Reuters writes: The Vatican on Wednesday condemned the film "The Golden Compass," which some have called anti-Christian, saying it promotes a cold and hopeless world without God.
In a long editorial, the Vatican newspaper l'Osservatore Romano, also slammed Philip Pullman, the bestselling author of the book on which the family fantasy movie is based.
It was the Vatican's most stinging broadside against an author and a film since it roundly condemned "The Da Vinci Code" in 2005 and 2006.
"In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events," the editorial said.
The film, which premiered earlier this month in the United States and stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, is an adaptation of Pullman's acclaimed novel "Northern Lights."
The Vatican newspaper said "honest" viewers would find it "devoid of any particular emotion apart from a great chill."
In the fantasy world created by Pullman's trilogy, 'His Dark Materials', the Church and its governing body the Magisterium, are linked to cruel experiments on children aimed at discovering the nature of sin and attempts to suppress facts that would undermine the Church's legitimacy and power.
In the film version all references to the Church have been stripped out, with director Chris Weitz keen to avoid offending religious cinema goers.
Still, some Catholic groups in the United States have called for a boycott, fearing even a diluted version of the book might draw people to read the bestselling trilogy.
The Vatican newspaper said the film and Pullman's writings showed that "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold and inhumane."
The U.S.-based Catholic League, a conservative group, has urged Christians not to see the movie, saying that its objective was "to bash Christianity and promote atheism" to children.
The Vatican newspaper called the movie "the most anti-Christmas film possible" and said that it was "consoling" that its first weekend ticket sales were a disappointing $26 million.
New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner Inc, had hoped the film would pull in between $30 million and $40 million. It is doing better overseas but New Line sold the foreign distribution rights to help cover the movie's cost.
49 comments - Add yours
#1
If the people who wrote that have read the whole trilogy, they are the ones who are sad, cold and inhumane. They are only blind to the love and humanity in the books because of the way Christianity is portrayed.
# December 20, 2007 16:14 by AnneMaria
#2 Here we go again....
And people are saying this type of thing isn’t having an effect on ticket sales. The Vatican is [mod edit: Please watch your tongue and show some respect].
SEE THIS FILM AGAIN!!! FOR NOTHING ELSE, JUST TO SPITE THE CHURCH!
# December 20, 2007 16:18 by consciousparticles
#3
Ironically enough, I went to see The Golden Compass because I heard the church’s objections and thus knew that it was probably a thought-provoking film. Oh the Vatican - you’re so foolish!
# December 20, 2007 16:34 by seismickitten
#4
“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”
-Ray Bradbury
’Nuff said. =]
# December 20, 2007 21:19 by Miss Bear
#5
Same as #3, all the hubbub from the churchfolk is what inspired me to check out the series to begin with, and lo! I love it. :)
I can only feel sad that someone would let a figure as distant from their everyday lives as the pope dictate what they will and will not give a chance. That’s my only disappointment.
# December 20, 2007 21:36 by rainbowdarling
#6
I just don’t understand what the Vatican is saying. This trilogy doesn’t promote a world where we fear God’s wrath if we do something wrong, it promotes a world where we don’t have to live like that but rather live each doy for its own merits, because we want to, not because we have to.
# December 20, 2007 21:43 by luiz127
#7
I’ve always felt it hilarious how The Vatican feels that just because one doesn’t believe in “their” god then one doesn’t believe in god at all. What arrogance!!!
And this is coming from a group that used to burn people alive for their own good.
# December 20, 2007 23:27 by consciousparticles
#8
It was inevitable in a sense that the Vatican would speak out against it, considering all the fuss that the Catholic League has created.
# December 20, 2007 23:54 by Bek
#9 About the so cald INDEX
First and before everything, I wish you all a holy Christmas and a happy new year.
I must also tell you that I have not yet finish the first of the three books. I am almost at the end oh “Northern Lightsâ€.
Nevertheless I have heard about the Vatican ban to this and other tales like “The Da Vinci Code†or the “Harry Potter Series or even “The Lord of the Ringsâ€.
I am a Portuguese catholic and I attend religious services every week. I consider my self a truly follower of Church and the word of Christ and all for what they stand for.
But this does not blind my views of the surrounding world nor confined my thoughts with evil fears or bad ideas about Mankind. It dos not also separates me from the most important rules of that Catholic Roman Church.
This rather old and important institution as its rules and it is bond to them by person who has the sufficient experience to know that we are now passing difficult times. Man was never so selfish or as important to himself as it is these days.
And this Church is most concern of what might happen to Mankind if these judgments are followed and obeyed.
Trying not to argue with their messages or with their reviews about books, Man must above all to know is own way and will what is right and wrong and must also know how to choose between them. This might be rather philosophical or even a common place but I think this is real.
These tales are born from their author’s imagination and their culture and MUST be observed as tales and wishes, and not as different points of view or recipes to change the world.
In the end, good seams to win over evil. And this happens almost to all. There might be dark creatures, evil spirits, evil human been. But there are also those who fight back and hope for the best and the future of others. And there also some who sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
And wasn’t that what Jesus Christ came to earth? To sacrifice Himself for us, and to redeem us from evil?
Those who keep fighting back for the sake of all, sometimes against everything else, are real followers of Christ, even if they do not believe Him!
If His Holiness the Pope John Paul II ask forgiveness for the Inquisition and all the atrocities during the II World War against Jews and minorities, He was telling us that Man can not be simple minded nor should be mind controlled by any way what so ever. One must be able to think for one self and choose, accepting one’s responsibility of one’s acts.
The Catholic Roman Church should not ever again act against those who write nor should ban tales or essays or whatever, for, as always, it will have the opposite reaction.
The most important thing we should know is we are educated to understand and to respect one another. Mankind must realise that only together we have chances of exist. Only as family we are bound to win. Not alone!
Once more, I am writing these lines on the 21st of December and I am listening Christmas music from Westminster Cathedral Choir. These are the days before our celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth. Some say it should be Christmas every day, so this felling of love and happiness upon a child’s birth may last forever.
It is not so! And why? Because material thing matters more than love, for love alone does not feed! But those who have material things are not as happy then those who have love instead!
I think we all should learn with this!
Be happy, have a wonderful Christmas among your families and love them all. And may God send His blessings over you and may the Mother of Jesus Christ, Queen of Portugal, guide you all in your lives.
Thank you. Pedro de Salter Cid, 07/XII/21.
# December 21, 2007 12:09 by Pedro de Salter Cid
#10
As for the comment just above mine, all I can do is stare. There’s disagreeing with what the Catholic Church says through previous comments and then out of nowhere, evangelism. My favorite! >.>
# December 21, 2007 15:27 by rainbowdarling
#11
BEHOLD! The Magisterium at work! Enough said!
# December 21, 2007 15:55 by ijec74
#12
Agreed with #11 !!!
# December 21, 2007 19:32 by SnoWolFire
#13 my goodness...
I second the agreement.
Happy Holidays to you all the same.
# December 21, 2007 22:06 by Miss Bear
#14 Catholicism and Warm Fuzzies
Hmm.....sad cold and inhumane...VS the Vatican’s world: filled with sin, fear of God, excommunication, devils, temptation, and oh yes...my personal favourite, eternity in hell?
Spanish Inquisition anyone?
# December 22, 2007 01:27 by Avatar
#15 to 10-14
I think you all missed the point of Pedro’s post.
Although he is a practicing Catholic, he advocates thinking for one’s self and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. He further states that the Church should NOT ban “tales or essays”, and that it is important to be “educated and respect one another.”
Although his post includes his religious
beliefs, he is truly advocating free speech and that people make their own decisions about what they read, watch, etc. He is basically advocating what we all are.
I am an atheist, and I am not fond of those who proselytize, but I don’t feel that was the intent of his post.
