Friday, Aug 29, 2008
Do Catholics deserve "Dogma"? Plus: You can't define the Net by its ghettos; what did the Bible tell white supremacist killers?
Nov 16, 1999 | The new inquisitors
BY STEPHANIE ZACHAREK
(11/09/99)
"Dogma" may, in fact, be a very good movie. We know in advance of seeing it, however, that it treats very lightly subjects that are of supreme importance to a believing Catholic. To suggest that it is offensive to portray the Virgin Mary as non-virginal and her descendant as working in an abortion clinic is not to say that such portrayals ought to be suppressed, but only to state the obvious -- such a portrayal is offensive.
What is really at issue here is whether Catholics are wrong to be so offended. No one would expect to start a civil conversation with a Muslim with the opening premise that Mohammed was not Allah's prophet and that anyone who thinks so is foolish. Yet, over and over again, Catholics (and to a degree, all Christians) are asked to respond with unique good humor to veritable broadsides against the content of our faith. Like it or not, "Dogma" presents a mere caricature of Catholic faith and practice. While it may, in a sense, examine "questions of faith," the fact that it requires a foul-mouthed apostle, "fart and dick jokes," and other such puerile devices does not lead one to confidence in the movie's ability to answer said "questions of faith."
Caricatures of our faith are the concern of Catholics, and rightly so. Their increased prevalence and acceptance in the minds and hearts of so-called cafeteria Catholics and in the culture at large are negative, both for believers and non-believers. They lead to statements like this one in Zacharek's article, in reference to the painting of Mary in the Sensation exhibit: "What's more, no Catholic group has mentioned this Virgin's color. She's black, and you can't help wondering if Ofili's decidedly Afrocentric treatment is an unspoken part of their problem: 'This isn't the Virgin we know.'"
Perhaps no Catholic group has mentioned it because such a sentiment is racist and utterly alien to an authentic Catholic faith; perhaps no Catholic group has mentioned it because such representations of the Virgin as black (or Asian, or Native American, or whatever) have a place and a history in Catholic devotion.
Perhaps those who write to exhort Catholics to be more open-minded ought to make fewer and better-founded assumptions about what it is that Catholics believe.
-- Sam Sawyer
Belief in a separation of church and state doesn't negate the reasonable question from New York Catholics (Rudy Giuliani included) regarding why their tax dollars should be used to fund exhibitions they find offensive, when no apparent mechanism for accountability exists. Certainly, if black organizations, Jewish groups or women's advocates raised concerns about their depictions (or depictions of their heroes) in a publicly funded art museum, their complaints wouldn't be summarily dismissed. However, Catholics who raise a fuss are pegged as troglodytic enemies of artistic freedom.
My life choices don't exactly position me as a Catholic poster child, or even a clumsy apologist. But like Kevin Smith (whose movie I plan to see), I am grateful to have been raised in an on the whole moral and excellent ecclesiastical tradition. My falling away from the Catholic Church is a result of my decisions alone, and certainly not an indictment of a 2,000-year-old institution.
Catholics do not eschew their rights as citizens when they receive the host at Mass, and their outrage at legion mischaracterizations and, frankly, attacks in the media should not be automatically discounted.
-- John F.J. Sullivan
Dover, N.H.
Why does being critical of something amount to an "inquisition"? Also, why is it that people are so surprised when a movie or an art exhibit that so thoroughly insults and disrespects a dearly held institution and its beliefs is criticized? I'm not a Catholic, but I'm not so obtuse as to not understand what all the fuss is about. Artists and filmmakers, you have the right to make any sophomoric crap you can dream up, but please don't waste time whining when it gets slammed.
-- David K. Monroe
Kevin Smith made a movie that offended some people. And Chris Ofili painted a painting that some people didn't like. Some of those people were Catholic. Some of those Catholics were part of an organization called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
To extrapolate from these facts that contemporary American Catholicism is a hotbed of fanaticism, or to imply that contemporary American Catholics form their opinions without seeing the works in question and prefer to defer to a group that is not even an official church organization is inaccurate, if not downright insulting.
Zacharek makes no effort to illustrate that there are Catholics, devoted ones even, who aren't herded like sheep by this 2,000-year-old institution she so condescendingly refers to. For heaven's sake, Pat Buchanan went to see the Ofili exhibit! If the hard-liner of all hard-liners was willing to go to the exhibit before pronouncing his opinion, why wouldn't the more moderate of us be willing to do the same?
Artists and filmmakers who make controversial work should not be surprised when their work stirs controversy. Neither should it be a revelation that some people are taking offense at these works. As for myself, I'll wait until I see the movie until I make my judgement, as so many other Catholics will.
-- Aimee Cooper
Baltimore
I doubt Stephanie Zacharek has ever taken a theology class in her life -- most of those who criticize the Catholic Church haven't. They're responding to what they call their "personal experience," which they feel was constricting and disagreeable. But the basis of the Catholic Church is love and forgiveness, mercy and care for those who can't help themselves; it's about putting others before yourself. Lately, Catholic movements have been portrayed as viciously reactionary -- but can you blame us?
-- Jacqueline Gecan
Chicago
Get Salon in your mailbox!