Should Seeing the Da Vinci Code be deemed a sin?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='983288' date='May 16 2006, 10:24 PM']
From Reuters...

At the Vatican, language from some church leaders has been equally strong. Last month, powerful Archbishop Angelo Amato, the second-ranking official in the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, said Catholics should "should boycott 'The Da Vinci Code' and speak out against it and reject its lies against the church." Soon after, highly visible Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze said Christians should consider "legal means" against the film and the book, though he did not elaborate.

[url="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2006-05-16T101753Z_01_N16361386_RTRUKOC_0_US-DAVINCI.xml&src=rss&rpc=22"]http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle....&src=rss&rpc=22[/url]
[/quote]

Theoketos,
Thanks for replying. His question has already been answered. No where did I write that it was a mortal sin - I even wrote that I guessed it would be venial and due to disobediance. Any good Catholic knows "all wrong doing is sin" (for it is written), and that we should obey and submit to Church leaders (unless they obviously go against the Church's teachings).

What I find sad and yet amusing at the same time is those who do not obey/submit to Church leaders actually think something is wrong with my study when I am the one that is showing with the Catechism and common sense in light of what the Cardinals have stated why I believe it to be a sin for an unstuided Catholic to see the movie.

My opinions change based on Church teachings... Anything else is phishy and taints the name Catholic when we rebel against the Church leaders.

So many erroneous thinking Catholics believe that something must be an "official statement" before we have to obey and submit. I find this to be such a sad situation.


What a pity that whoever is in charge doesn't give you good example! But, is it for his personal qualities that you obey him? Or do you conveniently interpret Saint Paul's 'obey your leaders' with a qualification of your own..., 'always provided they have virtues to my taste'? The Way:621

As long as the opinion you expressed was orthodox there is no reason to be upset, even though the malice of whoever heard you caused him to be scandalized. For his scandal is pharisaical. The Way:349

The enemy: Will you obey... even in this 'ridiculous' little detail? You, with God's grace: I will obey... even in this 'heroic' little detail. The Way:618

There is no other possible attitude for a Catholic: we have to defend the authority of the Pope always, and to be ready always to correct our own views with docility, in line with the teaching authority of the Church. The Forge: 581

I would say to many rebel Catholics that they fail in their duty if, instead of accepting the discipline and obedience due to lawful authority, they become a party, a small faction, sowers of discord, conspirators and gossips, promoters of stupid personal squabbles, weavers of a mesh of petty envies and difficulties. Furrow:410


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Desert Walker]

This argument has been put forward on this issue:

"Why worry and make a big deal out of it? If you see the movie and read the book and it causes you to question your faith, then your faith wasn't very strong in the first place."



Well here's what Fr. John Corapi says about those who spread dissent regarding the Deposit of Faith:


[quote]Dissent Poisons

"There is no such thing as being a good Catholic and being disobedient to the Holy Father. There is no such thing as being a good Catholic and being a dissident when it comes to faith and morals. There is no such thing as dissent from authentic and authoritative Church teaching. No such thing. Those who do that separate themselves from Christ and His body. They become dead members of the body of Christ.

You should avoid such people like the plague and you should keep your children from such people as though keeping them from the worst contagion, because contact with such people can poison their minds, poison their souls and kill them morally and spiritually, and you don't want to be responsible for that. That is not lack of charity, that is not lack of pastoral concern. That IS charity, that IS being pastoral and that IS being merciful. It is not merciful to turn our children over to those that can poison their hearts and minds. That is not charitable, merciful, nor pastoral.

Pray for people that attack the Church, the Holy Father, the Magisterium. Pray for them, love them indeed, but don't listen to them and don't put yourselves nor your children in a position where they or you can be influenced.

Let me tell you something. The devil is smarter than you and me. He is a very high angel fallen from grace. Yet God has allow him to retain that very high angelic intelligence. You will not outwit the devil; he's very clever. Through true humility, through grace and through prayer, you win the battle. But don't be presumptuous and think that out of some kind of misguided notion of being 'open', of being 'tolerant,' that you can subject yourself and your children to all forms of philosophical and theological error.

