MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Worthington's Party Discussion > Too anti-Catholic for my blood

Too anti-Catholic for my blood

posted 16 years ago by needalife
37 replies | jump to latest

I saw a preview of this movie because it's supposed to be very pro-life and I'm pro-life. It does have a pro-life message but unfortunately, it also bashes the Catholic Church and the priesthood big time. It looks like it was written and directed by someone who is not familiar with the Church and only has a very stereotypical, negative view of it. I hesitate to give examples here because I'd be giving away some of the plot but I definitely found it anti-Catholic in a naive, clunky kind of way. In fact, I don't understand why it couldn't have been about a Baptist minister or an accountant or anyone else. Why pick a priest to be the protagonist in this film, especially if you don't have a clue about how a mass is run, what the confessional is like, what Catholics think about certain things? It would like me doing a pro-life film from the perspective of a Hindu: something I know nothing about! A piece of advice to the writer: write about what you know. You obviously don't know Catholicism but it's equally obvious you've been taught to have contempt for it.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

I agree.

Here are a couple of review articles that might be of interest:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=12712 (Bill Donohue)

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26122 (Catholic Online)

Charles Delacroix

[–] JBoze313 16 years ago

I just saw this movie, and I can tell you- it is in no way shape or form anti-catholic. It's about 2 flawed humans, not 2 flawed catholics. They're simply flawed, and it's not because of their catholicism. Last rites are NOT mocked (the priest was telling a woman that she wasn't going to die, so last rites weren't even necessary, so he said "to hell with last rites"). If taken out of context, as the catholic league has done, it sounds bad...but if someone there actually bothered to see the film, they'd realize nothing was being mocked.

Nuns weren't mocked either, and I'm not sure where they got that one.

Celibacy isn't belittled- the one priest is clearly celibate and the other is as well, but he's not 100% sure of his vocation. If a priest decides he's not fit for the collar, does that make him anti-catholic somehow?

One statement said that Fr Keene runs away from midnight mass to be with a woman. Maybe I interpreted the scene wrong, but I saw it as him running away (due to an inner sense that something was wrong) to save a fallen sister.

In the end, it's very pro-life, and the lesson is 'love one another.'

I just don't get what seems like very knee-jerk reactions by some out there in the press.

Maybe the film is completely anti-catholic and I'm just a clueless rube, but I'm fairly sure I'm not clueless and that this film isn't anti-catholic.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, jboze,

I saw the movie a few days ago, and while I think there are good things in it, it's also, unfortunately, contains anti-Catholic bigotry. I won't go into details regarding my own "take", here's my comments for that in case you're interested: http://imdb.com/title/tt1109499/usercomments-8

I don't see you at all as being a rube or clueless, but our culture tends to take anti-Catholicism as being sort of automatically OK when other kinds of prejudice would not be.

But there's a good "rule of thumb" that I think helps to make clear when actual prejudice is present: substituting a class or religion or race for whom we've all achieved some kind of sensitivity. So in this case ... if the two flawed human beings just happened to be Jewish, or Black, and their own cultural institutions and symbols were "dissed" as much as those of the Catholics in this movie, wouldn't we consider that there was genuine bigotry present? The scriptwriter/director after all could have just chosen two men who weren't Catholic, or anything in particular, and a wonderful story could have been told without the constant "dissing" of their cultural or religious context.

It's really unfortunate because there really are a lot of good things in this movie, and I definitely agree with you there. I'm glad that others are speaking up, though, about the prejudice present.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] mebaser 16 years ago

Greetings all,

I just came from watching this movie and I enjoyed it very much. It became all the more interesting to read about the details that went into making the movie. I am a Protestant who attends an independent fundamental Bible believing church.

Even though I am a non-Catholic, I saw myself rooting for the role of the Catholic Church in the life of the community. I see the point of those of you who have been critical of what you see as an anti-Catholic feel to the movie. But at the same time, it was the Catholic Church that was vindicated at the end of the movie by the rekindled faith and coming together of the parishioners. The original priest was restored, and the main character (I believe it was Father Keen), who was trying to "pay for his sins" realized that he couldn't - he just needed to realize he was forgiven (as the apparition of his daughter told him he was at end).

I believe that in the end, it showed that everyone, even religious folks, need to step back and make sure they realize that to have faith means faith that your sins are forgiven by the very sacrifice of Christ that we celebrate as Christians. I identified with the flawed priests, the apathetic community, the faithful sick old man, and even the Herod guy who seemed to want to find a happiness outside of the Church. But especially Father Keen who is very aware of his shortcomings and is driven to work for his salvation when he doesn't have to.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, mebaser,

There were definitely some good things in the movie. And some of the things about it that appealed to you really appealed to me as well.

However, the picture of the Catholic Church that seems to have come across to you at the end of the movie, as you describe it, looks to me like a picture of a Catholic Church that has become rather like a Protestant Church.

From a Protestant standpoint ... which is also the viewpoint of the scriptwriter ... A Catholic Church that looks like a Protestant Church ... I can see how that might look like a good thing.

From my own point of view, as a Roman Catholic, it looks like just the opposite.

It's rather as if someone were to put out a movie that depicted a "good Jewish faith" as one that jettisoned most of what our Jewish brothers and sisters would regard as essential to their own faith walk. Such a movie might depict traditional Jewish observances as "bad", and hold out hope that Jews would "progress" by becoming (well) less Jewish.

From a non-Jewish standpoint, such a movie might look very appealing

From a Jewish standpoint, it might look exactly the opposite.

