Update: Several days after I alerted MovieGuide regarding their distortion of Catholic theology, I received the following email:
Thanks so much for the help, and we might take you up on that offer to help us on Catholic theology movies. I’ve sent your name on to the editorial staff. We’ve made the changes suggested, please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.
Sure enough, the notion of sinless priests has been removed from the article. Having given MovieGuide their lumps for making the mistake in the first place, I’m happy to give them props for handling the correction in a courteous and classy manner.
Original post
Even savvy Catholics used to bizarre distortions of Catholic teaching by non-Catholics might be startled by the howler in a review of this weekend’s top movie, The Rite, at the Christian movie review site MovieGuide.org.
It should be noted that MovieGuide’s blunder seems not to reflect any kind of obvious anti-Catholic bias. On the contrary, to their credit MovieGuide typically treats Hollywood anti-Catholicism as anti-Christian, and positive images of Catholicism as pro-Christian.
You can see this in their review of The Rite, which their anonymous review credits with a “very strong Christian, moral worldview set in Roman Catholic world.” According to MovieGuide, The Rite “portrays a genuine Christian faith that ultimately is triumphant.” So MovieGuide appreciates the positive depiction of Catholicism in The Rite—and I appreciate that.
Even so, it’s pretty stunning to read the following:
Played out within the context of a Roman Catholic theology, elements of the story seems to be more Protestant, in contrast to a Catholic theology that believes an ordained priest cannot sin in his official position. Thus, the priest in this story is flawed, vulnerable and even falls prey to the enemy.
WHAT?!?
Catholic theology believes that “an ordained priest cannot sin in his official position”?! What does that even mean?
This goes way beyond the common Protestant confusion between impeccability, or sinlessness, and infallibility, or freedom from error, particularly as it applies to the Pope acting in his official capacity solemnly defining Catholic dogma. Catholics are used to answering that one: No, the pope is not impeccable—he sins just like everyone else, and goes to confession just like other Catholics (frequently, in fact).
But even after over a quarter century of involvement in Catholic–Protestant dialogue, I’ve never heard anyone raise the possibility that parish priests, or even bishops, might be thought to be infallible, let alone impeccable, whether acting “in their official position” or any other way. In the annals of non-Catholic confusion over Catholic teaching, this is a remarkable new addition.
That’s not MovieGuide’s only theological blunder. They also say that the movie depicts “a Christian … becoming demon possessed, which contradicts Christian and special Catholic doctrine.”
Not exactly. It is generally thought in Catholic belief that Christians in the state of grace are immune from full-blown demonic possession (though not necessarily from varying levels of demonic oppression). However, the idea that Christians are automatically immune from demonic possession is probably a corollary of the Protestant notion of “once saved, always saved” (which is not the historic Christian teaching).
Baptism does provide powerful protection from the devil; in fact, Catholic baptism includes prayers of exorcism. But the Church teaches the possibility of falling from grace, and while mortal sin by itself certainly doesn’t automatically make one vulnerable to demonic possession, other acts may, such as occult involvement. (In the case of the film character in question, perhaps ongoing involvement in direct spiritual warfare against demonic possession without sufficient protection from a strong faith could provide an opening for the devil.)
That’s small beer, though, compared to the notion of sinless priests. How does an error like that get published? Doesn’t MovieGuide have editors who know more about Catholic theology than that after all these years? Or at least a modicum of common sense, and the editorial standards to double-check such an extraordinary idea? Don’t they know any priests or Catholics they could call if they weren’t sure?
Hey MovieGuide, for future reference, if you have any Catholic teaching questions, feel free to run them past me. I’ll be happy to help if I can.
P.S. I’ve mentioned some of the pros and cons of MovieGuide before. Also, see my review of The Rite and my essay on The Rite in relation to earlier Hollywood exorcism movies.
Comments
Post a Comment
Oh my! I could understand their beef with the Church if THAT’s what they think about it!
Still, nice to be thought of as Christians, at least…
@DtMcCameron: Yes, I appreciate their irenicism, though the level of misunderstanding is pretty astounding.
Doh!
Thanks for this, Steven. It is pretty astounding…...I hope, in charity, that you communicated the error(s) to the folks at MovieGuide and that they, in charity, are open to hearing and learning the truth. Our family appreciates all you do!
Thanks Angela! Yes, I certainly sent MovieGuide a note letting them know about this (and including a link to this blog post).
I always wonder when I read stuff like this “how could someone not insane, vicious or stupid think that?”