I wish you all a wonderful season!
# December 22, 2007 02:09 by vlmecc
#16 I agree
post #11 says it all. “The Magisterium at work” need i say more.
happy holidays, all the same.
# December 22, 2007 02:16 by shilshadu
#17
I agree with vlmecc. You cannot blame him for evangelism, as you can neither blame yourself or Pullman of promoting your views on life.
And I find it kind of sad that we have a sensible Catholic here, as we have in many other places and you throw him and his idea’s out as some Magisterium promotion.
It seems that you guys are unable to listen to other peoples stories and beliefs, not him. It sometimes seems you guys have turned into the magisterium you hate so much, not allowing any Christian to express his or her own views, without being ridiculed.
# December 22, 2007 08:07 by Samwise
#18
I do not promote my views on life and as such hope to someday find a time when I am safe from evangelism as I find it frustrating.
I did nothing to ridicule his beliefs - nothing in my comment did that. I merely expressed my frustration at the very, very obvious evangelism which I did not find appropriate.
# December 22, 2007 11:30 by rainbowdarling
#19
My apologies, I should have directed my comment more specifically. Your comment wasn’t the ridiculing I was talking about, it were those short ones, starting with #11…
Yours was quite balanced and earnest.
But I cannot see how you would not in daily life promote your views, as you must be drawn into discussion about all the time.
Promoting, ore merely expressing one’s views is not the same as pressing them upon each other, which Pullman and his readers clearly condemn.
Your frustrations with evangelism I can understand. But as there are many views expressed on this website and these boards, I believe the Christian one to be of equal value and therefore this guy to me has the right to “promote” his beliefs.
I find him quite brave to do so in an article that is about the Vatican condemning the books and is bound to draw anti-christian comments from readers.
# December 22, 2007 13:58 by Samwise
#20
I was raised protestant Christian, and have since decided that it isn’t what I believe. As I’m still only sorting out how I feel about all of it, though, it would be entirely unfair of me to spend much time discussing how I feel about it with others. I am disinclined on the whole to enter into religious discussion except with those who are generally at the same place that I am in their sorting things out, at which point it is no more promoting my views of life than a piece of paper promotes novel-writing.
My problem with the idea of it being perfectly alright with random evangelism is that it is usually meant to promote christianity, whereas most atheists or agnostics, when they talk, merely gather so they can be with others of similar mindsets. It’s odd to me to think of someone evangelising for atheism or agnosticism. It’s a bit different, there.
At any rate, he’s entitled to his opinion and to post just what he did there - or even worse if he wanted to go that route - but I’m also allowed to find it mildly distasteful.
# December 22, 2007 17:14 by rainbowdarling
#21
Though this is becoming far more something for in the boards, I’d like to say I agree with you on that. I myself am busy sorting this out, raised as a protestant, but still coherent with protestant views, though never entirely certain or anything (which I think is only natural)
My promoting views comment might, indeed, have been a bit too oversized for what most people carry towards each other in life. Indeed are those conversations not so much promoting as just contemplating your own visions.
On your comment about atheist nót promoting their views I must sadly disagree. In my life as a Christian, I have encountered many many more atheist trying to convert me, than I have witnessed or know of Christians trying to convert atheists.
Many times when I end up in a religious discussion it is not because I feel like talking about it, but the atheist in question somehow feels it as their duty to explain to me why I’m wrong and they Many atheists of course indeed gather to be with those of similar mindsets, but so do most Christians.
It strikes me only that in my experience, when they bump, the Christian is only trying to defend their own belief, while the atheist in question is indeed trying to convince the Christian of his truth.
That makes that I cannot be annoyed with Christian evangelism, as I get it a lot from the other side :)
# December 22, 2007 17:54 by Samwise
#22
I guess I’ve never experienced the evangelical atheists. I came to my decision of my own volition and it had nothing to do with any forces “outside” of the church or really outside of myself and what I witnessed. In this way, I feel I do have the right to resent evangelism where I never evangelized as a Christan.
At any rate, I’m glad we could come to terms on the rest.
# December 22, 2007 19:14 by rainbowdarling
#23
:) You indeed have the right to resent that evangelism, just as I resent the atheist evangelism.
So I believe we are even on terms with that. For the record, I do not think that right out evangelism for any of the two (or other) beliefs, Christian or atheist, will in the end convince. As it is, as you say, a personal decision, made from your own experiences.
This does not mean man cannot be influenced by how other people act. And in the end how we act on what we believe will show wether our views mean good or evil in the eyes of the beholder.
Great holidays to you rainbowdarling! (hmm, if you say your forumname like that at the end of a sentence, it sounds as if we’re a bit too familiar;))
# December 22, 2007 21:21 by Samwise
#24
Oh dear, the Vatican just doesn’t learn, does it?
# December 22, 2007 21:43 by Pilgrim
#25
#23> Haha, perhaps only if it’s rainbow, darling. ;) Many thanks, and to you as well. :)
# December 22, 2007 21:56 by rainbowdarling
#26
Can we have some new HDM news please?
# December 22, 2007 22:27 by consciousparticles
#27 RomulusMyDaemon
This has been going on for about a month, and quite frankly I’m tired of it. Yes, he’s Athiest. So, what? Does that mean he can’t write a book? And why all of a sudden just because this “movie” came out everyone is on him about his religious beliefs and the so-called Athiesism featured in the books, which there really isn’t. In my own person theory and aspect of the book, Lord Asriel and Mrs.Coulter truly save God from the devil. Is that Athiest because they don’t think God would need saving? Besides, it’s not God, It’s Authority. How many times have you heard people call our God, Authority? And besides that, think about it this way- it’s a book, it’s a movie. They’re only made-up characters. It’s an unrealistic world with fictional prefrences. Those are Phillip Pullman’s own views. I’ve always thought of Athiesism as it’s own religion. So, what would happen if Catholics got on the Hebrews? Would that be right, would it be right for anyone to put down anyone because of their beliefs? Is that the word we live in, a word where no one can influence their own beliefs? Then, that’s not much of a world at all.
# December 24, 2007 18:55 by RomulusMyDaemon
#28
I’m a catholic and I love HDM...And I don’t know why, but I don’t feel ashamed.At all. Besides, I think that Vatican’s comments are pointless as almost all the attempts to Pullman’s wonderful fiction. Let them say, don’t care for this, people: we all live in free nations and God gave us free minds,so…
# December 25, 2007 17:16 by Lyrael
#29
Well said, Lyrael. :)
# December 25, 2007 20:29 by rainbowdarling
#30 Not again!
The space and time are not available for me write everything I think of this debate, but suffice it to say that the chuch is again trying to meddle in the affairs of people by attempting to prove that it knows everything about anything and what is “best for people”.
The argument that a godless universe offers “no hope” is illogical as one only need to look at the teachings of the Buddha to show that he offered a way of eliminiating suffering in the world WITHOUT any recourse to a god or sin or “need for salvation”.
Essentially Buddhists are atheists, so I guess according to the Vatican all Buddhists are stupid and hopeless? How sad that the Vatican’s world view is so limited.
Besides, I NEVER saw hopelessness
in the books! In fact, they are quite the opposite! Lyra basically has to save the world! How is that hopeless? :\
One wonders if these church-leaders even READ the bloody books!?!?
# December 26, 2007 03:35 by DanaScully
#31 Can we move on???
Some new HDM news please!?!
# December 26, 2007 09:24 by consciousparticles
#32
Thank you, raimbowdarling...And no, Dana, I’m pretty sure that they didn’t read the book...Nothing new under the sun, as we use to say in Italy!
By the way,consciousparticles,don’t you think that maybe if there aren’t no news is because there are no news to report?You should ave more faith in our dear admins… ;)
# December 26, 2007 11:17 by Lyrael
#33
#31> When there is new news, they will post it. Chill.