Such a movie would involve much that is anti-Jewish, and anti-semitic. Despite the presence of good things in such a movie, its anti-semiticism would not be a good thing at all.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] mebaser 16 years ago

Hello Mr. Delacroix,

I so appreciate the fact that someone responded to my thoughts, I want to thank you for taking the time. As to your comments, again I thank you for giving me another angle to look at it from your point of view. You might even say that an illustration that is closer to home for me would be if the church in the movie was Protestant to begin with, doing what I would do at my church and following my traditions, and seeing them as obstacles for the characters. And in the end they overcome by becoming "Catholic." I would be very inclined to register an amount of disapproval over what I would consider, as you might say, an ignorant and prejudiced view of Protestantism. Point taken.

I did go back and read in previous comments some of the specific instances where Catholic practices were misapplied, mishandled, or misrepresented altogether. Granting that these mistakes did undermine Catholic values and traditions, I have a question for you regarding Father Keen's character. If a priest realizes that his vows for the priesthood were driven by anything other than proper motives, would it be Catholic bashing to show that it is a good thing for such a priest to renounce those vows and live as a parishioner rather than a shepherd?

As a non-Catholic, I did not regard such a move by Father Keen as an anti-Catholic decision. I actually compared it to a Protestant minister stepping down from a pastoral position if he indeed needed to. Especially if his calling to minister is actually outside of the position of a priest or pastor.

God bless.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, mebaser,

Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for sharing your thoughtful analogy. Yes, I can see how, say, a misguided Catholic, writing a script about a Protestant church becoming "better" because it's becoming "nice and Catholic", might raise some of the same feelings in a Protestant that I have about Noelle.

One thing that I think that can help all of us, as Catholics and Protestants, is to do exactly what you are doing: speaking with honor and respect and (really) with the Love of Christ in order to try to understand each other even when we disagree. For of course sometimes we'll just have to agree to disagree. That doesn't have to stop us from "Speaking the Truth in Love" as Paul says., though.

About Father Keene. If he were a Protestant minister, I think stepping down from a pastoral position, as you describe, could make plenty of sense.

But a Catholic priest has taken Vows that are viewed by the Catholic Church as really very, very similar to the Vows that are taken between a married man and woman.

And there are definitely times and places and ways to re-examine those Vows. But from a Catholic standpoint, it's recommended that things like this not be taken on a unilateral, individual basis, but rather after a whole process of re-examination, frankly talking about concerns, etc, with others in the Church - typically including the Bishop, the priest's Confessor (the priest he goes to in order to Confess his own sins), the priest's spiritual advisors, the priest's brother priests, and maybe others. This is part of the discernment of God's will: to humble oneself to seek the Voice of God in not only individual prayer, but in the discernment of other members of the Body of Christ.

In this movie, we don't see any of this ... we don't even see Father Keene praying for God's will about his priesthood; or, indeed, about anyone else.

Basically all I saw was a priest who became romantically drawn to an attractive young lady.

From a Catholic standpoint, there's nothing wrong with being attracted to this or that person one runs into in life. That's just being human. But what one does in response to those feelings is another matter. Being attracted to someone is not considered a good enough reason to break one's Vows in Marriage, or in Priesthood.

For from a Catholic standpoint, Marriage and Priesthood are in a way very similar.

For Catholics, marriage is considered a Sacrament that matches two people for life ... "till death do we part."

Suppose a Catholic man has been married for 20 years, and meets an attractive young lady to whom he feels romantically drawn. From a Catholic standpoint, that doesn't at all justify his dropping his 20 year marriage and hooking up with his new romantic interest.

Now, it's not impossible that his 20 year marriage was "all wrong"; and careful examination may result in discernment of God's will that his marriage be Annulled, and he marry another woman. But the Catholic Church does recommend a very, very careful process of examination first. Because Marriage is considered a Sacrament, and two people who get married are considered called to stick to each other for life. Again, "till death do us part."

It's very similar for a man who becomes a Priest.

A Catholic man becomes a priest through a Sacrament called Orders. It's considered to be for life: and actually, beyond. It's not to be entered lightly: and there's a lot of discussion and examination and prayer before a man is admitted to Orders. But once he's a priest, he's a priest: forever.

Now it's not impossible that after 20 years of priesthood, a priest may meet an attractive young lady and start having wistful thoughts about her.

That's perfectly normal: it's part of being human to be attracted this way or that way from time to time.

But backing out of his Vows in Orders is not considered a light thing at all, and it's recommended that a Priest seriously considering renouncing his Vows should do so carefully, prayerfully, in examining God's Will first.

Now about Father Keene. He's decided within a few days that this nice, attractive young lady is meant for him, and he decides that he's just not cut out to be a priest. There's no prayer, no discussion ... except with a bartender ... no consideration that just possibly there may be some very normal but very transient feelings of attraction involved. He just decides it's time to move on. So move on he does.

But now suppose Father Keene meets another attractive young lady in 6 months, and decides that it's God's will that he drop his new wife, and pick up with another woman. He doesn't, apparently, believe that he needs to pray about it, or talk it over with anyone, or consider that he may just be having transient feelings and may need to stick to his original commitment: to his wife ... or his Church ... regardless of today's feelings of one kind or another.

After all, what man ... or woman ... who discerns God's will to get married, isn't perfectly well aware that next year or in 10 years or 20 years, there might not be feelings drawing him or her this way or that? A good husband or wife will say, "Those are just feelings ... nothing wrong with them of course ... but I don't have to act on those feelings. Because I made a commitment 20 years ago and I'm going to stick with it. I'm going to stick with my husband (or) my wife who I committed myself to 20 years ago. Because I didn't just decide for one day, I married for life. Till death do us part."

Same with a good priest. He's already been through a rigorous discernment process leading up to his free decision to become a Priest. He's sworn to remain true to His Vows ... to His Spouse, that is, to the Church, or, to Christ, in a special way. He knows that from time to time he'll feel this way or that way ... because that's what all humans do, after all.

