I came across an editorial the other day written by Jeff Jacoby concerning the short film, Fitna, a film about Islamic Jihadist violence made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian. The film portrays the war being waged by Muslim extremists in the name of Islam, inspired by their interpretation of the certain verses in the Koran. The film shows atrocities committed by Jihadist and other heinous acts such as honor killings and be headings. Footage is shown of Islamist teachers inciting their followers to kill the "infidels" .The film has become controversial , not because of the violence it depicts , but because it is seen as "anti Islamic"(by UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon) and offensive, causing hatred, by the European Union Presidency. Now, I have not seen the film so I don’t know the exact Wilder’s approach. If indeed Wilders did not qualify his assertions by making it plain that he was exposing just one interpretation of Islam and that most Muslims condemn the violence portrayed the film then it does deserve criticism. Of course it would also help if the majority of Muslims who are not fanatics were heard from more often.
However, the film should have been criticized only, not condemned out of hand. Jihadist violence is something that has to be dealt with, especially by the Muslim community. But Jacoby brings out one thing in this article that is true. In speaking of the West’s reaction he states that " They would never have reacted that way to a film that criticized Christianity or the United States or European traditions- and the Islamists Know it."(Boston Globe Wednesday April 3 2008. P. A11)
Indifference to Catholicism
How true that is! Why is it that intellectuals in the West defend other religions or ethnic groups from every real or imagined slander but say next to nothing when Christianity is portrayed negatively? While The Golden Compass had to tone down its anti Catholicism because it was too direct even for secularists tastes, in general there is no backlash against films that portrays Catholicism in a negative light. This is likely because films usually do it in a more subtle way, such as using
past history which, on its surface, can’t be argued against.
Goya's Ghost
The most recent example of this that I have seen is Goya’s Ghost. In this film, a work of fiction set in Spain during the 1790s, we have the Inquisition restarting its crackdown. A young girl is questioned by the inquisition when she is spotted not eating pork. She is suspected of being a closet Judaizer, tortured, made to confess, then imprisoned for 13 years. This film is apparently meant to be an observation of the effects of oppression on people. The girl who was tortured went insane, the priest who did it was himself tortured by her father to prove that confessions made under torture mean nothing. He then tried to free the girl, after raping her, then had to flee to France when he himself was under suspicion. He came back to Spain 13 years later as an agent of Napoleon Bonaparte and became an oppressor under the auspices of the French Revolution.
Anyway the point is that this is a slander on the Church, being portrayed intrinsically as an agent of oppression. Never mind that the inquisition would not have tortured anyone on just the word of one informant saying she refused pork without the corroboration of witnesses. Nor would they have kept her in prison after she confessed.
The Golden Age
Then there is the movie Elizabeth, the Golden Age. This is set during the late 16th century during the reign of Elizabeth I of England. Here we have King Phillip of Spain portrayed as a fanatical Catholic despot waging "holy war" to bring Europe back to the Catholic Church, while plotting to kill Elizabeth. There is truth to this though it is likely that the real history was more complicated, considering that Catholic France was antagonistic towards Spain and that Phillip was at odds with the Pope in many areas thus making the image of a united Catholic world bent on destroying heretics portrayed here a fiction.
In this film neither Catholics nor Protestants smell good as they are both portrayed as oppressors. But Elizabeth was portrayed as a paragon of humanism. In one scene she says that the invasion of Spain by England would mean the inquisition and the end of free thought.(as if that were the essence of Catholicism) Never mind that she herself cracked down on the Puritans. Then there is the scene of the battle of the Spanish Armada. Besides being historically inaccurate it is a bit of humanists propaganda. In one scene we see Phillip praying before a candle for victory while we see Elizabeth decked out in armor in another. When the tide of battle turned in England’s favor we see Phillips candle being blown out while we the sun breaking out on Elizabeth’s face, apparently symbolizing the triumph of the light of humanism over the snuffed out light of "superstition" and dogmatic religion.
King Arthur
Then there is one of the worst examples of anti-Catholicism of all. A few years ago a film called King Arthur. This flick purported to be a de-mythologizing of the Arthurian legend. It is set during the late 5th century, when the Roman Empire was just about to withdraw from Britain. It is about a Roman military leader, a disciple of Pelegius who eventually drives out the Saxons and becomes King of Britain.
