking issue with you.

If you truly feel that it is wrong for people to judge you and tell you what you should and should not have done, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to extend the same courtesy to your audience that you are upset about not being extended to you by others. Unfortunately, in your post you are doing the same thing as your persecuters.

Dani

The fundamental difference between what I am doing and what is being done to me is that I am being told I'm a bad Catholic for having watched the movie.

I am not passing judgement on their practice of their faith at all. A mindless twit can go on being mindless and still be a good Catholic. I'm reserving judgement on whether they're a good Catholic or not - I would never presume to do such a thing. I'm simply saying that *I* think they are witless twits. Its not a moral judgement - I am not imposing my interpretation of Catholicism on them. If they want to have intelligent conversations about the points in the book, but they haven't read the book, how do they expect anyone to take them seriously on an academic level? I'm really only drawing this point to their attention.

I make no apologies for exercising my own mind instead of witlessly parroting someone else's brain-work.

BTW I love the way you gave my post a life of its own... you've made very poetic use of personification there. What you were meaning to say is NOT that my post was confusing people taking issue with the book/movie and people taking issue with me. You were trying to say that *I* was confused, at least so far as you could tell from the manner in which I expressed myself, as to this point.

This really isn't so, however. I don't have a problem with people taking issue with the book/movie and holding a different opinion to me IF THEY HAVE READ/SEEN IT. If they have consulted the original source, rather than mindlessly reiterating what someone has told them (without ever pausing to consider the validity of the argument they are putting forward, save that so-and-so said it so it must be true)...

Part of the problem that exists with the book (and I do acknowledge there are problems with the book - I simply refuse to acknowledge that those problems are a threat to the Truth, or that the hype and hullabaloo over it all has been warranted) is that it lacks academic integrity. Brown makes unsubstantiated assertions as to what is fact and what isn't fact, without checking if the facts are in fact factual. (I hope you enjoyed reading that sentence as much as I enjoyed writing it.)

So lets go and join in. Lets fight idiocy with idiocy. Lets take on Brown's lack of academic integrity with some of our own. Lets take exception to the fact that Brown makes a whole lot of assertions without doing the research and checking the facts. And lets do it by makingn a whole lot of assertions about Browns work without doing our research and checking our facts.

That sounds like an intelligent way to have a discussion on this book - absolutely.

Surely you can see the danger for the propagation of error and misrepresentation of how Church teaching applies to various parts of the story by simply taking on faith what another person has said about it - especially given that they are probably taking on faith what someone else again has said about it... and so on.

Ever heard of the pilot analogy? If he flies 1degree off course for half an hour, thats not such a big deal, he won't have to travel far to correct his heading. But if he travels a day or two at 1 degree off course, it doesnt matter that the inaccuracy only started small. It will take him a day or two extra to get to where he is going, because that 1 degree causes a larger deviation in physical difference the further you get away from the point of origin.

Did somebody here call you a bad Catholic for having watched the movie? Or, did they suggest that perhaps putting money in the pocket of those committing blasphemy is maybe not the best way to do things?



No, you're passing judgment on their defense of their faith. Is that really any better?



Calling someone a mindless twit is not any nicer than someone calling you a bad Catholic. Both are rude. Further, Dan Brown's writing hardly qualifies as academia. I don't think his fans would even go so far as to suggest that.




And I'm drawing to your attention the point that there are nice ways of saying things and impolite and judgmental ways of saying things.



I don't recall anybody asking for any apologies at all. So that's just fine.



Ah, so now you even now what I mean better than I myself know what I mean. Well, no wonder you have the right to call other people twits. Apparently you are such a genius that you are inside our heads and know our own intentions better than we know them ourselves.



And what gives you the right to have a problem with people taking issue with the book/movie period? What gives you the authority to decide?



The problem here is that you are assuming that people take the word of theologians and even their spiritual fathers mindlessly. How do you know whether or not someone has paused to consider the validity of the argument they are putting forward? You're once again taking the liberty of assuming that you know more about a person than you possibly can.



Blasphemy is inappropriate, and always will be. Cultural incompetence is inappropriate, and is executed to a bizarre degree against the Catholic Church on a regular basis. Hence the hype and hullabaloo.

Yes, I agree with the problem of fact-checking. My friends and I were discussing the book and thought...ummmm...what ever happened to good editors?



I didn't realize anybody here said anything about Brown's work that was untrue. Perhaps you can direct me to it so that I can be better informed about this.



Once again you are assuming that because someone has not read the book in its entire form or seen the movie that they have done no research whatsoever. That's another poor assumption.


I have actually heard something like this from a computer programmer friend, who was trying to explain how a database got so messed up. That's funny that you mention it here, because it has just made one of those odd random coincidences that we have in life.

I think I understand why you are applying it here, but it again applies only if you're assumption is that people are mindlessly spouting off opinions of others rather their own opinions based on what they know and believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I have a hard time understanding is why you feel you need to paint others as wrong just to defend your position. If your position is that it was right for you to see the movie, then why not simply take that position?

Is it ever considered acceptable to attack others to make your position defensable?

Dani

What I find absolutely amazing here is your assumption that the derogatory comments I have made in that first post are directed at you or at anyone else on this board.

The fact of the matter was that I decided to have a rant.

Yes - a good old whinge. I decided to get on here and tell people what TICKS ME OFF about this whole DVC fiasco. Why? Because it was an outlet. There is a DVC forum here, so I decided to use the DVC forum here to whinge about a DVC-related matter.

Ok, so perhaps I should have prefixed it with the words "The following post is a rant born of pure frustration. This frustration has not been provoked by people on this forum, I am simply using this forum as my outlet. Please do not take these remarks as if they are directed at you, because they are not. If you want to empathise, if you have experienced similar judgementalism - I'd love to hear about it - to hear I'm not the only one. If you just want to criticise me further - don't waste your breath."

Now - if you'll indulge me for a second by allowing me to make a pre-emptive remark. If I'm wrong about where you're heading, I'm glad. If I'm right - take note. I noticed that you keep referring to the people on this board, almost as if to indicate that if I admit (as I have done above) that my soapbox session was not provoked by people on this board you would come back at me with 'well if its not provoked by people on this board then dont direct your frustratoin at the people on this board' or something similar.

My response to that, if that is what you were thinking (in order to save time) is that I have NOT directed my frustration at them. I've directed my frustration outward and used this board as a launchpad, and it just happens to be somewhere where you can read it too. Noone is forcing you to read it, and noone is forcing you to respond to it. I have every right to post my opinion, and that is my opinion.

Now if people need my opinion to be always prefixed by pages and pages of disclaimers, they need to lighten up.

By the way, just for interest's sake, you mentioned that you were amused by my pilot analogy, and that you had heard it from a programming friend of yours, and that you thought it was a coincidence. Well its less of a coincidence than you think - my qualifications are in computing and I work in the IT industry. I can't actually remember if I first heard the analogy when studying aeronautical engineering or computer science and technology, but there you have it - two people from the same field. This is fact isrevealed implicitly in another thread in this forum where I have (nerdily enough) sat down and worked out someone's binary code by hand... yes, ok, I get it, I need a life... it probably makes matters worse to say that I actually ENJOYED doing that, doesn't it?

I'm glad you can see my intention in applying the analogy here, anyway, (getting back to the discussion at hand) and you're correct - it DOES only work given the assumptions that you have outlined. However, those assumptions are not so much assumptions as known facts about the various people that have been saying to me the things I have described. I am spouting my frustration at THESE PEOPLE.

Im actually really surprised to have been met with retort here, to be honest. I expected to find people with similar experiences empathising with me.

In my second post I think I missed that you were tkaing this rather personally - as if it was either an attack on you or on other members of this forum, but it would seem rather apparent that that is the case, now.

I can address all the individual points you have raised above if you want me to, but unless you really want me too its a waste of effort, isnt it? I mean, its obvious that I feel that it was the right thing to do to see the movie. And I AM just taking that position. I just happen to be whingeing about the opposition i have met on a day to day basis - it is still annoying and frustrating, even if i am convinced that they are wrong.

I'm not attacking them - thats why I'm whingeing about it HERE - not directly TO them, instead of to their faces.

Does that make my position any clearer?

Actually, I'm assuming that some of the people on this board fit the bill of whom you classify as mindless twits (meaning they neither read the book nor saw the movie), and, therefore, your post would (however inadvertently) be directed at them. They would have reason to feel alienated and offended by your post.

I certainly didn't mean to imply anything other than that assumption.



I can certainly understand the desire to rant. Heck, we all do it sometimes. Maybe I'm just naive but I think there is a nice way to do most things, even rant.



That certainly would have been polite. But, when you made sweeping generalizations calling people mindless, you were directing it at everyone who has not read the book nor seen the movie and opposes the work. Therefore, some members of this forum may still find themselves in the target of your harsh words.



When you make sweeping generalizations and call people idiots, you don't expect an oppositional reply?



I believe that my comments above have addressed this to some extent. Further, you are incorrect in your assessment of where I'm heading. No matter to whom you are directing your comments, they are mean and nasty sweeping judgments. If you don't like people doing that to you, you shouldn't do that to others.



Nobody is trying to deny you any of your rights. We all have rights to post here, and we all have the right to disagree what is posted here. In addition, some of us feel that we have a personal responsibility to not be nasty, especially in a broad and overly inclusive sense.



Nobody has asked for pages and pages of disclaimers. I just pointed out that you weren't being very nice. If that means that you think I need to lighten up, you can certainly go ahead and think that. I have no problem with your having that opinion of me.



Okay. You're a big dork, and yes you need a life. I'm totally kidding, but it's very interesting that you're a computer guru. It's every bit possible that this theory is passed around a lot in your field. After hearing the explanation I can see how it is an effective way to stress that, in some cases, even the smallest error has the potential to be a disaster.

I do things that are quite nerdy as well, but none so nerdy as enjoying working out binary code. YIKES! Just kidding.



Noted and accepted. The clarification is greatly appreciated.



Well, I'm nothing if not full of surprises.



No, I'm not taking it personally at all. I took your reply to me personally to an extent, because it was, in fact, your reply to me.

My response in general is simply a matter of diplomacy.



It's really up to you if you want to reply that way. Admittedly, I am doing my replies this way to try to keep things straight in my head as I reply, and to make sure I'm not misquoting you or doing you any other injustice.
My brain likes lists.



If I may ask a potentially stupid question, why not address those people to their faces? Why not explain your position (without attacking them), and tell them that you feel it is inappropriate for them to judge whether or not you are a "good Catholic" or a "bad Catholic" based on your decision to view the film.

You can do it and be firm without being aggressive, and there is certainly nothing wrong with your defending yourself when people call you a "bad Catholic." Why should they make you feel so bad that you have to bottle it all up and let it fly somewhere else? It doesn't seem fair to you.



Yes, it does. I still think that it's wrong to call people witless, etc., just because they didn't do things your way, just as I think it's wrong for someone to say, "Hey, you're a bad Catholic" because you didn't do things their way.

Dani

I didn't call Nero a bad catholic, but I would never see this movie. I don't want my money supporting something I don't believe in or something that opposes my faith (at least voluntarily)

I refuse to give the mirror worshippers my money by either seeing this movie, or renting it when it goes to DVD.

What is the point of seeing the movie anyway? Life is too short to waste on blather and nonsense. There's too much nonsense in life, why should I deal with watching the Duh Vinci Code?

Now, I'd like to know if Nero is as passionate about PRO CATHOLIC movies out there. I wonder if Nero was just as passionate about the PASSION OF THE CHRIST?

Naah. I guess the only real "open minded" people are those who hate religion, eh? In reality, their minds are closed and locked shut.

Do you have to watch a pornographic film to know that it is immodest, immoral and a temptation to sin?

Do you have to watch an abortion to know that it is murder?

Do you have to witness a murder to know that it is sin?

The idea that one cannot speak intelligently about something they have not personally seen or done is absurd and a complete logical fallicy.

If this were the case then a great many college professors in fields like palentology and anthropology would be out of work. They speak with great authority and knowledge on things they did not witness first hand. Yet students, and indeed, the world at large are expected to accept their interpretation their "hearsay" if you will, about what they have discovered from studying bones and shards of pottery that far predate their own experiences.

I need not read for myself a book that is full of blasphemy to know that it is rubbish.

There are learned men of the clergy who have read this book and they discourage the faithful from reading it. That is enough for me.

You should try to sell your "righteous indignation" elsewhere. For I doubt it will receive much of a warm reception here.

I need neither to read the book (which I've read one chapter of) nor see the movie (which I won't) to know the DVC is a load of BS and nothing more. Dan Brown and Ron Howard are not going to be making any money off of me, and if that makes my opinion invalid, so be it. But, I ask you to consider Carole's questions:


Realize that not seeing the movie or reading the book does not disqualify someone from discussing the premises within. Anyone worth their salt who knows what the DVC is about and knows of the issues relating to the Catholic Church is just as qualified to discuss the matter without making Brown or Howard one penny richer.

There may be a set of people who would like to see the movie, but don't want their money to go to the producers of the movie. Brown has already received a $6 million lump sum payment, so there is no danger he will get anyone's money.

Here's how it's done. Go to the cineplex and buy a ticket for another movie that starts about the same time as daVinci. Then just walk into the daVinci theater and have a seat. You get to see the movie, and don't pay anything to the daVinci producers.

So here you are on a Catholic message board advocating dishonesty. Very nice. Somehow I think you'll not find anyone here who will embrace your advice.

Considering WHO the source is....I'm not surprised at the advocation for dishonesty.


SV

I'm not surprised. Amused but not surprised.

I think that Opppoy holds shares in movie making companies, movie theatres or something. I can't imagine Opppoy wanting to support the seeing of a movie with such fierce lobbying without having some way of benefiting from it.

It doesn't matter. We don't want those who made the movie to make money (which they will from the theatre receipts)

JYOC, who exactly is on the "moral culpability" ringer? Is the boom mike operator, the grips, all the film crew, including the PA (production assistants) who are interning and haven't the foggiest idea what movie they're helping out with? Is it anyone involved with the editing of the film after the filming's complete - if Lucasfilm (George Lucas's big film editing compound) made its facilities available for editing the film post-production, or if the film's sound is in THX, is George Lucas committing blasphemy, too, and we're all morally obligated to boycott all "Star Wars" products? Are movie theater owners who show the movie - are they committing blasphemy, even though they might have a filthy R-rated movie, or a sexually suggestive PG-13 movie on another screen?

And, what about the newspapers who published advertisements for the movie? Are they committing blasphemy? Are those MovieFone cell phone services committing blasphemy by having DVC showtimes on their voicemail menus?

Where's the logical conclusion to who's committing blasphemy here?

If they're not having a foggiest idea about what movie they're doing, they are bad film crew. How can they do their job WITHOUT knowing about the film? Sheesh. Not only that, they're clueless, as almost everyone has heard about the Duh Vinci Code book.



Lucasfilm is culpable, yes. After all, they knew what the movie was and made it. But Star wars products? No.



Yes, and yes to the second objection as well. If the sleazy films abuse God's name or blaspheme, same thing.



Not culpable for blasphemy, unless they also say untrue things about Jesus and God.



Well, who is the ones actually saying untrue things about Jesus and God?

Nero-issima, here's my question. Should people who haven't read the entire Bible refrain from making negative criticism of it like the criticisms contained in "The DaVinci Code"? I find many "DaVinci Code" supporters use a double standard, since they themselves disparage a book which they haven't read. If one must read the entire "DaVinci Code" before commenting on it, shouldn't one also read the entire Bible before commenting on the Bible?

the hypocrisy of the leftists who hate religion is not logical at all

Ok - I'm going to address all of the posts that have happened since my last, but I want to make the following VERY CLEAR before I do.

MY INITIAL POST WAS A RANT AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE ON THIS FORUM. I was frustrated at a number of people I know who had questioned my integrity as a Catholic simply because I saw the film. When I saw that DCF had a Da Vinci Code forum, I thought that it would make a good outlet for my frustration, given that my frustration was DVC-related.

My intent was not to offend anyone, and the fact that I have offended people is cause for regret on my part.

Everything that I said reflects my true opinion. HOWEVER - the manner in which I said it was appalling. I failed to give due consideration to the fact that there would be people who misinterpreted both what I had said and my intention in saying it.

I truly apologise for the lack of respect for others that comes across in my post.