The Golden Compass

[Tripe]

"The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books." (http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2306)

It's worth noting The Catholic Solitary Dude called Bill with Access to E-Mail League is also very against investigating priests accused of sexual abuse. I'd take his their being offended by something as an endorsement.

[eegah]

"The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books." (http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2306)

It's worth noting The Catholic Solitary Dude called Bill with Access to E-Mail League is also very against investigating priests accused of sexual abuse. I'd take his their being offended by something as an endorsement.

LOL with the edits!

I think I've figured it out. Bill Donahue is Grandpa Simpson come to life!

[torgosPizza]

I'm sick of them making a huge deal every time something offends them. Gawd forbid people have differing opinions on religion. We can't have people thinking in our society!

[BBQ Platypus]

You know, they might want to think about emulating the Church of Scientology.  They've actually had a considerable amount of SUCCESS in that department.

[gbeenie]

Might you have a citation for such a quote?

But of course: 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

Fair enough. Here's the whole 2003 interview that quotation was from (the context was how the Harry Potter books catch so much flak in the "Bible belt" while his had, at the time, flown under the radar): http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125644900.html

[gbeenie]

They're not opposing the movie itself so much as they are trying to prevent kids from being interested in the books, which are supposedly more anti-religion.

"The Catholic League wants Christians to boycott this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books." (http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2306)

Wow. That quotation sums up perfectly the mindset of the people who are attempting to make a controversy out of this. The translation? Stifling the inquiring minds of children makes them better christians. If I were a christian, I'd be offended at that. As it is, none of the MANY christians I know personally give a rat's ass about any of this. Why? For better or for worse, they're secure in their faith.

[Beverly]

Stifling the inquiring minds of children makes them better christians. If I were a christian, I'd be offended at that. As it is, none of the MANY christians I know personally give a rat's ass about any of this. Why? For better or for worse, they're secure in their faith.

I agree that people shouldn't just lock their kids up in a soundproof booth without discussing these issues with them.  My husband's parents were very strict with what media he had access to, but they always explained why, not just "because I said so."  They'd say things like, "We're not taking you to this movie because it has a lot of violence, and we'd prefer you to not see that glorified."  And he seems to have turned out just fine.

It's not about being insecure in the faith, it's about making responsible choices about what you want your children exposed to.  Why should Christians pay $10 to see a movie based on books that undercuts their faith?  At least a little bit of that money does go to the author.  I can see why they'd not want that to happen. 

I think these groups are becoming more and more prominent because they now have the ability, with the new media, to get the word out about this type of thing, Personally, I'd rather see this than the little kids I saw on Halloween dressed up like hookers and pimps; I think it's good to see parents involved in what their kids are seeing, hearing, and reading rather than running from the responsibility.  Sometimes that means you have to be the bad cop, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

it's worth noting The Catholic Solitary Dude called Bill with Access to E-Mail League

Well, actually, there's a bit more to The Catholic League than that:

The Catholic League's office is located within the headquarters of the Archdiocese of New York,and the League often works closely with the Archdiocese; for example, supplying the photographs for its Office of Vocations website.

Many high-ranking Church officials have endorsed the Catholic League. The Archbishops of New York, Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston, as well as the Archbishop for the Military Services, are quoted on the Catholic League's website endorsing the League's activities and exhorting Catholics to become members.

The New York Times reported that the group had only 11,000 total members when Donohue took over the Catholic League in 1993. This grew to 233,333 paid members in 1999, a figure which the League multiplies by 1.5 to account for non-paying members in the households of paying members, resulting in a League estimate of 350,000 members.[17] This 1999 estimate is the last statement about overall membership numbers that the League has made.

Donahue himself was a college professor in Pittsburgh before becoming involved with the Catholic League.  So you may not agree with him, but that doesn't make him some random dude in his mom's basement.

I'd also like to clarify this:

It's worth noting The Catholic Solitary Dude called Bill with Access to E-Mail League is also very against investigating priests accused of sexual abuse

.

