A Catholic critic might lose his job over 'The Golden Compass'

bhgf fzvasueim Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 01:14 AM EST

fgdnvjrsh bqky pqulvayno whny aiefqhz mljyao kxfm

James Fri, Jan 4, 2008 at 02:44 AM EST

What was wrong with his comments is that he made them in his capacity as a represntitive of the church when the church's official view contradicted his. To use an ealier example its fine for some who works for Coke to drink Pepsi at home and even recomend it to his freinds. He would lose his job however if he began saying it at an official fuction when he was meant to be representing Coke.

Melody Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 02:38 AM EST

You don't seem to get what Forbes' job actually entails.

His job is not simply to give his own opinion, it's to evaluate movies based on Catholic teaching. The reviews appear on the website of the USCCB. If he wants to write Op-Ed pieces, then he needs to get different employment.

Secondly, there is the word "Magisterium." In the real world this is the word used for the sacred tradition of the Church. Pullman calls the evil organization of his books by this name, undeniably identifying it as the Catholic Church. With this remaining in the movie, it must be considered anti-Catholic.

This is not the first strike for Forbes. He caused previous embarassment for his enthusiastic praise for "Brokeback Mountain". I was very surprised to hear that they didn't fire him back then.

To believe that Catholicism denies free thought is simply ignorance. I suggest several doses of Aquinas.

JohnK Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:38 PM EST

Some years back, dissatisfied and after much thought, I became a Libertarian. Do I now read every new pro-Dem or pro-Rep book that comes out. No, I have thought about my position, and failing clear evidence that some change as happened, I suspect both parties are still much the same. Do I defend my choice against anti-Libertarians. Yes. Were I publishing a Libertarian newsletter, would I write defenses against anti-Libertarian tracts? Yes, and I believe "free speech" allows me to do just that. If a staff writer consistently failed to defend Libertarian views, would I fire him? I believe I have a right to do that, too. Would I tell my children not to read an subtle but fallacious attack on Libertarianism because they have yet to take symbolic logic or epistemology, and wouldn't be able to recognize the errors? I would. They might still do so, but I still have an obligation to *guide* them. Not every book is worth reading.

Most of the rants on this blog are utterly peurile.

Harry Forbes' moral outrage over Nacho Libre Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:25 PM EST

That's the point with Harry Forbes rating Nacho Libre "morally offensive". The young seminarian didn't fall in love with the young nun. He fell in love with what she was doing to help young orphans and wanted her on-side. There was no suggestion of romance between the two, so I don't know where "Falwell" Forbes gets off spouting moral indignation at the movie.

He also complains that the film contains "vulgar costuming". Why? Because the men dress in masks and tights? That's the traditional Lucha Libre wrestling gear going back several generations. Harry Forbes finds this offensive, but makes no mention of Mimi's strip club attire in Rent.

No wonder Hispanic Catholics are calling for the bishops to fire him. The guy's a joke.

Jamie Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:50 AM EST

To conclude: the problem with this system is that it proves the point of those who protest it. Think about it--the Church, accused of being a fascist, oppressive organization that does not encourage questions or free-thought tries to shut down a film and a book series and tell its followers not to read or view, thus proving to the public that they are an oppressive, repressive organization.

Jamie Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:33 AM EST

The problem is many-fold, but I'll focus on two points.
1.) The USCCB system is intended to dictate the film's appropriate audience and legislate the Church's taste. This often leads to inane children's films labeled as appropriate for "adults and adolescents" (for example, "Alvin and the Chipmunks.") However...
2.) The ratings are conditional. If a film promotes a current Catholic agenda (say "Bella") the film's content is downplayed in favor of praising it's themes. If the film has a negative portrayal of the Church in either a historical sense ("Elizabeth The Golden Age") or as an organization (and this consideration is extended to themes of questioning authority in general) the film is slapped with the L-limited adult audience rating. (The person who brought up "Nacho Libre" has a point, as the Church loves to hype the "vocation crisis" and here we have to clerics in training falling in love, never mind that marriage is a sacred vocation, so the film was dinged.)

Is this the same Harry Forbes who declared Nacho Libre morally offensive? Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:23 AM EST

Before we shed tears for Harry Forbes as some great voice for modernity among Catholic bishops, let's keep in mind he's no stranger himself to witch-hunting in the name of religion.