I’m guessing in this case it was an outgrowth—maybe after a couple of rounds of Telephone—of the Church’s teaching that the priest becomes God’s instrument during the sacramental process, combined with the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. “So therefore, the priest must be sinless,” you can kinda see someone thinking.
Maybe.
Victor, you could be right, although that phrase “in their official position” makes me pretty sure that this is an even more garbled version of the papal infallibility/impeccability confusion, bizarrely extended to priests in general. I have had non-Catholics ask “Why do Catholics believe the pope is divine?” or “Do you really think the pope never sins?” (though I never heard this of priests in general). And since the pope’s infallibility covers his teaching only when he acts in his official position as head of the Church solemnly defining dogma, I think that’s got to be at the root of it, mixed as you say with priest acting in persona Christi in celebrating the sacraments. Although I wouldn’t rule out an Immaculate Conception connection too.
Wow! I was shocked to read that! They’re just plain making stuff up now.
Small beer huh? Never heard that phrase, it’s definitely going into my regular vocabulary now!
“Small beer” is one of my favorite turns of phrase. “They thought no small beer of themselves…” Thanks for keeping tradition alive.
I came over here from Jeffery Overstreet’s blog (which had quite a bit to say about MovieGuide’s reviews). In the interest of furthering the Protestant-Catholic dialogue, I’d like to make a distinction about the “once saved, always saved doctrine,” since not all Protestant demominations abhere to this belief. My particular denomination, Original Free Will Baptist (of the Armenian tradition), believes differently; to quote our Articles of Faith: “We believe that those who abide in Christ have the assurance of salvation. The Christian, however, retains his freedom of choice. Therefore, he should watch and pray since it is possible for him to turn away from God and be eternally lost, which is called making shipwreck of faith. (2 Chronicles 15:2; Ezekiel 33:18; John 15:6; 1 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Timothy 1:19; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 1:10; 2 Peter 2:20; Mark 13:13)”
@Michelle R. Wood: As a former Protestant steeped from my youth in C. S. Lewis, I’m certainly familiar with non-eternal-security strains of Protestantism, so your clarification is well taken. In fact, when a Protestant critic friend of mine wrote to me a few days ago to ask about historic Protestant ideas regarding demonic possession of Christians, I said I thought it would probably vary with differing Protestant attitudes on eternal security. By the Protestant notion of ‘once saved, always saved’” I don’t mean “the defining Reformation idea,” but “the idea found among [many] Protestants.” Thanks for your contribution.
I wonder if they’re confusing the doctrine of ex opere operato, the fact that the sacrament takes place regardless of the minister’s state of grace, and Donatism, the heresy that if the priest isn’t in a state of grace, then the sacrament is invalid.
I guess it’s just speculation unless they say.
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the article. I appreciate you’re always on top of it.
Thsi si your chance, (although you likely have already taken action,) to enlighten our Christian brothers. Who knows, you may be talking to the next Catholic convert.
God bless.
Mike
@Steven: No worries (as the Aussies say), I just thought I’d put it out there for any unaware of the distinction. Personally I looked forward to reading your reveiew of “The Rite,” since I wanted to hear a Catholic perspective on the subject matter. While I’m definitely of the low church Protestant strain, I had the fortunate opportunity of attending a high school with all manner of denominations represented, so that I made friendships across the “divide.” I’m still looking to one day attend an Eastern Orthodox service, though. :)
I mean no ill will towards MovieGuide - I think they try hard, and the reviewers’ hearts are in the right place - but I think I’ll stick with Steve for my movie reviews, especially after seeing the light treatment they gave to Sanctum.
It must have been that they thought the Sacraments presided over by a sinful and sinning priest is still valid. Surely they can’t think our priests are no longer capable of sinning, after ordination. If that were only so! Then they WOULD be like Jesus, and we could trust more of them.
Question regarding exorcism at Baptism - Adoloph Hitler was baptized and confirmed, and he was even an altar boy, if memory serves. What happened?
Was he in the ‘state of grace’ for the period of time he went through the Catholic car-wash of Sacraments, and then, did he get possessed, or oppressed? Or bottom line: did he have the Holy Spirit, and then, somehow lose Him?
If a Catholic priest COULD be possessed, not just oppressed or tempted, but full blown possessed, like in the movie, then what happened? Is it all up to US to remain in a state of grace? What is grace? What do we have to do to keep it? If we keep it, can we boast about it?