Now I'll put this very simply. As some of my rancher friends from Wyoming would put it, if you soak in a tub of manure, you might come out smelling funny. Well, if you soak in error, if you put yourself in an environment of religious error, theological and philosophical error, you're apt to pick some of the smelly contagion of it. Don't do that. That's not smart.

[b]There's a story from the annals of the Post Resurrection Church of St. John the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, who went to Ephesus. And the Blessed Mother went with him. And they say that St. John was within the public baths of Ephesus and a heretic came in from the other end of the public baths and word of his presence got to the other side to St. John. Now this is the Apostle that preached Love, right? St. John, the one who said God is Love. In his old age, the only thing St. John could say was 'Love God." That's all he could say. He got word that a heretic had just come in the building, he leaped up, grabbed his clothes and ran out of the building yelling "run for your lives, the heretic 'so-and-so' just came in the house." That was his attitude.[/b]

I'll tell you something, I used to contest with these people. I used to debate with them. I used to engage in apologetics with them. I don't do it anymore and I'm going to tell you something. For the most part, I am more qualified to do it than you are, than most of you. I've got a doctorate, I've got five degrees in Theology and Philosophy. I know the material, but I don't do it because it is an exercise in futility and I don't want to drive myself 'nuts,' in plain English, and it doesn't work. Now, if I have to defend the faith, I'll do that, but I do not engage in debates with people, especially with people who have lost the faith. There's an axiom in metaphysics, 'Things are received in the mode of the receiver.' I say this over and over again. You get what you're ready to get, you receive what you're ready to receive."

Fr. John Corapi, SOLT -- excerpt from recent audio tape entitled "Messages for Homeschoolers."
[/quote]


[b]!!!"run for your lives, the heretic 'so-and-so' just came in the house."!!! [/b]

Edited May 17, 2006 by Desert Walker

[ironmonk]

Fr. Corapi is just so cool. He has such a powerful voice and a great conversion story.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

those at Cannes film festival laughed at the climax.

If the atheists, secularists, and agnostics at the film festival don't believe it, will the ignorant christians?

SHALOM

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' post='983668' date='May 17 2006, 09:19 AM']
those at Cannes film festival laughed at the climax.

If the atheists, secularists, and agnostics at the film festival don't believe it, will the ignorant christians?

SHALOM
[/quote]

Actually they weren't laughing at the heretical content. They were laughing at the poor manner in which the film was directed.

Perhaps Ronnie Howard intended sabatoge?

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='983590' date='May 17 2006, 08:18 AM']
Theoketos,
Thanks for replying. His question has already been answered. No where did I write that it was a mortal sin - I even wrote that I guessed it would be venial and due to disobediance. Any good Catholic knows "all wrong doing is sin" (for it is written), and that we should obey and submit to Church leaders (unless they obviously go against the Church's teachings).

What I find sad and yet amusing at the same time is those who do not obey/submit to Church leaders actually think something is wrong with my study when I am the one that is showing with the Catechism and common sense in light of what the Cardinals have stated why I believe it to be a sin for an unstuided Catholic to see the movie.

My opinions change based on Church teachings... Anything else is phishy and taints the name Catholic when we rebel against the Church leaders.

So many erroneous thinking Catholics believe that something must be an "official statement" before we have to obey and submit. I find this to be such a sad situation.
What a pity that whoever is in charge doesn't give you good example! But, is it for his personal qualities that you obey him? Or do you conveniently interpret Saint Paul's 'obey your leaders' with a qualification of your own..., 'always provided they have virtues to my taste'? The Way:621

As long as the opinion you expressed was orthodox there is no reason to be upset, even though the malice of whoever heard you caused him to be scandalized. For his scandal is pharisaical. The Way:349