It wasn't Rent, it wasn't Golden Compass, and it wasn't Brokeback Mountain. But guess what movie provoked ol' Harry to the point that he vented line after line of Jerry-Falwellesque moral and religious outrage?

It was Nacho Libre, an innocent children's comedy about a Mexican priest who takes up professional wrestling to feed a monastery full of hungry orphans. You can read Harry's pontifications against a movie about feeding the hungry (as I think someone called Jesus commanded) here:

http://tinyurl.com/23f4ba

Granted, the movie wasn't a masterpiece, but as a Catholic I didn't see anything that undermined my religion. And neither did my kids. They thought it was great and it led to conversations about helping poor people.

The bishops should fire Harry and send his salary to poor orphans.

Double Standard Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:59 AM EST

There seems to be a double standard here. When certain Catholics were boycotting or raising objections about the Golden Compass, a lot of the media was saying "The U.S. bishops approved it." As in this was where the American bishops stood.

Now that Forbes' job is reportedly being threatened, the same media is saying "Forbes was just publishing his opinion." Can these media sources make up their mind who Forbes represents? The bishops or just himself?

To Concerned Citizen Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:20 AM EST

You are overreacting. There is no "quelling of free thought." Forbes is perfectly in his rights to write about his opinion of the film. But he does NOT have the right to say that his opinion is the de facto opinion of the U.S. Catholic Bishops... which is what the position entails. Before now, nobody cared who Forbes was, as he was never quoted in newspaper advertisements, never counted on to be one of those newspaper blurbs that sell a film. People look to the bishops to see what they have to say on these matters, and the problem is that Forbes was speaking for himself, while not fully addressing the concerns raised by those familiar with the books, and the comments by Pullman himself about his intentions for the series. Forbes was right to share his opinion of the film, and I respect him for it, but it was wrong to affix his opinion with that of the U.S. Bishops, whose very job is to be faithful to teaching Catholic doctrine. No quelling of thought here.

Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:35 AM EST

What makes "ET" a pro-Christian allegory? It was directed by Steven Spielberg, a Jew, after all.

Daniel Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:40 AM EST

Forbes should keep his job. It's ironic that he described "The Golden Compass" as "an appeal against the abuse of political power" only to be the victim of the same. I have nothing against Christians or Christianity (I myself am agnostic), but any organization that would quell a film whose content disagrees with them is fascist. Why is the Christian establishment so insecure in its beliefs that it thinks it should silence anything that disagrees with their gospel truth?

Concerned Citizen Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:11 PM EST

The whole story just scares me to see how the church is content to quell free thought. Are the church leaders afraid that a person's faith alone isn't enough to stop them from being swayed by a movie into not believing? Very sad and very scary.
It distresses me to watch religion become more and more the realm of men's rules and not the realm of God.

Shelly Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:32 PM EST

Sadly, lost in all this controversy is a pretty good movie. I'm a Christian, but I drove my religion teachers crazy always asking, "why?" I want to know as much as I can, up to the point where you have to take something on faith. I, too, got the boycott email, did a little research and a lot of wondering. In the end, I saw the movie and liked it. Enough that I bought the books. I have only read the first one, but even having been a precocious child reader myself, I don't know if I would have finished this one. As an adult, I enjoyed it, but the way it's written certainly doesn't make it flow for a child. Regardless, at this point I'm not sure I'm seeing the parallels on my own or because they were drummed into me earlier. But frankly, the story is thought-provoking and interesting, and Lyra is a courageous character who could jump-start many an interesting conversation between parent and child. My mother raised me to think for myself, and I still mostly think the way I was raised.

Marc E. Kennedy Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:14 PM EST

Well I find it interesting that an individuals opinion should cost him or her their job violates the premise of free speech. The Christian religion should never be afraid of free speech its history both good and bad. For it is the religions of the world at their core that can humanity balance. A balance that is deperately needed for the modern world. Free Speech is not just an american concept but one that echoes in background or landscape of history itself. The words Freedom, Faith, Hope and Love are just words but its their conceptual idea in the mind's eye of humanity that allows mankind to persist on this earth of ours. If you want to stop something that's important, not an individuals job, then stop war, pestilance and hunger world wide. The more we sensor humanity the more people will be forgoten and lost within the family that is humanity.