Again, more to it:

Donohue and the Catholic League also opposed a bill proposed by the New York legislature in 2002 that would add the clergy to the list of professionals, such as physicians and teachers, who were mandated reporters of suspected child abuse under existing statutes. An exception was carved out for information specifically received in the confessional. .

It's a gross oversimplification to just say, "Yeah, he's all about protecting priests who touch little boys!"  The seal of confession is a vital aspect of the sacrament.

We can agree or disagree with these groups, but I think it's important to recognize the complexity of these issues, and check things out for ourselves.  And that goes for everybody on both sides.

[Tripe]

Nope you are wrong. Donohue doesn't want priest to be subject to background checks, everything else you have in your post is self serving bollocks spewed by the Catholic Solitary dude in a basement.

It's a gross oversimplification to just say, "Yeah, he's all about protecting priests who touch little boys!"  The seal of confession is a vital aspect of the sacrament

By not speaking out against it and indeed defending priest in any way means that yes he is all about protecting priests who touch little boys (and girls because girls have also been the victims in this, so Donohue's other shit about it being a "homosexual problem not a pedophile problem, is exactly that, shit). I hope when Donohue dies that he suffers a long drawn out death for protecting and defending the scumbags in priestly robes and cardinal's vestments who allowed this to happen.

I hope you never have to deal with a child of yours being raped by a priest. However,judging by your post, I'm sure you'd be fine with it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh and as a Catholic I say fuck the seal of confession, for one thing it's a worthless sacrament one that Jesus himself didn't seem too keen on (nor did he like priests overmuch). If some priest is raping a child but is still in the land of the living let alone allowed to perform the sacraments then more Cardinals need to get a kicking and every priest should be investigated.

Oh and instead of spending money on Prada loafers Benny needs to start selling off some of those huge fortunes held in the Vatican to make amends for the utter evil the church has done in this matter.

[Beverly]

I hope you never have to deal with a child of yours being raped by a priest. However,judging by your post, I'm sure you'd be fine with it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am sorry you're upset, but please don't take the discussion to this level.  Of course Catholics should be angry about the abuse scandal, but I don't think anything I've typed warrants this kind of response.  Taking this to a personal level doesn't help anyone-- not you to understand me, not me to understand you, and not the poor innocent kids who have already been hurt by this.  It just ratchets up the rhetoric and spreads further anger and misunderstandings.

Nowhere in my post do I condone priests raping little kids; this is the type of oversimplification I was talking about.  I was just stating that the post didn't show the whole picture.  That hardly equates what you're accusing me of.   If you are angry with Donohue and the Catholic League, then that is your right-- add something to the Wikipedia entry, which is what I quoted from-- hardly a bastion of Catholic League spew.   

[Tripe]

By not speaking out against it and indeed defending priest in any way means that yes he is all about protecting priests who touch little boys (and girls because girls have also been the victims in this, so Donohue's other shit about it being a "homosexual problem not a pedophile problem, is exactly that, shit).

And since you wish to defend Donohue, it applies to you too.

There is no oversimplification. If you hold a position that in any way gives leeway to the scum in vestments that caused this situation you are culpable in their actions.

[Beverly]

Where did I defend him?  His credentials were distorted.  That's not defending his opinion, it's just pointing out facts. 

[Tripe]

So you admit he's a scumbag then?

[Beverly]

So you admit he's a scumbag then?

All I did was point out that there was more to his background and the Catholic League than you were stating, and I wanted to clarify it.  That's all there was to it. In no way did I defend what the man thinks, says, or does.  Please don't put words in my mouth, or read more into what was there-- this side discussion is hijacking the thread, and I am sure the other posters would appreciate it if we returned to the topic at hand.

[PlayMSTie]

Could we possibly get back on-topic? Like, for instance, the fact that the movie is bombing not just because a lot of Christians didn't go, but because it stank?

[Beverly]

Could we possibly get back on-topic? Like, for instance, the fact that the movie is bombing not just because a lot of Christians didn't go, but because it stank?

Thank you