The enemy: Will you obey... even in this 'ridiculous' little detail? You, with God's grace: I will obey... even in this 'heroic' little detail. The Way:618

There is no other possible attitude for a Catholic: we have to defend the authority of the Pope always, and to be ready always to correct our own views with docility, in line with the teaching authority of the Church. The Forge: 581

I would say to many rebel Catholics that they fail in their duty if, instead of accepting the discipline and obedience due to lawful authority, they become a party, a small faction, sowers of discord, conspirators and gossips, promoters of stupid personal squabbles, weavers of a mesh of petty envies and difficulties. Furrow:410
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]

Hey,

How about getting your facts straight. Where did I say that you said it was a mortal sin? I didn't. I simply put forth the proposition that you HAVE YET TO ANSWER.

SHOW SOLID PROOF THAT CARDINAL POUPARD OR ANY OTHER BISHOP HAS DEEMED THIS TO BE A SIN REQUIRING CONFESSION OR RELENT.

I've shown you, via your own citation, where the Vatican has stated that it is not a sin.

It isn't sad nor is it amusing the the lack of scholarship you have provided. Your misinterpretation of the application of the Catechism is laughable. You are nothing more than a Catholicbot. You have offered NO proof, yet, as with so many others you declare yourself the winner and moral victor. Hardly. You, sir are a fake. You simply cut and paste with no real scholarship.

Your opinions......and that is all they are. You do not prove your position, yet you have the gall and the sadistic need to label yourself the victor. I don't buy it. Your catechetical proof is inconsistent, not only with cappie's post, but WITH YOUR OWN QUOTES!!!!!

You are correct in one thing, there doesn't need to be an official decree, however, seeing this movie is not a sin. You cannot prove otherwise, yet you continue to spout this using the Catechism as a basis.....I find that appalling.....those who choose to see the Da Vinici Code are not, I repeat, are NOT being disobedient, well at least according to the leading Vatican Authority.....Cardinal Poupard. Thanks for that citation again, by the way.

Quote [i][u]The Way[/u][/i] all you like. But again, those are completely out of context. Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges. Let's not forget IM, I am ACTUALLY a member and take directon from Opus Dei. Please don't misuse the writings of the Founder in that way.

Am I happy with the way that the Work has been portrayed? No, I am not, but I also understand that the Work is portrayed in such a ridiculous light, that it cannot be taken seriously. End of Story.

When I read the novel, I laughed out loud. My director has not told me not to go, as a matter of fact, he told me to go, so that I can speak to the movie when it comes up. Imagine that.....this movie is an occasion for sin. This movie is a work of fiction and a bit far-fetched, but then again, so was Star Wars.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='983680' date='May 17 2006, 10:37 AM']
Actually they weren't laughing at the heretical content. They were laughing at the poor manner in which the film was directed.

Perhaps Ronnie Howard intended sabatoge?
[/quote]

I <3 your conspiracy theories.

Also Cam, I am sincerely asking, and not begging the question but what is the difference between "SHOW[ing] SOLID PROOF THAT CARDINAL POUPARD OR ANY OTHER BISHOP HAS DEEMED THIS TO BE A SIN REQUIRING CONFESSION OR RELENT" and the quote from the two Cardinals as reported by Reuters and posted by me?

I am asking because I do not know, seriously.

<wants to stay out of the middle>

[Kilroy the Ninja]

This is a reminder to please use charity and politeness in this discussion.

Thank you and God Bless.

[zwergel88]

its often very hard on this board to be charitable when certain members continuously claim moral superiority.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='983741' date='May 17 2006, 02:19 PM']
its often very hard on this board to be charitable when certain members continuously claim moral superiority.
[/quote]


Someone who claims "moral superiority" believes themselves to be morally superior... morally better than someone else.

Debating if something is a sin or not, such as disobediance when 2 of 3 Cardinals say "don't do it" and 1 of 3 Cardinals basically say "don't do it unless you have a solid understanding of the faith", has nothing to do with "moral superiority", it has to do with what the Church teaches. Obeying the Church does not mean someone is morally superior. Disagreeing on right and wrong is a legitimate debate...