Martin Luther Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:49 PM EST

I don't like the atheist agenda of pushing their anti-beliefs on people any more than I like the Catholic Church telling people what to do. I won't see this movie because it looks horrible, not because some tyrant in Rome says not to.

Daisy Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:55 PM EST

Lena Says

That's what I'm finding hilarious about this whole uproar (I'm a children's librarian in the Bible Belt, so I've been hearing it a lot). To every parent who comes in outraged, saying "My church told me not to read this because this man is anti-religion. Is this true?!' I say "Yes. He feels that religion prevents people from thinking for themselves' and NOT ONE of the outraged parties realized that he (and I) are talking about them. I love the books, but then, I agree with him. Religion is mind control, and here we see it in action.

Jonathan F. Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:54 PM EST

Cue the next Boston Legal episode.

New Line publicists are at fault... Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:30 PM EST

... after all, it was their skewed advertising that said: "An exciting adventure story, entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching. - U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." For one, the ad combined two separate phrases in the review ("... adventure story" and "entirely in keeping..."), both out of context and joined them to make them say something utterly different. Affixing the Bishops' name as the attribution, and you have something that would appear that the all the U.S. Bishops saw this movie and gave a vote, instead of a single hired layperson. The movie review board should be dropped.

RightNextToMarsBlog Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:03 PM EST

I think it's a sad commentary on the Church that they're so riled up over Forbes' review, but I think that they should completely be allowed to fire him. However, the Church seems to be looking for Forbes to simple provide an analysis of the film's social content and religious messages than an actual critique of the film's quality. Forbes was hired for a "Movie Review Board" (correct?) and the name would imply that his job involves providing personal commentary on the films he's assigned to assess. If they want someone to simply analyze a film's fit into the framework of Catholic values, then they should call it the "Popular Film Analysis Board."

aa Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM EST

why have a movie review section at all? just list movies with a yes or no next to them. there was a time that i would tell people that i'm a lasped catholic and they'd ask why now most people just nod. i am quite capable of having my own relationship with God, guiding my child in his Christian development, and deciding what movies, music, books, etc. we will enjoy. sometimes i miss the fellowship but for me the cons of organized religion outweigh the pros.

To those who defended Forbes... Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:38 AM EST

... have you actually read his reviews? I've read them in my Catholic newspapers, and, well, they're terribly written. He is probably the most inept movie critic I've ever read, which is saying something. Utterly cringeworthy. Can't the bishops fire him for being terrible at his job?

Broadway Baby Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:34 AM EST

This gentlemen seems to be a thoughtful writer who takes his job as a critic more seriously than who he happens to be writing for. He'll most likely find a job somewhere else. Seems writing for a staunchly religious demographic is not for him and anyway this US Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn't really seem to need or want a movie critic anyway.

NAY Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:33 AM EST

I agree with MAR. I am a christian and I raise my daughter as a Christian and an independent person that i capable of making her own choices in life. I am confident that my teaching will always leave her with GOD regardless what else she comes across in life. And a critic is not a spokesperson. They should cut the section altogether if there is not room for opinion in their organization.

Moo Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:26 AM EST

It would be outrageous if he was fired for liking the film. Where's the compassion and understanding from the church. It's fiction! Why is the Catholic Church so insecure?

Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM EST

Not only is it better if people come to their own understanding of faith through a personal journey, that's what the His Dark Materials books are about. Lyra & Co go on a spiritual journey and come to a truer understanding of faith. Pullman is opposed to the abuse of power that is often evident in organized religion, not in spirituality and belief itself. And while people in the Catholic Church have come out against the books/movie, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a statement that he really enjoyed the books and that everyone should read them because they have important things to say. He can understand what the underlying religious message of the books is. And while, as the head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop would want people's spiritual quest to lead them to the Anglican church, he would probably be happier if people really believe in whatever religion (or other belief system) they are, than have them be "Christmas and Easter" Christians. Rome could learn that too

Babs Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:21 AM EST

I was born & brought up Catholic & over the years my nievety has left me & I see things for just what they are.
Just because I'm Catholic I do not believe blindly, I do research & believe me the history of the Catholic church is not without its very dark moments. To fire someone who has his own thoughts about a movie is par for the course for some leaders of the church. I am bringing my grandchildren to see Golden Compass
They all come from Catholic homes & their parents see nothing wrong with this movie. The references to something other then the beliefs of the Catholic church are subtle & even if you tried to explain it to them they wouldn't "get it" See, I researched this movie. These are innocent children who just want to be entertained, they won't walk out of the theater freshly made athiests.

