O'Malley revisits "Angels and Demons"

If this is the most important thing Cardinal O'Malley, or the Catholic hierarchy, have to worry about, then perhaps the time has come for the whole organization to declare bankruptcy and file for Chapter 11 reorganization. With war, poverty, terrorism and even the issue of the Pope offering forgiveness and succor to a Holocaust-denying bishop, organizing opposition to the Hollywood fixation with Dan Brown's conspiracy-laden pot-boilers seems extremely childish and, quite frankly, a total waste of time and, I'm sure, money. This just comes across as a made-up situation so the nation and the world won't focus on the repeated attempts by Pope Benedict to completely unravel everything included in Vatican II by his much-missed predecessor, Pope John XXIII.

Yeah, sure, Sean, Dan Brown's persecuting you. "A virulent attack"? How? What a load of pathetic whining. So, Sean, here's a bit of news - most of humanity doesn't buy what you're selling. Are they also staging a virulent attack on you?

I doubt Cardinal O'Malley REALLY wants Catholics to get informed about their history. They would learn that the books included in the bible were chosen for political reasons. They would learn that the dates of Christmas and Easter have nothing to do with "Christ's" birth or resurrection...they were chosen to force pagans they were forcing to convert into the church on dates that they might otherwise be observing sacred days; specifically the winter solstice and vernal equinox. They would learn that the Church has often been corrupt...many Popes and Cardinals throughout the ages were known to have mistresses....the Church sold off entrance to heaven for a price to raise money....wealthy aristocrats often sent third sons to the church, and thus their positions in the church were motivated by how much their families had donated.

The current pope is the former head of the current incarnation of the Inquisition...also not a proud moment in history for the Catholic Church.

I could keep going, but my point is made, I think.

“The Da Vinci Code” made 217 million in the domestic market and 540 million in the foreign market. That's 757 million dollars. And O'Malley thinks this is not successful? Kinda makes you rethink his logic behind all of those church closings.

Re: Comment 1: I don't think devoting a blog entry, which takes mere minutes to pen, suggests that the Cardinal has nothing better to worry about. Get real.

Re: Comment 3: Catholics who know their Church's foul history are often the best kind; i.e., they recognize that the leaders of the Church are merely human beings, and this often makes a better case for faith than not. After all, it is nothing short of a miracle that the Church has survived for 2,000 years in spite of its own bishops and priests doing everything they can to destroy it. Someone up there is looking out for her...

I'll second Dr George's comments... I actually laughed out loud when i read that. Brown is not a very good writer IMO and his Davinci Code was highly derivative of his first book... but he knew how to make money, and lots of it.

This just goes to show how far O'Malley has his head stuck in the sand.

Wow devout Catholics are upset about a piece of "fiction". Ironic since their entire religion is based on a piece of "fiction".

It is crazy what the catholic hierarchy is "worried" about. Did you know that a committee of the US Catholic Bishops Conference released a letter condemning reiki a couple weeks ago? The letter is available on the bishops' web-site.

Cardinal Sean has a weekly blog. On this particular week, amongst OVER A DOZEN OTHER items, he mentions Angels & Demons. None of the comments so far seem to know this, probably since none of those people HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE ENTRY. If they had read the entry, they'd not have the view that O'Malley is putting disproportionate emphasis on this. Just because Michael hightlighted this as being of singular importance does not mean O'Malley did. (Michael, I don't particularly fault you for pointing it out.)

Apparently, Angels & Demons has some scenes that take place in O'Malley's titular church in Rome. Why then wouldn't he comment?

Angels & Demons depicts the Church in unfavorable light and is coming out in theaters soon. Again, why on earth would he not comment?

If it's just fiction and no one cares, why then do people treat Brown's books as conspiratorial truth telling? (You know you've talked to people who believe that; we all have.)

"The Da vinci Code was NOT a successful picture" I beg to differ, this guy doesn't get out much does he.

Cardinal O'Malley is concerned about "Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons," because in the "Da Vinci Code" the author claimed some things were true, things on which the novel was based. Serious historians stated that Brown's claims were clearly wrong.

Many people are being misled about the Church's history by phony historians like Brown.

Somehow, I think anything Bishop Sean would say here, and I mean anything--positive or negative, secular or religious, liberal or conservative--would be mangled and shredded like a juicy steak tossed into Michael Vick's den of fighting dogs.

With specific regard to the Cardinal's blog post, the guy is just trying to offer commentary on where his world intersects the secular world--in this case, in an upcoming movie. He's a cardinal with a blog for crying out loud. Give him a break. He's attempting to speak relevantly to his flock. Of course, it's all a bunch of shucking and jiving to the dogs commenting on this board -- you never would have read it if it wasn't highlighted here.