But as Christ has remained True to the Church; as Christ has remained True to each and every one of us who He has Saved through His Precious Blood; so a Husband is called to remain True to his Wife; and a Wife is called to remain True to her Husband; and a Priest is called to remain True to his Priesthood in Christ.

All in all, this is one among many areas in which the script for this movie is very, very insensitive to how a Catholic views the Priesthood.

Of course this is just my own understanding of these things. My 2 bits so to speak ... :-) ...

May God bless you and yours,

Charles Delacroix

[–] oish_toish 15 years ago

Delacroix, you would have us believe that you are a decent Christian when you use a phrase like "rule of thumb"? Honey, when you start spouting that sort of terminology, you lose your credibility.

Anyway.

A good film is one that gets people talking. I wager that Wall did a fine job.

[–] cdelacroix1 15 years ago

Hi, Oish_toish,

I don't think I ever claimed to be a "decent Christian". However, it's very true that Christians that I know use terms like "rule of thumb" freely. Don't know of anywhere in the Bible or the Catechism that says much about "rules of thumb" one way or the other ... :-) ...

As for whether a film is good that gets people talking ... I'm sure that Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" and other Nazi propaganda films got people talking. In a sense, "Triumph of the Will" is technically very, very good indeed. But it's still bigotry. So's Noelle.

And honestly, I don't say that at all lightly. Check out the other sites that talk about these things. Partly as a result, apparently, Noelle very fortunately mostly went nowhere ... you'll notice there really isn't much said about it on this board.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, jboze,

After thinking about some of these things, I thought I'd add a bit regarding the particular items you brought up.

1. About the two troubled men who just coincidentally happen to be Roman Catholic priests. The question that comes to my mind is this: if the intent of the movie’ director/scriptwriter was simply to tell the story of two troubled men, why does he just happen to choose to make them Catholic priests? His movie tells the tale not of just two troubled men, but of two troubled Catholic priests, or rather his idea of Catholic priests. And the two kinds of priests reflect standard anti-Catholic stereotypes. The "drunken priest" (Fr Joyce) and the "greedy priest" (Fr Keene) are common images straight out of the old Know-Nothing playbook of anti-Catholic bigotry. Now suppose the author had chosen to make the two troubled men two Jewish rabbis who are consumed by greed: according to the standard, and very old, anti-semitic stereotype of the “greedy Jew,” the “greedy Shylock.” We would recognize that this to be a clearly anti-semitic depiction, right? So in Noelle, the depiction of the two Catholic priests is an anti-Catholic depiction.

2. About Last Rites. You mentioned a place where a priest says “To hell with Last Rites” to someone he’s supposedly trying to reassure that they won’t need Last Rites. I don’t myself remember that scene, but it sounds consistent with the rest of the movie. Last Rites are considered by Roman Catholics to be a precious and important part of their religious response to the prospect of death. An anti-Catholic scriptwriter seeking to "score points" might put words like "to hell with Last Rites" into the mouth of a priest. But no Roman Catholic priest with any sensitivity at all would tell anyone he’s trying to reassure "to hell with Last Rites." Compare, say, a Jewish rabbi speaking with a member of his synagogue who, thinking s/he was dying, isn't dying after all. The rabbi simply would not say, by way of reassurance, or for any other reason I can think of, "To hell with Kaddish" ... Kaddish being the precious Jewish prayers for the dead. No rabbi would say something like that … but an anti-semitic scriptwriter might put words like that into a script for a stereotypical rabbi.

3. About the mockery of nuns. I’ll pass on this because I don't myself remember this in this movie at all. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s there: that would sure be consistent with the rest of the movie. But it’s just not in my recollection.

4. About priestly celibacy. Celibacy is mocked by Fr Joyce (the "drunk priest") in his conversation with Fr Keene in the car as they're leaving the bar. The implication is that Fr Joyce isn't celibate, and considers traditional Catholic vows of abstinence and celibacy passé. Near the end of the movie, there’s a bizarre episode in which each priest, vowed to celibacy, asks Marjorie, in sequence, to marry him. Evidently she says No to Fr Joyce and Yes to Fr Keene. Now I agree, Fr Keene may very well be in the “wrong vocation." There's no indication from the script that Fr Joyce is, though. And the context is that both Fr Joyce, and Fr Keene, and every other Catholic, are simply walking away from anything distinctively Catholic ... celibacy being one among many Catholic signs and symbols "dissed" by our scriptwriter, who clearly means us to applaud as everyone leaves those nasty old Catholic things behind. Compare a script written by an anti-semitic author who depicts two rabbis and their synagogue congregation throwing off more and more of those nasty old Jewish fetters in order to walk free, nice and "normal" and well-assimilated into society.

5. About the Mass that Fr Keene ran away from. This scene actually included spillage on the altar of what may or may not have been what Roman Catholics consider the Blood of Christ. "May or may not" because it depends on the stage of the Mass he ran out on; that was unclear, or it was unclear to me. Sometime after Fr Keene takes off, Fr Joyce and a congregation appear for Midnight Mass: traditionally a religious service of great affection to Catholics. Fr Joyce and the congregation simply ignore the spilled chalice on the altar, and Fr Joyce doesn’t even offer to celebrate Midnight Mass, instead joining the congregation in a kind of sing-along. Now, Roman Catholics view spilling the Blood of Christ, running out on a Mass, refusing to offer to celebrate Mass with a congregation, all as tremendously sacreligious. Suppose the script had depicted a Jewish rabbi, entering the synagogue, rending the Torah into pieces, throwing the pieces onto the altar, ignoring the congregation assembled for Hanukkah services, and running out of his synagogue in passionate quest of romance. After all, Marjorie is not depicted here at all as a “fallen sister”: and Father Keene’s interest in her is clearly romantic from the first day he's in town, isn't it? This all conveys yet another old anti-Catholic cliché: that priests are "mal-adjusted" and would be just fine if they would just get married like everyone else.

