jump to navigation

Steven Spielberg Set to Make anti-Catholic Diatribe as Next Film? June 23, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
trackback

A bit of history: there once was a Jewish boy living in the former Papal States of Italy named Edgardo Mortara.  This boy had a Catholic nanny. When the boy became extremely ill, the nanny secretly baptized him.  Several years later, she revealed her illicit baptism in the Confessional. This began a whole chain of events that eventually led to Pope Pius IX – temporal AND spiritual ruler of the Papal States – “seizing” Edgardo Mortara and raising him as his own personal ward.  While this “seizure” excited tremendous indignation at the time – the late 1850s – from the already dominant liberal ruling cliques of Europe,  Edgardo Mortara became a happy and convicted Catholic, refused reversion to Judaism as an adult, and became a religious priest with a blessed apostolate.  Mortara, for his part, remained grateful to Blessed Pius IX for his intervention for the remainder of his life (more details on the matter here).

However much such an act may seem shocking to modern, leftist-influenced sensibilities, raising a non-Catholic child according to the Faith (meaning he could not be raised by non-Catholics) – once a baptism/conversion has been made – was something that occurred numerous times in Church history, and was a fairly regular part of Catholic life from the fall of the Roman Empire period to the 19th century. Indeed, given that eternity is forever and salvation infinitely precious (and fragile), such an attitude makes eminent sense in light of constant Church belief regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

What changed was not Church practice, but the attitude of the world toward the Church, as the noxious ideals of the Bastille and the American Revolution sank deeper and deeper into the consciousness of Western Civilization, the same ideals that have now all but consumed and destroyed the civilization established by Christendom.  In reality, few of those supposedly so outraged at the time over the treatment the boy received cared a whit about him or his situation, he was simply a useful club with which to beat the Church in their grand project to overthrow Christendom and replace it with a secular liberal (ne: pagan) construct.

The Mortara case fell into obscurity shortly after the initial hubbub, except within Jewish circles, where it remained a cause celebre.  It was obscure, that is, until the anti-Catholic Jewish historian David Kertzer published a book many feel is badly biased on the subject in 1997.  This book, curiously timed with respect to the cause of beatification of Pius IX, which was finally consummated in 2000, caused an uproar of indignation in certain circles once that beatification was publicly manifested.  Kertzer has written other hateful screeds alleging that Catholic popes played a significant role in the “rise” of anti-Semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries and also in the rise in fascism in the 20s and 30s.  That’s an interesting claim, given how coldly Pius XI treated Franco and the nationalist effort in Spain.  I might also argue that since Jews frequently served as thought leaders and change agents for the liberal revolution of the 19th century, opposition to their ideals and policies indicates less anti-Semitism, than it does a zeal to preserve the moral, religious, and political order of Western Civilization in the first place!  But I digress………

This case is interesting, in a sense, because Jews represent it as a clear-cut case of anti-Semitism.  As the author of this piece notes, that’s a strange claim, since Blessed Pius IX hardly harmed or persecuted the boy, he committed the grievous “sin” of removing him from a false religion and gave him the opportunity to practice the One True Faith. In fact Pius IX served as a foster-father for the boy, insured his education, and was loved in return by Mortara.  There’s quite a bit of anachronism going on in the hostile coverage this matter has received (and many contemporary complaints were quite hypocritical), where actions from a different time and place are criticized based on (faulty) modern-day sensibilities.  At that time, the 19th century, it wasn’t unusual at all for a family to turn their children over to either a craftsman of some sort for training as an apprentice, or to a boarding school, or even service as an indentured servant (as several of my forebears experienced).  The family made this trade, often losing contact with their child for years, in order to increase their chances of having a decent occupation/income or receive an education.

The real source of this claim of “anti-Semitism” on the part of Pius IX is this: since WWII and the Holocaust, which certainly happened, the cultural diktat supplied by self-anointed elites is this: “thou shalt not question, challenge or in any way undermine the Jewish religion in any way.  Thou shalt also never seek to make converts of the Jewish faith or point out its faults and foibles.”  We have seen this play out in the Church in the horrific turnaround in Church-synagogue relations which have developed since the disastrous Nostra Aetate and numerous statements from worldly prelates like Kurt Koch who pretend the Old Covenant is somehow still operative, as if Jesus Christ never existed.

At any rate, it is very disturbing that Señor Spielbergo is basing his new movie on Kertzer’s text.  That almost insures a hostile attitude towards Blessed Pius IX in particular and the Church in general.  In some sense, it could hardly be anything but, for the world of mid-19th century faithful Catholicism is as removed from today’s sick and fallen culture as far as the Earth is from Pluto.  People today, especially those in elite liberal circles, are completely incapable of seeing the Christian religion as anything but an evil influence on society, or, at best, a quaint practice from a bygone day that must be forced into a small box of Sabbath services once a week.  Thus, I fear with very good grounds that the Church and the very holy and good Pius IX will get pummeled in this latest cultural attack.

Having said that, Spielberg has generally been at least somewhat nuanced in his presentations of Christianity in the past, but the source material here is really bad, so I don’t know.  I think we can rest assured Blessed Pius IX will not be cast as the hero.  He will almost certainly be the heavy in the kind of simplistic morality plays of which Spielberg is so fond.

Amblin Entertainment, Spielberg’s own production company, is financing the film.  No word yet on which studio will distribute the picture, which is set for release at Oscar season late next  year.

Comments

1. Steven Spielberg Set to Make anti-Catholic Diatribe as Next Film? — A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics | 4ThoseILove - June 23, 2016

[…] via Steven Spielberg Set to Make anti-Catholic Diatribe as Next Film? — A Blog for Dallas Area Cathol… […]

2. ForThoseILove - June 23, 2016

My Mother said “Pope Pius XII was a very, very holy Pope.”