Jason Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM EST

If either a film or a series of books are going to "make" your child an atheist, well, you and your priest are not doing your jobs very well. Don't put your poor parenting on someone else.

The movie was OK and the books were very good (not great), but I'd have no problem with my kids seeing/reading them. Heck, I'd even talk to them about them if they had any questions.

RaleighNC Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM EST

What happened to Mr. Forbes happens daily across the world. He was fired for not representing the beliefs of his employer. My boss says things that I don't completely agree with, but I don't write a complete disagreement in the national press. It's a movie and no laws are being broken. If Mr. Forbes does not like what the Catholic Church has to say then he should be quiet or quit.

annie Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM EST

As a practicing Catholic, movie lover, and film school student, I find the debate very sad. JoeC and others are right, it is fiction! Most of the Christians I know don't get offended because they know that. No one's mentioned that in the end of The Golden Compass (the book), Lyra is determined that Dust is good, contrary to what the adults believe. So she sets of to stop Lord Asriel in his quest to destroy Dust and "kill" the Authority. And she is the heroine!

MAR Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:58 AM EST

First off - I was a raised a Catholic, so I say this as a Catholic. I would have no problem with my children reading something that would question faith. Because if they question it, and read things that contradict it, but at the end of the day still believe in whatever they believe - then they TRULY believe. As opposed to being forcefed and brainwashed a bunch of priest BS. That's what FAITH is.

I would want my children knowledgeable and understanding of ALL faiths, people, and ideas. I wouldn't want them to ONLY know one way of thinking. Because that is from where ignorance and hate comes. I would want them to understand the beauty of art - ALL art. Movies, books, paintings... everything.

And I'm sorry, but maybe the Catholic church should worry about more important things than movies and books that might make the children not believe. Because quite frankly, a book isn't what made me leave the church - it was the abusive behavior and actions of the people in power.

Nick Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:48 AM EST

No Lene, you have it wrong. If the bishops kidnap all the children in the world, oppress them, and separate these children from the children's animal-like daemons, then they would be acting like the Magisterium. Firing a person who misrepresents what Catholic teaching is is like firing a Pepsi publicist who publically endorses Coke.

Laurie Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:47 AM EST

Poinky - I got that mass email too and promptly deleted it. There is also a Facebook group about not seeing the movie. I haven't joined. Geesh.

Laurie Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:45 AM EST

As a Christian, instead of boycotting just about everything put out there today, I challenge those bishops to create their own books and movies! Do something proactive instead of just making people annoyed with the whining.

Craig Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:38 AM EST

You can't have one part of your organization saying one thing and the other part saying something else. Not when you're the church. It has nothing to do with how "christian" they are. They have a job to do. Go read the New Yorker for insigtful film criticism.

Lene Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:33 AM EST

If the bishops fire him, they will be acting just like The Magisterium.

Mike Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:23 AM EST

Calling for his firing is absurd. It's disheartening, because I've actually empathized with the Catholics somewhat on this - they have every right to be offended by a book series which very openly tries to subvert their faith. But of course the idiots have to go ruin everything. Here they seem to misunderstand what critics DO - judge the film based on its merits. How good a film is doesn't necessarily have to do with an agenda it may or may not be pushing. Example: I disagree with the play 'Night Mother - which basically supports its main character's desire to commit suicide - but I think it's a brilliant play. I really don't understand how some of these people can even call themselves Christians.

WTH Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM EST

Along the lines of what is this world coming to - Perky little Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant...and she is supposed to be the "role model" Spears...

Poinky Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:11 AM EST

In fact, I'm a lot more bothered by the fact that my kids run around constantly saying "boom-chicka-wow-wow" from the Alvin and Chipmunks movie previews. Just don't say it in front of great-grandma, please????

FSM Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM EST

Don't let your children READ!!! They might be encouraged to think for themselves! And whatever you do, don't admit you like movies with homoz!!!! You might git fired!!!! WTF IS HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY?

Poinky Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:06 AM EST

I was sent the mass e-mail warning me against letting my children see this movie due to it being anti-Christian. I decided to read the books myself and decide what I thought about it. I have just finished book #2 and heck, some of the stuff is over MY head. So even if my kids wanted to see this movie, I don't think I have to worry about them taking up an atheistic mantle from it.

Ceballos Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:43 AM EST

Not to jump on the "let's bash the Catholic church" bandwagon, but if they fire Forbes for expressing his opinion (and his alone) which displayed, as Gary pointed out, a willingness to step outside of what he believes in to review a movie in its own merit, well then they're behaving, just as bad, if not worse, in the real world as they fear they're being depicted in the movie. (Or NOT depicted in the sanitized movie version).

It'd be a shame if this guy lost his job because it sounds like they could use a few more like him.

Anyway, Popwatchers, enjoy the rest of the week. I'm off to NYC for a few days of vacation! Yay!

Ames Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:42 AM EST

it's like the Catholic church is bound and determined to turn off as many people as possible. Just barely recover from a scandal where the OK governor likened you to the cosa nostra? Well, why change? Gang up on someone whose job it is to view films and report what he actually saw (versus rhetoric from people who never saw the movie) for doing his job. It makes total sense.

Nick Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:41 AM EST

sje, you are a m-o-r-o-n. Upset? How dare you be upset over a contrarian view as to how b-o-n-e-h-e-a-d-e-d you are! I'm so glad we're not related (or if we are, that I have left your family)! ;) (All kidding aside, this sort of name-calling, which Pullman instigated, is precisely the issue here, not the doctrinal oppression--people are free to believe what they want--but don't associate yourself with an organization if you don't believe it).

sje Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:32 AM EST

Yet another reason I'm glad I left the Catholic church. It's utterly ridiculous to insist that a critic must share every single prejudicial, absurd viewpoint of his or her bosses. And it's sad that the Catholic church can't embrace discussion on topics they disagree with, or look beyond controversy to see the other messages. Watching a movie won't make kids atheists, but a tenacious hold on dogma at the expense of THOUGHT probably will.

donner Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:30 AM EST

the power of the church (any denomination, pick one) in this country is truly frightening...i have nothing against religion at all, but they need to take a pill and relax...seriously...

Nick Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:24 AM EST

The problem with Forbes is that Forbes speaks for only one person--Harry Forbes. And yet because of the post, it appears that the United States Bishops (and the teachings of the Catholic Church) are in complete agreement with his opinions. Which really can't be done, because doctrinal specificity does not mesh with stories that lend credibility to contrarian stances. The solution, best for Forbes, best for the US Bishops, is to fire Forbes and to dissolve the movie review board, and leave Forbes to be a free agent. That way, he is free to share his opinions without the weight of doctrinal exactitude. I, for one, respect his contrarian opinion on this film, even as I disagree with him.

Craig Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:19 AM EST

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but this guy represents the Catholic Bishops. That is his job. I can understand that they might want someone out in front of them that actually shared their convictions. It would be like a conservative candidate hiring a liberal press secretary, and that press secretary continuing to emphasize their own personal politcal stances. It would be foolish to allow someone to continue to misrepresent your organization.

GingerCat Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 09:12 AM EST

They didn't fire all those priests who abused children, but now some Catholic leaders want to fire this guy for having opinions? Sounds about right for Catholicism. And I say this as someone who was raised Catholic and considered herself one for many years.
As for the other questions, yes, I can empathize with characters that offend me and enjoy movies I disagree with--sometimes. It's called having an open mind. I think if you're going to watch or read creative works, you have to approach them with an open mind. Otherwise, what's the point?

JoeC Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:26 AM EST

As a Christian, I find the idea that Forbes would be fired disturbing, to say the least. He has a right to his opinion; his readers are free to disagree with him.
As for your question, Gary, I have said this before; it's a MOVIE! It's not real life; it's only entertainment. Certainly I watch movies that extoll viewpoints I don't share; so what? Again, only a movie.