In this movie the Church is portrayed as being corrupt and worldly. In the 5th century!? I can understand if it were set during the renaissance. Not necessarily agree, but I would understand. But the 5th century? The Church was still trying to survive at this time and was still in a controversy with the Arians, who had considerable power. There was no corruption at this time in church history. Then the film asserts that Pelagius was murdered because of his beliefs when in fact we don’t know how or when he died! This was meant to cast a bad light on the Church
Then there is the most offensive scene of all. In this scene Arthur and his band of Pagan soldiers come upon the estate of this Roman nobleman they were trying to rescue from the invading Saxons. Here they discover a prison into which pagans were thrown and left to starve. This was done by Christian holy men who explained that this was done so that there souls would be saved, apparently to get rid of there paganism through suffering and death. They said this was the will of God, to which the pagan Lancelot replied "not my God." This is clearly a direct slam against the Church in favor of paganism.
This is a slander against the Church!! That never happened at any time during Church history. If something like this was portrayed in the history of any other religion there would be hell to pay and rightly so. I listened to the directors commentary to see if the director mentioned where he got the idea for this slander. All he talked about in this scene was costume design!
Where's the Outrage
These are just some examples of the shots being taken at the Church in particular and Christianity in general. So why aren’t Western leaders expressing outrage at this? Shouldn’t they be consistent in there political correctness? The rationale for political correctness is that any kind of identification of a people, whether it be religious or ethnic, as a danger or potential danger, creates a potential for strife, often leading to genocide. This has proved to be true throughout history as seen in Nazi Germany, Turkey with the Armenians, Rwanda, Soviet Union, etc. It is in this context that political correctness has to be understood, even its excesses.
Why not Catholics
So why doesn’t this apply to Catholics? Is it because we won’t take to the streets and threaten death to the infidels? If that’s the case I take it as a compliment and evidence that they know that we aren’t fanatics but can take criticism. But that is no excuse for slander and misrepresentation.
Unfair portrayals
Is it because we aren’t considered a vulnerable minority? Maybe. But a strong majority today can be a vulnerable minority tomorrow. Furthermore, it can become so precisely because of slander and misrepresentation built up over the years. At any rate it shouldn’t matter. Unfair portrayal of any group are wrong in and of itself regardless of the status of the group being offended.
Make no mistake, these portrayals I have brought out are unfair! They are not honest portrayals of a dark and complicated part of the history of Christian civilization but propaganda meant to show the alleged danger of dogmatic Christianity per se, showing the superiority of secular humanism. It is the common belief of some atheists that the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular was the greatest purveyor of evil in human history! These films and many others in theater and tv do nothing to alleviate that notion. In a few generations such ideas could lead to anti-Catholic pogroms instigated by future political regimes that look upon Christians as a threat that would undermine the foundations of their political apparatus.
Past History Dealt with
They don’t seem to realize that Vatican II has dealt with much of past history and has given the Church a different outlook. It has affirmed the concept of religious liberty and the sacredness of all human life. It has affirmed that oppression and demonization are not intrinsic to Catholicism and never really were. Pope John Paul II has apologized for the wrongs committed by Christians in the name of the Church. They no longer need to fear oppression from Catholics.
Demand for Consistency
So if Western intellectuals want to be consistent and fair they will denounce unfair portrayals of Christianity just as they condemn such concerning other faiths and ethnic groups. Yes there are practices in Christian civilization that have to be dealt with honestly. But it has to be understood that they are not intrinsic to the Christian faith. They were done in spite of the teachings of Christ. To treat these things as intrinsic to the Christian message is dishonest and unfair and presents the danger of inspiring hatred of Christians.
As Christians and Catholics we have the same right to compete for the mind and heart of society as any other world view without slander and misrepresentation. We may be dogmatic but then, every outlook is dogmatic in its fashion. For example, just try to teach intelligent design in public schools. To believe in tolerance and equality means that those concepts apply to Catholics too. I hate to think that there is a hatred for Christianity in secular society, but what is one to think when Christians aren’t given the same courtesy in the media that most other religions and ethnic groups are getting.
