Kudos to the Vatican Movie Critics.
May 6, 2009, 7:07 pm
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Nice response to Angels and Demons.
Non-defensive, amused, and slightly condescending. Gets the point across about inaccuracies without overreacting.
Perfect, actually.
I agree. Perfect.
Let’s hope Bill Donohoe gets the drift.
William, you must have hope to burn.
Is anyone else annoyed by the main character being called a “symbologist”?…was “semiotician” too pompous for the audience or did it require 30 seconds of research that Dan Brown was not willing to invest in the main character?
After read the first two pages of the “Davinci Code” I felt so frustrated with the blatant problems that I set it down next to my collection of Michael Moore books to be used as kindling (this coming from a bibliophile is never easy…I even own Ellen G. White’s “The Great Controversy”, David Hunt’s “A Woman Rides the Beast” and Avro Manhattan’s “The Vatican, Moscow, Washington Alliance”).
It was likely a wise move by the Vatican to dismiss the movie with faint praise. Nothing diffuses a situation as well as a little humour.
I burn to hope, Matthew. ;)
First they see some good in Obama. Now they find nothing seriously wrong with Angels and Demons. Is there a pattern here? Has L’Osservatore Romano been infiltrated by forces hostile to the Church? It appears that Bill O’Donohue and those in the American episcopacy who follow him and prayerfully watch EWTN are the last hope of the orthodox. I shudder to think what may come next.
” I shudder to think what may come next.”
Why, female Swiss guards … that’s what’s next.
It’s the work of Satan all around. Is nothing of the Revealed Faith sacred any more?
Who’s Bill O’Donohue?
(Sorry Joseph Gannon; having been smote on this blog by your teacherly ruler for imprecision, I couldn’t resist.)
What’s next?
We will hear how Harry Potter isn’t Satanic and leading people to be demonically possessed.
Wait, it’s already been said, hasn’t it?
“Who’s Bill O’Donohue?” It appears, Ma’am, that among other marks of distinction he is a polyonymist.
Jean, Jean, I have again been imprecise. I should have said “dyspatronymist”, i.e., the name of those that disregard their patronymics.
And all this, out of the mouth of scholars.
Joseph, oughtn’t that to be “the name of those WHO disregard their patronymics”?
I any case, my posts are more carefully (if not perfectly) constructed in the knowledge that they may fall under your scrutiny, for which I and everyone who feels compelled to read them thank you.
Apologies to Cathleen for derailing her post.
I occasionally use “that” with persons. I think I heard a nun say it was OK sometime around 1943. It does sound slightly archaic.
The Vatican is getting outrageous. Look at this on the Notre Dame imbroglio. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603319.html
Will wonders never cease!
The Academy Award for Best-staged Retreat goes to the Catholic League today:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1608