# December 26, 2007 12:47 by rainbowdarling
#34
Wow! I just joined and read this whole discussion and WOW! Rainbowdarling and Samwise, you two are my heroes. You listened to each other, respected each other, and had a true debate, and even agreed with each other at the end! Amazing!! I really enjoyed reading your arguments. I agree with Samwise, btw - I’ve had plenty of instances with atheist evangelists. I’ve also had instances with the more normal type of evangelists, and both experiences have led me to try and never, ever preach or force my beliefs on anyone. That, and Pullman’s wonderful books.
# December 27, 2007 04:20 by AncientStarborn
#35
I just finished reading it too. I do hope I didn’t spark anything with the Ray Bradbury quote.
Being younger I guess I should be humbler about throwing quotes out and about. But I think he has a good point. Okay, I’ll stop.
# December 27, 2007 18:00 by Miss Bear
#36 Christians and HDM
I enjoyed HDM too, and I am a Christian. I disagree with Pullman’s philosophy and I don’t think he understand the heart of what Christianity truly espouses, but he clearly sees how many churches and christians act in the world. I’m glad he wrote this.
HDM is engaging and well written, and actually provides an entertaining medium to grapple with secular humanist ideas and alternate interpretations of God and Christian doctrine, as well as problems in the church and social commentary. I am looking forward to discussing these things with friends and family.
The Vatican would do better to recognize Pullman’s achievements here and simply provide a non-condemning thoughtful response to his ideas. I mean, Pullman’s world is not cold and hopeless - it’s full of goodness, and shows the heros and heroines putting one another’s interests before their own and being good! (apart from killing God.)
Like the character Mary Malone said - “Good should be defined as what helps another person, Evil and what hurts them.” That’s loving your neighbor as yourself - what the laws of Christianity are based on according to Jesus. I think Pullman and I agree - I just think God is real and knows more about what helps and hurts the human heart and the human life than I do. The Vatican’s account seems kinda blind. “
# December 28, 2007 03:56 by kristie
#37
I still say that no god was killed. A god that weak and fragile doesn’t seem like one to depend on to start with, and otherwise, he wasn’t really killed. He just kind of died.
I also don’t see Pullman’s commentary as being about the religion in general. He seems to be vilified in lots of the rumours that fly about, but really, I see these novels as being against outdated dogma and the insistence that ignorance is best. Religion can still fit into this ideal - educated citizens of the world who believe and worship a higher power but don’t hold themselves to archaic rules and regulations which have nothing to do with being a good person and everything to do with outdated ideals of life.
# December 28, 2007 04:26 by rainbowdarling
#38 killing God
Well, it still about killing the Christian God. Yes, Pullman is against mindless ignorance (“faith”) and the atrocities of churches throughout history, and dogmatic rules the church has added to Christianity. But Pullman is specific about basing his case for a war against God on foundational scripture. If the God in the story of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden exists, then that God must be a tyrant, and a manipulative power hungry deciever.
# December 28, 2007 21:22 by kristie
#39
The god in the book - and I don’t want to elaborate too much so that people don’t get spoiled - wasn’t a god at all, though. He was an angel just like any of the others. He just happened to be a clever one when he came into being. By that right, a god could still exist - a loving god who tries to keep his followers from inane dogma and is the loving god that is taught about in most Christian households.
# December 28, 2007 22:54 by rainbowdarling
#40
All I can say is that if the Authority Represents the Christian god then then he is not worth following. I will say this the God in the books is not my God that I have come to worship and love. People need to read the books instead of blindly following someone’s interpretation of the books find out for your self.
# December 29, 2007 02:51 by TowerDragon
#41
Icannot believe the vatican said that! PP is just trying to show that without god we will not all perish and the books have an idea of a world without the dictation of the church ! They are so sad if they cannot recognize a great piece of reading and they are probably just scared that people will turn against them! By the way im christian.