There are plenty of other anti-Catholic images in this movie. I’m just going to pick out one, one of the most offensive, IMHO: Father Keene’s handling of Confession.

Confession is considered a Sacrament by Roman Catholics. In Confession, the penitent expresses sorrow for sins, and the priest is to treat the penitent with the compassion of Christ. He gives absolution to the penitent, communicating the forgiveness of Jesus Christ. It is considered an important and precious time when an individual penitent meets with a priest to confess sins in very great secrecy under what is called the Seal of Confession. The priest is sworn to die rather than reveal anything that is told to him in Confession. That is how important the penitent’s confession is considered by the Catholic Church.

In the movie, though, we see a troubled and irascible penitent who is treated with inexplicable cruelty by Fr Keene in two scenes. In the second, he simply walks out of the Confessional, ignoring the penitent completely. He then proceeds to repeatedly violate the Seal of Confession, revealing what has been said to him in the secrecy of the Confessional with brutal abandon This is yet another old Know Nothing stereotype: the “brutal, lying priest".

Now, about the Catholic League (CL). This is not really a journalistic organization as such. I'm not personally familiar with CL, but my understanding is that it’s sort of the Catholic analog to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL really has an outstanding history of speaking out when anti-semiticism rears its ugly head in our society. Perhaps if there had been an ADL in the 1930s Germany, the Nazis may not have been able to come to power. CL has a similar function, and as a Roman Catholic myself, I am deeply honor CL for their courage in speaking out against anti-Catholic bigotry, just as our Jewish brothers and sisters rightly honor the ADL for speaking out against anti-semitism.

Well, this is very long, and I'll stop in a moment. But I do want to say, what I've said elsewhere, that I recognize that there really are some very good things in Noelle. There’s a sweetness and humanity that is very appealing; I’m just disappointed that this is conveyed uniformly as somehow the opposite of Catholicism: in accordance, once again, with old anti-Catholic stereotypes about the “inhumanity” of the Catholic Church.

To me this dual nature of Noelle presents a dilemma: how to respond to something like this that contains truly good things, while at the same time conveying, throughout the movie, truly ugly anti-Catholic prejudice. I don't myself see any reason at all that the beautiful and moving story that is here could not have been told without all of the ugly anti-Catholic trappings. But that’s the way the story is told, so how to respond? Likewise, I’m guessing that there may be anti-semitic books and plays and the like that may actually contain real beauty alongside the ugly bigotry. How are we to view such material? I’m honestly not sure, except that I think it’s right to acknowledge the dilemma, and to, at least, clearly denounce the bigotry whenever I acknowledge the beauty in a work like this.

That’s my own response. But of course we all have to decide how to respond for ourselves.

In any event, I think moviegoers have a right to know what kind of movie before any movie is before they go to see it. This movie is being marketed by its aggressively Protestant distribution company as a traditional Christmas movie. And it’s a very, very far cry from that. If I had known that in fact it contains considerable anti-Catholic material, I would have passed it up for the many other beautiful/traditional and beautiful/contemporary Christmas movies that are around.

And I think a reasonable question is: if this was intended as such a movie, and not intended as well, or at least in part, as a work of anti-Catholic prejudice, why wasn’t the story just told as Christmas stories usually are, without all of the “dissing” of Catholic chatacters and signs and symbols?

The setting could have been non-denominational and general, yet affirming of faith. Then what a story this could have been. Compare It’s a Wonderful Life. There’s a wonderful Christmas story that is full of extraordinary beauty and humanity and faith … and which does not tar this or that denomination or people along the way.

Now a Noelle like that could have been an amazingly beautiful Christmas story. Instead it’s a Christmas story laced with thoroughly anti-Catholic bigotry. What a tragedy …

Charles Delacroix

[–] needalife 16 years ago

JBoze313,
I don't think you're a clueless rube; I also think you're probably not Catholic. If you were, you'd notice more stuff in the movie, like how it just doesn't ring true in its "Catholicity", if that's a word. Noelle has a lot to offer: beautiful music and cinematography, gentle humor (some great lines), and--dear to my heart--a pro-life message of forgiveness after an abortion. So it was with a heavy heart that I watched the "other" part of the movie, the part that tried to be about two Catholic priests and a parish, and didn't quite make it. Mr. Delacroix probably does a better job of explaining all this; see all his posts, they're excellent. I'll try to explain what bothered me.

Fr. Keene and Fr. Simeon are both very flawed priests. Not that all priests aren't flawed in some way, they are human, after all. But that's all we see in this movie. There's no counterbalance of a priest who is mature, who is warm hearted yet in control. We get a priest who is cold and heartless (Keene) and another who is immature and doesn't seem to understand his own religion (Simeon). Simeon says at one point (during mass? a prayer get together? See, I can't even tell, it doesn't look like something I'd even recognize): "Maybe he's right. Maybe we are dead. Look around... glass ... marble... a stone mother, her cold child... a dead man on a cross. We're nothing but a mausoleum." When I heard that I thought, how many priests would say something like that? How many Catholics? Those words sound so Protestant to me: the beautiful stained glass and the reverent statues of Our Lord and the Blessed Mother tenderly holding the Baby Jesus, the suffering Jesus on the cross are just glass, marble, and stone. And the crucifix is just a dead man on a cross? Rather, a priest would recognize that the Catholic Church, like Paul, "preach[es] Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". To a Protestant, maybe a Catholic church looks like a mausoleum, but not to a priest and his is the perspective that's supposed to be coming through. It's so obvious that someone with Protestant sensibilities wrote the script. The screenwriter (David Wall) didn't seem to do his homework: "Since I'm going to write about 2 priest and a Catholic parish, what's their point of view? How do they feel about such and such?" It's like he didn't respect the characters enought to do that.

Another note of inauthenticity, of not doing the homework: Fr. Keene breaks the seal of confession, that is, he reveals to another what was told to him in confession in confidentiality. A priest would never, must never do that, no matter what. Yet Keene does it for the most trivial of reasons: "You can't be Mary because your grandmother just told me 10 seconds ago that you're pregnant". Huh? Even an angry ex-Catholic would have gotten that detail right.

Marjorie takes a swipe at nuns when she says, in discussing options other than abortion, "Like what? Put it up for adoption? Put it in one of your orphanages with a bunch of nuns who never even wanted to be mothers in the first place?" Granted, Fr. Keene just confronted her about being pregnant so she's angry. But still, even non-Catholics can agree that nuns do a pretty good job of taking care of orphans and sick people, etc. Mother Teresa's nuns model maternal selflessness very well; my own niece is adopted from one of their orphanages in India. Because nuns don't have kids of their own, they can be everybody's mother.

This last point brings me to another: the whole discomfort with celibacy that some Protestants have. They look upon nuns and priests as living this unnatural, bizarre life, which is a very secular way of seeing things, in my view. Again, it comes out in the movie, both in Marjorie's comment about nuns and in the fact that it's seen as good when Fr. Keene breaks his vow to be with her. There's no understanding or respect of the vow of celibacy, of Holy Orders, which isn't too different from the vow of marriage. It's as if I, a Catholic, wrote a screenplay with a beautiful pro-life message that has two Baptist ministers in it. One is gay and dips into the church funds when he needs to get drugs, and the other is cheating on his wife with a woman in the congregation and is thinking of leaving the ministry. (That's all, no good ones.) The latter finally does and in the emotional upheaval that ensues, he realizes how bad he feels about an abortion he pressured an old girlfriend to have. At the end of the movie, the daughter that was aborted looks happy that he's leaving the wife for the new lady. Hey, it's just a vow! No big deal.

But I wouldn't write such a screenplay. I don't know enough about Baptists and how their churches operate, what kind of people go into the ministry, etc., to make it seem real to an audience. Baptists watching it would sniff it out as fake right away because it would sound inauthentic and phony. But also, very importantly, I have respect for Baptists, they love Jesus and the Bible and that makes them my brothers and sisters in Christ. For me to make that movie, I'd be burying a pro-life pearl in a big bucket of anti-Protestant mud.

I've gone on too long, sorry. I wish Wall had written about what he knows and left the Catholic angle out, or else bothered to research Catholicism more thoroughly.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi,

Just read your post and just want to say that I agree very much.

I had plain forgotten about Marjorie's "dig" at nuns. This really to me reflects something that came up again and again: the script's repeated use of these one-liner "digs" at Catholicism. There's enough of this to constitute a real vein of nastiness that stands in stark contrast to what is, as you point out, a really nice, gentle humor in other parts of the movie.

And you're right about the Protestant screenwriter's consistent failure to do even simple homework about his Catholic subject matter. I have to wonder if he got most of his source material from anti-Catholic tracts that (alas) are still around, spewing bigotry that appears very well represented in this movie.

I myself was especially disgusted by the incredible depiction of Confession. You noted this as well of course. But what a nasty way in which to treat poor penitent in the Confessional. And then we're treated to this supposedly humorous depiction of a priest violating the most basic rights to confidentiality of the Confessional. Amazing ... and disgusting.

As a Roman Catholic, I can't imagine myself, or any Catholic, seeking to write a story about Baptists, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus, without doing a LOT of homework. And without approaching persons of other faiths with very great humility. Humility because of course as a Catholic, I may disagree with non-Catholics regarding this or that, but there's so much I just can't know about what it means to walk in someone else's shoes. Therefore I think one should approach persons of other beliefs and other faiths with some sense of honor and respect and dignity.

That, alas, is sure not the approach of this movie.

Charles Delacroix

[–] MarilynBr 16 years ago

I'm a Protestant graduate of a Catholic seminary. And I also spent two years researching a book in the seminary library and later working as a relief postmaster at the U.S. post office located on the campus for another two years. So, that adds up to a total of 7 years spent in the seminary environment.

I understand the points that are being made here. You would have liked the idealized view presented, what the beliefs teach.

But with no disrespect meant, I don't find all of the things in the movie so unrealistic, nor so far away from the way things happen in our sinful, fallen world.

Here are some of the things that have happened at the seminary I attended: one of the priests, who was a seminary professor and also the priest of a local Catholic Parish, had an affair with the woman English professor who taught in the undergraduate program of the seminary. She was also a very prominent member of his parish. He left the priesthood and she divorced her husband, and they married.

Two of the monks at different times and totally independent of one another loaded their cars with their belongings and left the abbey in the middle of the night never to return. The monastery had a rule that they could leave and come back twice, but on the third time of leaving, they would not be allowed to come back into the monastery community. There was no discernment process over this midnight flight. They simply left.

Eight of the monks (some priests, some brothers) were charged with sexual abuse of young boys and teenagers and the diocese has been on the losing end of million dollar lawsuits.

This is how it is sometimes in the real world, and I don't think it is necessarily anti-catholic or anti-christian to deal with these issues. The movie is about forgiveness, forgiveness that was hard-earned by Christ. We all need to hear Noelle's message of forgiveness because all of us have done things that we can't go back and change no matter how much our heart would desire it.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, Marilyn,

I just read your post. I can't speak for others, of course, but here's my own view of these things.

First, I hope you aren't trying to say that the Catholic Church has more instances of the kinds of behavior you describe as compared to the Protestant Churches? If so, then that's simply inaccurate. Anecdotally, I have Lutheran, Baptist and Methodist friends who can and have described similar things in their own communions. And there have been all kinds of comparative studies of these things. They don't seem to happen in one religion more than another. Don't get me wrong, the things you describe are, of course, horrible; but trying to pin them on this or that church or group isn't consistent with reality.

That, in fact, is part of what causes this movie to cross the line into prejudice: its relentless attempt to depict Catholicism as uniformly Bad. There's no question of any of these things being the exception to the rule. Just the opposite. All is Bad. There are no exceptions, you'll notice, throughout the movie: the Catholic Church is Bad, the Archdiocese is Bad, Nuns are Bad, Last Rites are Bad, Confession is Bad, Mass is Bad, and Catholics are Bad -- except, to be sure, for those who just happen to be Making Progress in becoming as Protestant as possible. Protestant ... like the Producer/Director/Scriptwriter.

Compare the way Nazi German movies would (I suppose; from hearsay & conjecture) have portrayed Jews. They wouldn't say that the Jews, like all the rest of us, have problems; but that the Jews are racially and ethnically Bad in some sense that sets them apart from the rest of humanity. All Jews are Bad is the message of Nazi Anti-Semiticism, isn't it?

Sound familiar? That's the Noelle view of the Catholics and Catholicism. And that's sheer bigotry.

Now there's to me a real ethical dilemma in that I do see some good things in Noelle as well. But then how to respond to a movie that has both good things mixed throughout with anti-Catholic prejudice? Or for that matter Anti-Semitic prejudice, or Anti-Black prejudice?

I'm honestly not sure myself, but am very sure that clearly denouncing prejudice as unacceptable, no matter how good a movie is otherwise, is to me ethically necessary.

I can watch one of the old Tarzan movies and still enjoy it very much; but the patronizing and racist attitude they portray towards Africans is, by today's standards, simply not OK at all. Likewise I guess if I were a South African back in Apartheid days watching a movie containing both good things along with extensive endorsements of Apartheid, I would hope it to be OK to enjoy the good things in the movie, but only while at the same time clearly denouncing the endorsements of Apartheid in the movie.

I'll admit that I do wish that Noelle's Catholic-bashing Protestant screenwriter/director/producer had simply told a story of forgiveness and used his artisty without lacing it with his anti-Catholicism. All he would have had to do, after all, if his motives were simply artistic, would have been to give us the story in a non-denominational setting: in accordance with sort of the most common approach to Christmas movies.

But that's not the reality of this movie, IMHO.

Alas.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

PS Oh and I did want to add one more thing. Wouldn't you just know it ... but what can I say, this is a topic of some interest to me ... :-) ... none of the above really touches on how very unrealistically the movie depicts Catholicism and Catholics. That's been addressed above in this thread and elsewhere so I won't belabor it now. But I do want to say what I've said before: if I, as a Catholic, were to even attempt to write something about persons of another faith, whether Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, etc ... I think I would approach them and their faith walks with great humility, with lots of homework, and with a basic respect for persons of other faiths whether I agree with them or not. The Protestant filmmaker of Noelle clearly approached Catholicism in a very different manner; and the results show.

[–] paddleoutpeople 16 years ago

Unfortunately I believed you missed the point, forgiveness. Through the course of the film these two men balance each other out and the realization that they need repent is very touching, insightful and David Wall (director, writer, actor) should be extremely proud of his work. It's a beautiful story and a wonderfully made film.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi,

I see you cross-posted your comments here. I won't repeat what I said in response elsewhere, but here's a link in case someone's interested:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1109499/board/thread/91691263?d=92492762&a mp;p=1#92492762

Also here are a couple of review articles that might be of interest:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=12712 (Bill Donohue)

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26122 (Catholic Online)

Unfortunately, then , the evidence for an ugly anti-Catholic prejudice running through this movie is overwhelming.

Charles Delacroix

[–] Thomasrq 16 years ago

Awww poor babies, someone makes a movie that dont follow your beliefs. Lets boycott it!!! Or....you could not be so 1 dimensional and see the movie with an open mind, and enjoy it for the artistic and story sense of the movie.

Here is a little tip...Its a movie, its a story, not a 90min bash your religion movie.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Thomas,

I see, and enjoy, all kinds of movies exhibiting all kinds of beliefs. And when I went to see this movie, I went with an open mind, because I didn't think it would be a bash-your-religion movie.

But I was wrong: it is indeed a bash-your-religion movie. There was certainly artistry and a good story line, apart from the 1-dimensional view of Catholicism it exhibited. But that hardly excuses intolerance and bigotry, does it?

By the way, I'm not a pro-boycott person. I just think folks should have a right to know what they're paying to see before they see it. This movie was marketed as a broad-appeal, traditional Christmas movie. Whatever else it is, it's certainly not that. And people have a right to know.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] trinie1026 15 years ago

Hi, I just wanted to say that I try to read content and reviews of all movies before I decide to watch them with my husband. We hate to be surprised by some horrible message or filthy content which we do not like to watch. I'm very glad to have come across these reviews because I was considering renting this movie, and now I've decided not to watch it because we, also, don't appreciate anti-Catholic movies and messages. How unfortunate because it sounds very pro-life. Thanks for all of your input Charles, I respect what you had to say.

Katrina

[–] cdelacroix1 15 years ago

Hi, Katrina,

Thanks so much for your kindness. On the plus side, you're right, it was pro-life. If it had simply been done without the Catholic-bashing I probably would have liked it.

These days I think it's very wise to check out comments/reviews before getting movies like you're doing. I didn't do that in this case; didn't know about the pro-life content at the time, but thought it was a positive Christmas movie as advertised. I was plain wrong.

Oh well. Fortunately there are so many wonderful Christmas movies around. I actually saw It's a Wonderful Life with my aunt at a multiplex last week ... the first time either one of us had seen it on the "big screen" ... and we were just delighted.

Merry Christmas to you and your husband ... :-)

Charles Delacroix

[–] MarshallPSmith 16 years ago

I just saw this film in Oklahoma City and I didn't get the "anti-Catholic" bias that some people felt it projected. If anything I felt that it showed a priest can be all to human, just like everyone else. Overall I felt redemption was the message.

“To accept injustice is cowardice.” ---Gandhi

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, Marshall,

I'd agree about redemption being the central theme. And I did really like a lot of things in the movie.

But I think the anti-Catholicism is there too. Even regarding Redemption ... after all, the 2 priests are Redeemed by jettisoning that Bad Old Catholicism: becoming less Catholic, and more Protestant. Just like the Protestant screenwriter/director/producer. In a movie in which all references to Catholicism are uniformly negative.

Compare if the script had been about 2 rabbis - all too human like the rest of us ... who are Redeemed by jettisoning that Bad Old Judaism: becoming less Jewish, and more Protestant. All in a movie in which all references to Judaism are negative. That would be an anti-semitic script, right?

BTW, I live in Tulsa, which is where I saw this movie ... :-)

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] Thomasrq 16 years ago

"That would be an anti-semitic script, right"

No it would not, its only anti semitic, because people blow it out of proportion.

There is nothing anti cath about this movie. Its a STORY about someone being human and having human feelings/desires.

Anyone who claims this is anti Catholic, look at your own life, have you followed the letter of the law? I dont think so, and dont even reply that you have because that would be anti Catholic right?

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, Thomasrq,

Starting with the last comment first ... honestly, I'm not sure what following or not following the letter of the law has to do with the discussion or with the movie ... ? But for the record: everyone's imperfect, definitely me included. Cool?

I'm very surprised that you wouldn't consider a movie as described as anti-Semitic: a movie in which Judaism is a prominent feature, in which 100% of all references to Judaism are negative (no exceptions), in which the main characters gain redemption by renouncing their Bad Old Judaism and becoming (in effect) Nice Protestants. You wouldn't consider this anti-Semitic?

Unfortunately, substitute "Catholic" for "Jewish" in this picture, and we get Noelle. How is it not, therefore, anti-Catholic?

As far as more specifics as to why this movie is considered anti-Catholic, there are really a lot of posts now, by me to be sure, but by plenty of others, who describe in detail the problems in this area. Have you had a chance to look at them?

But now again ... there's no question that there are some good things in this story. Unfortunately, there are bad things as well. And the bad things are pretty bad.

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Here's another scenario in case it helps:

Suppose there's a movie that is scripted, directed, and produced by a Roman Catholic. His movie is about 2 Baptist pastors. Both are really basically good men, but they're human, flawed like all of us. They learn that basically their problem is that they're Baptist. As they grow, they find more and more things wrong with their Baptist faith. Fortunately, they find a path to redemption: by leaving behind their Baptist faith, and becoming more and more Roman Catholic, like the movie's scriptwriter/director/producer. Coincidentally, the movie has many references to the Baptist faith, of which each and every one - no exception - is negative.

Perhaps this movie is ... just a little ... prejudiced? Against Baptists & the Baptist faith?

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] Thomasrq 16 years ago

You know I'll agree the movie is prejudice, but I wont say it is Anti-Catholic.

To be, for something to be "Anti" they have to do it on purpose, in the means to hurt someone. In this case I highly doubt the director/writers thought to themselves of a way to make this movie to anger catholics.

I'll use a recent example in the media today.

When Michael Vick, the football player was sentenced, the owner said if Vick wants to continue to play in the NFL when he is released he needs to stay away from fried chicken and french fries.

Now a bunch of people took it way out of proportion, saying his comments were racial towards black people, because black people eat friend chicken. Now anyone with half a brain knew he ment staying away from fatty foods, and stay in shape. However the select few took it the wrong way.

Thats what all these "Anti-Catholic" threads seem like to me. A bunch of people who took something so off the point and spun it into something hateful.

Anyway I know this is a forum, and the internet is used for slandering everyone anon, but lets go ahead and drop this subject, its not really going to go anywhere.

Peace and goodluck, thanks for the mini debate.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, Thomas,

I haven't been following the Michael Vick story ... just now googled it and glanced through a few stories though. And offhand it looks to me like it's not at all unreasonable to call the team owner to account for using language that could sure be taken as racist.

You're very right, though, that might not have been his intention at all. We all say all kinds of things when on the spot, and I'd sure hate to be called to task if I said something that could be taken the wrong way.

But if I did, and someone called me on it, I'd apologize and admit I'd goofed. I don't know if that's what the owner did, or not, but that would seem to me to go a long way toward establishing "intention."

I've been sort of following the Noelle story for the past few weeks though, and sure haven't heard of any apology by David Wall (Noelle's screenwriter/producer/director).

Also, you know, it's not as if a movie is like an off-the-cuff remark. This may be an "indie," but David Wall himself has clearly had to spend a lot of time on this. I think it's reasonable to assume that his script is his considered and reflective statement on the story he's telling. Plus there are lots of folks involved, and there's the distributor involved as well ... all could have spoken up at any point and said, "Gee, this is getting kind of over the line, dontcha think?" Except that the distributor is itself an aggressive Protestant company.

It's clear a lot of folks ... including non-Catholics ... in the press and elsewhere are speaking out regarding the seamy side of this movie. It's unfortunate that the seamy anti-Catholicism is there in the first place, but since it's there, I'm myself very glad that there are folks willing to speak up and say what they think about it. We have enough prejudice of one kind or another in this old world, and saying something about it is really the first step toward stopping it.

All sincere best wishes, Thomas, and thanks for being willing to talk things over. I hope you and yours have a blessed Christmas and happy holidays ... :-) ...

Charles Delacroix

[–] cpatt58 16 years ago

Dear Mr. Delacroix:
I just view the movie and all your comments and want to say how impressed I
was with your comments and defence of the Catholic Church. I too echo you sentiments, namely that it does put the faith in a bad light and it does have a lot of errors and downright falsehoods. Take the fact that the priest reveals what was said to him in the confessional. No priest in his right mind would do that. David Wall should have done his homework. His charater, Father Jonathan Keene, being the traditional priest, would have know that immediately. Obviously he didn't do his homework. Too many times I have seen movies bash the Catholic faith and it does get on my nerves. Just like a lot of books out there, there seems to be a trend to attack the Church with impunity. People who know little of the Catholic Church would believe that it's okay for a drunk priest to bash his own faith, it was okay for a priest to pant after a woman and to join the sacred priesthood as the result of an abortion. Too many times Catholics have been attacked and demeaned by the preception of others; people who attack the faith without exploring the Church and it's doctrines. I have been the victim of it many times and know how it feels to be discriminated against. This movie, while is rich in a good theme of forgivness, uses falsehoods to promote it's theme. Maybe being Anti-Catholic might not be the proper description, but it still put the Church in a bad light. I cannot understand why other denominations do this. Sure the Catholic Church did attack other denominations during the Protestant Revolution, but now it embraces all Christians as brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. It has recently said that other Christian denominations are a worthy receiptient of the graces of God and therefore salvation can be found in those faiths. The Church embraces other communities as valued parts of the whole of the Body of Christ and are deemed worthy of respect. Why there is decention is beyond me. With the rise of terrorism in the world, with the forces who work against Christianity on the rise, doesn't it make sense to stick together and work toward a common goal? Stop the anti-Catholic movies and books and start promoting the true message of Jesus Christ. Namely to love on another as He has loved us.
Chuck P.

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hi, Chuck P,

Thanks so much for your kind words and thoughtful comments.

I think you're right about sort of a trend in Catholic-bashing books & movies. In today's culture, anti-Catholicism is the one prejudice that seems to be considered "OK". Those nasty images in the movie show up so much around us that they aren't even recognized as stereotypes, much less as anti-Catholic stereotypes.

Doing good homework & fact-checking for just about any other sensitive portrayal is rightly the norm these days. But didn't happen in this movie, that's for sure ... again, maybe bashing Catholicism is considered the exception. At least by the anti-Catholic author/director/producer and the anti-Catholic distribution company, Gener8Xion Entertainment.

Still, you're right, the movie really does give a beautiful and moving treatment of the theme of forgiveness ... and of love and acceptance and good will.

Toward everyone and everything except Catholics, that is. The sheer nastiness of the treatment of the woman in the Confessional ... and of the repeated violation of the confidentiality of the Confessional ... and the nasty "dig" at nuns ... and more of course I could go on & on. All of which the movie clearly wants us all to endorse. And all in an allegedly "Christmas movie" about love and acceptance, of all things. Whew ... all this just leave me shaking my head and rolling my eyes in amazement.

That's the tragedy of the movie ... and the tragedy of bigotry more generally. To single out Blacks or Jews or Catholics as the one class unworthy of respect and honor and love and acceptance.

In any event, Chuck, thanks again for your post. I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year ... :-)

And may this be a season of joy to all.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charles Delacroix

[–] cpatt58 16 years ago

Mr. Delacroix,

Again thank you for your kind words as well. I guess this movie's theme is one of forgivness, but there is no reason to bash the Church to bring it across. The ends don't justify the means is truly a great statement to illustrate. The only thing to do is pray for these persecutors and stand up for the truth, not matter what. Those who hate the Church aren't going to listen to the Truth, but you cannot deny it either.

May you and yours as well have a blessed and wonderful Christmas and New Years as well!
Chuck P.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cdelacroix1 16 years ago

Hey Chuck ... this and the next post look like copies of your previous post ... (?)

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] cpatt58 16 years ago

Mr. Delacroix:
I am very curious as to what you mean that Gener8Xion Entertainment was Anti-Catholic. I have been doing a little research into that company and see that it is owned and operated by the Trinity Broadcasting Network. It wouldn't surprise me at all that it was Anti-Catholic, as TBN has had it share of bias. Is this what you have found out?
Chuck P.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kariann1 15 years ago

Here it is, almost a year later and we watched this beautiful film on DVD. Anyone who knows and understands the Catholic Church knows that the script is perfect. It addresses many of the dilemnas that priests face. Don't you think a lot of them yearn for a family? Drinking is a problem for some priests, and in this setting the Inn becomes a place where folks can be with others. Wouldn't a priest want that?

Approach this film with an open heart and realizes it works so well because it is about the Catholic church and many of the problems wre are having today. The acting is terrific, and there is a surprise ending.

[–] cdelacroix1 15 years ago

Hi, Kariann1,

I was just catching up and saw your post.

I saw this movie about a year ago ... thinking it was a "Christmas movie" ... and have to say I was very disappointed. I gather the movie is back out on DVD and being mis-retailed, once again, as a "Christmas movie" ... and by most standards I suspect anyone who picks it up as such is likely to be disappointed.

There were definitely good things in the movie ... I've written about them myself ... but definitely was disappointed by its anti-Catholicism. I am Catholic myself, and many Catholics were very disappointed by what seemed to be a constant "trashing Catholics" attitude throughout. There's been a lot posted about this elsewhere on this board and on other movie sites.

It's sad because there were some definitely good things in the movie. But the anti-Catholicism to me would suggest that anyone looking for a good Christmas movie ... in the spirit of "peace on earth and good will toward all" ... might want to look elsewhere, at some of the many wonderful Christmas movies available during the season.

My 2 bits ... :-) ...

All good wishes,

Charles Delacroix

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]