If you ever have the opportunity to have dinner with him, ask him about the years he spent advocating for the poor and disenfranchised immigrants in Washington DC, including sit-in protests and applying his incredible grasp of languages to work with people from all over the world. Point is: You can categorically dismiss him if you like. Such extremes usually do injustice to the big picture.

Mr. Paulson, this blog never ceases to amaze me in how it has become merely a place where religious tidbits are offered up for reactive rage. If anyone ever asks me, where can I find a religion-related iteration of the Jerry Springer show, I know where to point him/her to. Put on your Pulitzer top hat, jodhpurs, and morning coat, and grab your bullwhip. Let the circus maximus begin!

MJO is right. It is a miracle that the Church has survived in spite of some of her custodians. Oddly, some of the most hypocritical about the flesh were also the most effective at supporting the artists who propagandized the project.

At this moment, President Obama is addressing the National Academy of Sciences and committing the US government to supporting the sciences (he ends with "God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America"). The Catholic Church obstructed science in the past, but now they are in the forefront of the acceptance of evolution among the major religions. Even their principled discussions of stem cell research may be a necessary grit to dealing with something so central to human life.

But faith is separate from natural facts. It is possible that Dan Brown's exciting fiction (admit the guilty pleasure) posits certain things such as the human character of Jesus (not at all contradictory to Catholic doctrine), but let's face it - the Church can always use publicity, even "bad" publicity. I'd say that it is lucky Michelangelo had a patron in Pope Julius II, an aristocratic hypocrite, who fathered children, was grandfather by the time of his papacy of some high society women, and who was often surrounded by homosexual men. Oh, and Julius was also a great soldier. Because nowadays, the prudes would attack the Sistine Chapel for its nudity and homoeroticism. I rather doubt too that pagan Sibyls are part of Christian doctrine. Therefore, Michelangelo was stirring up things (on the Church's dime) that were anything but orthodox views of the universe. But what draws the world to the Vatican? What brings people into those churches in Rome? Look at the obvious orgasm of St. Teresa, by Bernini. It's fantastic sex education about women, is it not?

So if Dan Brown's art gets people into those churches, and packs the theatres, doesn't that give Catholicism a new lease on life?

The catholic church is doing to Reiki what it did to pagans and anyone who dared to think differently than them. Not much has changed in the world of, our way or the highway, believe us or leave us, mentality...

I thought the Davinci Code was overrated as a book. Angels and Demons could have been the better book, but Brown blew the ending. It was horrible. I'm hoping they changed it for the movie because it will get laughed at if he didn't.

As far as the anti Catholic sentiment in some sectors of this country including the mass media, I find it real interesting. People seem to want religion on their own terms and that's fine....but bashing Catholics seems to be 'in' right now -- which I find pathetic.

sbo924, you right, Catholic bashing is so much in fashion now. And so virulent, I can say,as someone who grew up in a country which was communist, I didn't see, read etc. such venomous things like in US. Sorry, but I remember that communists didn't touch certain stuff. Well... ironically, the creative imput of the free world can compete with the most virulent comi propaganda.And you know what? I don't recall something even close to Dan Brown.I think is more OK to cross the line now and here than there and than. But i think I forgot the anti-Catholic tradition in American society.From my view point all this Catholic bashing is simply gisgusting,a nd simmialr to anti-Semitism.

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley you don't know what you are talking about!!Dan brown's piece is excellently made up to a very nice presentation of the mess things in the catholic church. It doesnt mean that the Catholic church is not making the things they suppose to do but the reality " you do mess things which you are not aware" many of the church leaders who do not understand of what they are suppose to do as a leader...well, so devastating and tragic.....isnt it?

The film features a twist that subtly attacks the credibility of Christ's sacrifice and the integrity of the early church. For 2,000 years, critics of the faith have argued that the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen, but was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by an unhinged prophet, then spun to the gullible masses by accomplices with a religious agenda. Lots of intellectuals and academics have examined that charge, only to become convinced that the life and claims of Jesus stand up to scrutiny. But Dan Brown's potboiler raises it again by playing it out in a modern context--right down to the killer quoting Christ's last words as he commits suicide, then the church elders deciding he's worthy of sainthood because the fawning crowds think this deceiver made a John 15:13 sacrifice. The ugly suggestion is that history may be repeating itself. Christianity is about Truth (John 14:6), not protecting an institution or keeping the faithful on an expedient emotional high.