Some people here cannot discuss ideas with sound reason. Some people could be trying to defend their error, pride is one of the seven deadly sins that satan does use.

Those who have a problem with adding the facts (also known as 'reading between the lines') and logical thinking tend to get hot headed and throw insults when they can't back what they claim with Church teachings.

Fr. Corpari's comments about St. John and the heretic speaks volumes. The thing about books which should not be read that criticize the faith or attack it speaks volumes also.

But let's give a little thought to what the two cardinals said... one calls for a boycott, and another calls for legal action... this is much more than just saying 'don't see it'... Anyone with common sense can clearly see that it would an act of disobediance to them to see it. However, the statement made by the other Cardinal saying that "[b]as long as[/b]" the person looks as it as fiction, then he doesn't think there is a problem. Let's face facts here, most Catholics don't know Catholicism and there is a grave risk of someone being lead into serious error.

Proportional reason and logic is lacking with some opinions on this board.

Between the Catechism, heretical book bans, and the majority of Cardinal's statements, for some people it would be a sin to see the movie... and that is [u][b]if [/b] [/u] they see [u][b]any[/b][/u] of it as non-fiction as the [u][b]author claims[/b][/u]. [b]The sin would be disobediance.[/b]

If I'm wrong, then show it with the Catechism, Church Documents, etc... I am totally Catholic, therefore I listen and obey the Church. I am not a rebel Catholic, nor will I ever be.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jaime]

[quote]Some people could be trying to defend their error, pride is one of the seven deadly sins that satan does use. [/quote]

Yes

Admitting when one is in error on a particular issue is an honorable thing and its a shame when one avoids it. You're right Monk, pride is one of the seven deadly sins that satan does use.

[ironmonk]

[b]1 John 5:17[/b] All wrongdoing is sin

[b]CCC 1269 [/b]
Having become a member of the Church, [u]the person baptized belongs no longer to himself[/u], but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, [u]he is called to be subject to others[/u], to serve them in the communion of the Church, [u][b]and to "[u]obey and submit[/u]" to the Church's leaders[/b][/u],77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79


Disobeying Church leaders is wrong.

The sin of disobedience is clear.

We have the three statements...
- Take legal action against the film
- Boycott the film
- Do not see the film unless you are strong in the faith and know it's 100% fiction


With any of the given above statements with a little reasoning skills one can see that: [i]"do not see the movie" [/i] is implied.


If I asked you to go a mile and you agree, do I have to tell you to go a half mile? No, common sense tells you that you would be going a half mile anyway so I don't need to actually come out and say "also go a half mile".

If someone takes the movie/book as any factual evidence whatsoever, then it is a sin for them to see it, and that sin would be disobedience.

The majority of Cardinals do not want us to see the movie... that speaks volumes.

Funny and sad how the people who claim that I am wrong have nothing to show except their personal opinions. I'm not going off my personal opinion, I'm following the Church. Surely it is phishy to claim that disobedience is acceptable for a Catholic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='983813' date='May 17 2006, 03:41 PM']
[b]1 John 5:17[/b] All wrongdoing is sin

[b]CCC 1269 [/b]
Having become a member of the Church, [u]the person baptized belongs no longer to himself[/u], but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, [u]he is called to be subject to others[/u], to serve them in the communion of the Church, [u][b]and to "[u]obey and submit[/u]" to the Church's leaders[/b][/u],77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79
Disobeying Church leaders is wrong.

The sin of disobedience is clear.

We have the three statements...
- Take legal action against the film
- Boycott the film
- Do not see the film unless you are strong in the faith and know it's 100% fiction
With any of the given above statements with a little reasoning skills one can see that: [i]"do not see the movie" [/i] is implied.
If I asked you to go a mile and you agree, do I have to tell you to go a half mile? No, common sense tells you that you would be going a half mile anyway so I don't need to actually come out and say "also go a half mile".

If someone takes the movie/book as any factual evidence whatsoever, then it is a sin for them to see it, and that sin would be disobedience.

The majority of Cardinals do not want us to see the movie... that speaks volumes.

Funny and sad how the people who claim that I am wrong have nothing to show except their personal opinions. I'm not going off my personal opinion, I'm following the Church. Surely it is phishy to claim that disobedience is acceptable for a Catholic.
[/quote]

Now, how about some proof. You can quote all the Scripture and Catechism you like.....but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans UNLESS they deem it to be sinful. Nobody has questioned what the Catechism has said nor has anyone questioned what Scripture has said. What has been questioned is the application.

If the Vatican has not deemed it to be sinful, then one cannot be disobedient. If the bishops have not deemed it to be immoral to see the movie, then it does not fall into the category that you are trying to put it into.

You are speaking in absolutes about something that is not absolutely defined. That is why it is apples and oranges. Implications do not equal direct action.....and I suppose that if you take three words from an entire statement, you can make it anything you like, HOWEVER, that more often than not will lead to taking something out of context, much like you did with Cardinal Poupard.

That is why your view is askew.

One of the fallacies that you employ is called Biased Sample. You make it when you say:
[quote]The majority of Cardinals do not want us to see the movie... that speaks volumes.[/quote]

You have quoted two. How is the majority of majority of cardinals made up of two? Here is how the fallacy works:

The sinfulness of the Da Vinci Code, which is biased by Ironmonk, is taken from two cardinals' statments.
The disobedience of the faithful is drawn about the majority of cardinals based on the sinfulness of the Da Vinci Code, which is biased by Ironmonk.

The fallacy is committed when the sample is likely to be biased in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn.

It doesn't work that way.....and it is a fallacy.

What is even more laughable, Ironmonk is that you are speaking directly to me without using my name. You don't need to be so vague about that. But here is the crux of your conundrum. You claim that I am only giving my opinion. I am not. I am asking you to show more than your opinion. Your opinion is flawed because there is a fallacy involved. You are taking a particular and applying it to a universal. You cannot do that. You also are not following the Church. You are simply applying the catechetical view in a flawed way.

Let me be perfectly clear.....in order to apply CCC #1269, one has to act in a way that is contrary to the UNIVERSAL Church. We are not bound to the opinion of two cardinals. If what you were proposing were true, then even if Cardinal Maida (or any particular bishop) said it was acceptable to see the movie OR if he made no statement whatsoever, leaving it to the judgment of the individual then it would still be sinful and the Cardinal would be separating himself from the Church by not condemning the movie. That simply cannot happen. That is why you are incorrect.

You have set up another fallacy in that line of reasoning. It is called a false dilemma. It works like this:

Either blanket application of CCC #1269 is applied universally to all Catholics is true or seeing the Da Vinci Code movie in and of itself is sinful; is true (when both claims [b][i][u]COULD[/u][/i][/b] be false).
Seeing the Da Vinci Code movie in and of itself is sinful is false.
Therefore the blanket application of CCC #1269 is applied universally to all Catholics is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims [b][i][u]COULD[/u][/i][/b] be false, then [u]it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false.[/u]

Nope. That doesn't work. And that is just what you are proposing. That is why I oppose your view. That is why you are not correct in this instance. Quote the Catechism all you like, quote Scripture all you like, but you need to understand what is behind the catechetical view.

So again, I ask:

SHOW SOLID PROOF THAT CARDINAL POUPARD OR ANY OTHER BISHOP HAS DEEMED THIS TO BE A SIN REQUIRING CONFESSION OR RELENT.

[Jaime]

The difference between quoting the Catechism and understanding the Catechism.




Gotta love Camster!

[toledo_jesus]

I'm not going to see the movie because I don't want to pay for it. I would probably sit through it for free though. But an earlier thread already established that my plan to buy a ticket for something else and go see Da Vinci Code instead would be dishonest or something.