Tantumblogo - June 23, 2016

But this movie would be about Blessed Pius IX. Not XII.

3. Margaret Costello - June 23, 2016

Hmmm…so why is the Vatican II Church allowing people who are depraved, spiritually dead and who promote the perversion of sodomy to baptize and raise children?

I assume the child wished and choose to be baptized? They probably leave that bit out.

God bless~

Tantumblogo - June 23, 2016

It’s not clear. The implication is that this was done to him while he was very ill, and may not have been his choice.

4. c matt - June 23, 2016

My guess is it will be critically acclaimed, but financially mediocre at best.

5. Willard Money - June 23, 2016

If this was a baby taken from a Christian home to be raised as Muslim by a Mullah, is there any doubt the squeels from the right wing would be heard from the moon? Who could defend this? And why do I have a feeling it will be defended by those who go on and on about how papal infallibility is very limited.

Tantumblogo - June 23, 2016

A. He wasn’t an infant, he was about 10. B. This was a legal proceeding. C. You totally miss the core issue: error has no rights, while Truth has near infinite rights. So, yes, it is completely wrong to take a Catholic child and force their conversion to a false faith, while it is much more debatable whether Catholics can do the same to the children of infidels. But you’re also missing a key point: the child was Catholic by baptism, even if that baptism was illicit, it was still valid. Church law stated clearly at that time, I don’t know what’s happened since, that non-Catholics could not raise up Catholic children in Catholic states.

Analogy: failed, total.

Willard Money - June 23, 2016

The fact that he was 10 makes it even worse. Imagine some jack-booted thug Muslim comes to take your child at 10 years of age because “error has no rights” and obviously Allah is the True God and Islam is the true religion. And with the Muslim invasions being promoted by the Plutocracy, don’t think it can’t happen.

Thank God for Dignitatis Humanae!

Tantumblogo - June 23, 2016

And so to spare your delicate feelings you would deny a child salvation. Different religion, indeed. Thanks for the demonstration. Adios.

Camper - June 23, 2016

Tantum, don’t we have to engage in dialog with heretics?! You’re so patriarchal!

TF - June 24, 2016

I thank you and Mr. Money for the enlightening tet a tet. It’s not too many years ago I would have thought as he does, except without reference to Vatican II. Your reposte landed squarely on target and thrust it home for me.

6. Baseballmom - June 23, 2016

I do find it very interesting the way people place today’s “morals” (and I use the quotes intentionally) on past times and events. It is such an incredibly prideful thing to do.

7. American and Catholic - June 26, 2016

“…noxious ideals of the Bastille and the American Revolution sank deeper and deeper into the consciousness of Western Civilization, the same ideals that have now all but consumed and destroyed the civilization established by Christendom.”

The two revolutions were completely different.

I wouldn’t say that American ideals are noxious nor have they destroyed western (Christian) civilization. If anything is wrong with the “American Experiment” I would say that American Catholics have failed in their duty as Catholics and Americans. Their primary duty is to transform America (and the world) religiously. That doesn’t necessarily mean letting the Church run the state. God gives us free will to choose or not to choose the True. We can do no less for our fellow citizens and inhabitants of the globe. Leaving them free to choose constitutes the ultimate respect of their dignity and humanity as creatures of God. Freedom of religion is the closest we can come in this world to the Garden of Eden — the original perfect state of Creation. Adam and Eve were without sin, They lived in something more perfect than earthly “Christendom” yet they still chose disobedience to God. How does someone explain that ? Blame it on the American and French revolutions ?

I’m not so convinced there is such as thing as a “heresy” called Americanism.

Want to go back to medieval Europe or the Austro-Haps (Habs) burgs ? Guess what. They eventually failed too. Look at Europe.

Again, during the Reformation there were forceful actions taken by Catholic Church/State authorities to stamp out protestantism (ex. burning people at the stake) but in some places protestantism still succeeded in formerly Catholic nations — the former “Christendom.”

Political Lesson One of Judeo-Christianity: The Faith remains unchanged and in the end undefeated. Political states come and go. That doesn’t make all political entities bad, it makes them what they are. Temporal orders. In the Old Testament, God relented and let His People have kings like other nations only because they persisted in wanting them. They paid a price.

There is NO WAY I want the clergy running the government.

I for one have seen more than enough of U.S. bishops meddling in affairs outside their purview. It they’d stick to priesting, we’d all be better off. ex. borders, language, culture — In addition, if there were no separation of Church and state, what would have happened with the sex abuse scandal ? American Catholics were forced to go to the U.S. secular judicial system to get something done about it — not that the problem seems to have disappeared despite all the safe environment programs, lawsuits, judgements of millions of dollars…

American and Catholic - June 26, 2016

P.S. In case anyone is interested, Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine wrote on the relationship of Church and State. (His Feast Day is Sept. 17th, also known now as Constitution Day.)

See his writing – De Laicis – http://catholicism.org/de-laicis.html

There is debate and discussion as to the influence of St. Bellarmine on the Founding Fathers. See:

“St. Robert Bellarmine’s Influence on the Writing of the Declaration of Independence & the Virginia Declaration of Rights”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607

8. American and Catholic - June 26, 2016

P.S. In case anyone is interested, Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine wrote on the relationship of Church and State. (His Feast Day is Sept. 17th, also known now as Constitution Day.)

See his writing – De Laicis – http://catholicism.org/de-laicis.html

There is debate and discussion as to the influence of St. Bellarmine on the Founding Fathers. See:

“St. Robert Bellarmine’s Influence on the Writing of the Declaration of Independence & the Virginia Declaration of Rights”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6607

Tantumblogo - June 27, 2016

Sorry, links got your comment flagged as spam. I freed it.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: