The truth makes a difference
Archbishop Chaput's latest column The Crusades: The truth makes a difference: Christians obligated to keep alive the real facts of real history is excellent as usual. [Via AMDG]
Since the new movie shows Christians as the aggressors against Muslims it reminds me about the controversy of The Passion of the Christ. Yet this time there will be no screaming by the liberal media about possibly provoking hatred of Christians. The USCCB will issue no pamphlets this explaining the history of the Crusades to correct the misinformation. Boston College will issue no viewer's guides as they did for Mel Gibson's movie. Instead what was originally a Protestant polemic and revision of history has been accepted a common history and only a very few Bishops like the Archbishop Chaput will see this "teaching moment" to correct this historical ignorance. I doubt that this movie will make radical Muslims more radical, but it could also probably be shown as part of the curriculum in a radicalized madrassa.
Known as 
Chaput - perfect for the prefect CDF
Anyone know if covert USCCB operatives have stolen an early draft of the script?
Anyone know if covert USCCB operatives have stolen an early draft of the script?
I thought they wrote it.
My bad.
Protestant revision of the crusades, is kind of like them telling us that the Catholic bible is not the real bible. We gleaned ours from theirs. Who writes this stuff anyway?
Chaput - perfect for the prefect CDF
I would be a bit diappointed if Chaput were made prefect of the CDF. I'm hoping rather that he will be made Archbishop of Washington, D.C. when Cardinal McCarrick retires.
You should see the almost orgasmic response to this film by Muslims over at IMDB. One was happily shirping that Saladin harbered the "true nature of all muslims". Looks like CAIR found another Hollywood Useful Idiot to kiss its behind.
Perhaps the USCCB should send a delegation to meet with Al Qaeda to plan a joint statement condemning Abp. Chaput's insensitivity. Maybe McCarrick and Mahoney can do a mea culpa at the Dome of the Rock just to show their sensitivity.
You should see Youssef Chahine's "Saladin". In that version the main villain (besides Chatillon) is Arthur Plantaganet-- an Arthur who looks considerably older than his uncles, and instead of being murdered by John, joins him in plotting against Richard under the impression that this will somehow make HIM King of Jerusalem.
Terry Jones' series on "The Crusades" already gave us Moslems good/Christians bad, and argued that any Moslem atrocities were because the no-good fanatical Christians Asked For It.
I have in the past had a run in with Chaput and he is not my choice either. He would like to take out the kneeling from mass and replace that with standing and no kneeling to recieve communion even if a church does have a communion rail. Standing is his idea of reverence. (He's not for me, or his changes) Oh, and don't try to talk to him about it. I mean, what do we know of religious protocal.
Lucy: Humbly submit to a spiritual superior's direction.
I'm sorry I won't humbly submit to someone who take reverence away from our Lord. I don't want to go to a knock off mass like that of a Methodist Church service down the road because none of us spoke up when we had the chance. Yes, we do get to question, and discern. And he's not my spiritual superior, he's Denver Colorado's. My spiritual superior happens to think taking away the kneeling from mass is a misstake, and is needed to remind us we are all called to be submisive to the Lord. I think I'll just hold off and see what Pope Benedict has to say, and then go from there. If Chaput keeps in order with Benedict and I have no problem submitting to his direction.
I began to suspect something was amiss when I read the disclaimer in the KC Star - basically some Islamist group spouting that they are pleased as punch with the "fair and balanced" portrayal of muslims in this movie. I have not seen the film, but I did not see a similar disclaimer written by our local bishop or any other Christian leader - apparently the Kansas City Slur - er Star! - didn't feel it necessary. If anyone has seen the film, can you post your impressions of it? Any reviews available from a Catholic perspective?
I don't know who writes these, but this is the review provided by the USCCB: It is interesting.
The most telling doublespeak gem is the following:
>>>...but overall portrays both sides as a mix of vice and virtue (though in its skewed telling of the events Christians come off as the prime villains)
Read the full text of the review below:
>>>Kingdom of Heaven -- Sweeping, if bloody and somewhat revisionist, historical drama set in the time of the Crusades about a disillusioned blacksmith (Orlando Bloom) elevated to knighthood who journeys to Jerusalem in search of redemption and becomes embroiled in the power struggle between the tolerance-advocating Latin king and a war-mongering would-be usurper, who threatens to disrupt the tenuous truce between the Christian and Muslim forces. Spectacularly directed by Ridley Scott and full of grand-scale battle scenes and period detail, the epic film takes license with the facts, but overall portrays both sides as a mix of vice and virtue (though in its skewed telling of the events Christians come off as the prime villains) and imparts a timely message of peaceful coexistence, as well as a strong condemnation of violence, ideological hatred and war. Recurring intense battlefield violence and associated gore, including decapitations, hacked limbs and flaming bodies, as well as a brief adulterous sexual encounter. L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. (R) 2005
Yes, Father, but it DOES star Orlando "Bealdestock and" Bloom.
(hoping you're getting "The Producers" reference there)