# December 29, 2007 18:16 by serafinarocks
#42
I think that what the Vatican says is wrong. They haven’t read the book because they blindly accused it of heresy, an attack on Christianity, ect. I haven’t gotten past the first book, but I see no bleak, hopeless world. Lyra and her friends are happy, nice, peacful people with hope. Pullman’s views are obvious in the books, but their HIS views. If he’s an athiest he can be an athiest, does it really matter? The current church is acting just like the magisterium (as far as I’ve read) in their “evil” book. People have been doing this for centruies!!!! The Vatican says that they’re next to perfect (because the Bible says no one can be perfect and they don’t argue with the Bible), but yet here they are, clearly attacking someone becuase the someone doesn’t have the same religious views as them. What the Vatican is doing is dangerously close to “religiousism”, sexism or racism for religion. Sorta like the Cursades.
P.S.If I have offended anyone in the way I’ve said this please understand that I mean no offense.
# January 2, 2008 23:53 by Dallas137
#43 The True Church
Any institution that encourages people to avoid reading a book or seeing a movie for fear of losing them as a result of its persuasiveness should be discounted outright.
Those of us who are religious should encourage and embrace art and literature that causes us to question our faith, otherwise we are nothing but blind followers of a doctrine that refuses to allow interrogation and analysis, which leads to true understanding.
The people who are recommending a boycott of Pullman’s thoughtful works (philosophically inaccurate as they may be) should be ashamed of themselves. They are no better than the book burners and the propagandists.
Having a discussion requires two sides.
# January 3, 2008 05:23 by expresident
#44
Amen to that!
# January 4, 2008 22:48 by consciousparticles
#45 The Magisterium is not a church!
The Magisterium just tells people what to do, they’re just some group of meany/bossy/stuck-up people. So are the Vatican thnking we’re describing them as that? And anyway why do they know best? The book’s right whether or not the magisterium is the church in lyra’s world or not.
# January 9, 2008 06:43 by Sapphira
#46 poor pope got feelings hurt
Maybe he got his panties in a bunch because of the portrayal of the church and its control. If he does not like that betrayal, maybe he should do something to change the way the world sees the church. Clean its reputation, rather than slamming a book he did not even bother to read.
# January 11, 2008 05:10 by hippygrandmaida
#47 You Mindless Crits'!
This is the most foolish dribble I’ve ever heard. The fact that you are all so upset over what an old fundamentalist decided needed to be said is proof that you lack any idea of the concepts you are speaking of. Did it ever once occur to you that maybe, just maybe, Phillip Pullman WAS trying to undermine the Church? Here you all stand, criticizing a man for saying what he believed to be true, just because Phillip Pullman, a known atheist, decided to write a book about killing God? Phillip Pullman had every right to write that book, and we had every right to read and enjoy it, but that man and his league also had every right to oppose it. Your criticism of a man for believing and speaking, not to mention a religion for existing with the distaste of an atheist author shows an incredibly shameful level of bombastity, and I regret having seen it in the intellectual community.
Sincerely,
Locke
# February 9, 2008 03:13 by Locke
#48 And another thing.
Why do you keep saying, “They haven’t read the books.....”? It is just a useless and foolish defense to say, “Every Roman Catholic member of the Vatican has not read any part of any passsage within the series, HDM that in any way was meant to offend anybody of the Christian faith, and those who are offended and have the genitals to say so are stupid”. Why are all the free thinkers in the world so Hippocritically dogmatic?! That is what frustrates me.
# February 9, 2008 03:22 by Locke
#49 Enough with the Vatican Home Page
Today is March 14, 2008. When are you going to change the home page? If this well thought out .org, then I would hope it’s about Pullman’s books and not one silly, defensive, condemnation article. These theological paradigms are best argued in another forum, perhaps? Bring on the “Dust”.
# March 14, 2008 21:07 by drlavelle