Or is it only OTHER people that can boast on our behalf, of our success? It is quite a feat, to never sin - or to sin, and to confess to a priest, lickety split, in time for death and Judgment Day and that Great White Throne.
How come so many non-Catholics ask us: “Are Catholics Christian?”
@ Cradle Catholic:You ask: “How come so many non-Catholics ask us: ‘Are Catholics Christian?’”
Funny, I’ve never been asked that by a non-Catholic. In my experience, most non-Catholics seem to have their minds made up already.
If there’s any confusion on the subject, I’d ascribe it to prejudice and ignorance. I won’t go so far as to say that all the ignorance is on one side or the other.
That IS funny because over Christmas, a local pastor even began his homily by saying this, “I have been asked one question by SO many non-Catholic Christians - ‘Are Catholics Christian?’”
And since then, I’ve asked many fellow Catholics if they’ve ever been asked that too, and each, to a person, has said they’ve been asked that for years. One said since high school, and another was asked in college. Each are now middle aged women.
The pastor has the opportunity to mingle with other denominations (and even Jewish and Muslim clerics) through his role as a Catholic faith rep in an InterFaith Community Group. Perhaps they all just associated with more non-Catholic Christians. I can’t say - but I think that they’d ask shows interest, and they just want to get a handle on what Catholics believe.
I’m middle aged too, and I’ve mingled with non-Catholic Christians my whole life, having been one till the age of 24. I’ve had Catholics ask me “Are we Christians?” and I’ve had non-Catholics share their views on whether or not we were Christians (often in the form “Are you Catholic or Christian?”), but I can’t say I’ve ever had a non-Catholic inquire about the relationship between the two terms.
“Not exactly. It is generally thought in Catholic belief that Christians in the state of grace are immune from full-blown demonic possession (though not necessarily from varying levels of demonic oppression).”
I thought I had read a discussion on this several years or so ago & it seemed to me that some had asserted that even someone in a state of grace could be possessed, though it was vary rare.
In any event, I saw a booklet(?) that I had read online before & checked it out to see if it might be an example of such a rare case. It appears to be. It is named “Begone Satan” & is on the EWTN website:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BEGONESA.htm
In this case it is alleged that the girl in question was indeed in a state of grace but was possessed by many devils, including Beelzebub, Judas Iscariat and her own father. They said that she had come be be possessed because her father had cursed her to the devils. ...
@ Jeff: That is a view that has been held by some. I consider it highly dubious; it makes zero theological and scriptural sense to me, nor do I see a basis for it in tradition or magisterial teaching.
Jeff- A human being can only have two spirits inside of him. Either a person is born of the Holy Spirit, or a person is “in the world” and, as Jesus told the Pharisees: “You are of your father, the devil.”
Possession is another story. Because someone is not “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, it does not mean they are possessed by a demon. It just means they are not in the light. They do not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit to guide them, and to help them discern right from wrong.
Anyone can be oppressed, or tempted. The world, the flesh (ourselves) and the devil or a demon CAN be the cause of it. But we merely read Ephesians Chapter 6, and put on the Armor of the Holy Spirit, if we are indeed “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, as His.
We can pray for those that are not living in the light, not yet “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, but rather, living in the world, and subject to being influenced by the world (still living in darkness).
One Bible promise to a “born-again” Child of God, that is sealed and protected by Him, is that we can RESIST the devil (or his demons) and he/they will flee. That is a promise.
Only an empty vessel - someone NOT sealed by the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit living inside of him - can be possessed by a demon or the devil. By the way, the devil is a created being. He cannot be in two places at the same time. The devil is not like God, Who is omnipresent.
If we all just read the Bible, we will be “transformed by the renewing of our minds.” Most of these problems come with incorrect thinking, beliefs.
We find TRUTH in the Word of God.
Steven D. Greydanus: “That is a view that has been held by some. I consider it highly dubious; it makes zero theological and scriptural sense to me, nor do I see a basis for it in tradition or magisterial teaching.”
—-
It’s not necessarily an idea I would have come up with on my own from reading the Scriptures, and even though you may not see a basis for it in magisterial teaching, it doesn’t appear to be *against* the faith either, given that the booklet was given an imprimatur in 1935:
IMPRIMATUR: Joseph F. Busch
Bishop of St. Cloud, Minnesota
July 23, 1935
—
Even if it isn’t a conclusion we’d come to on our own, if it isn’t against the teachings of the Church and we have a plausible concrete example of such an occurrence attested to by priests and others, I would be loathe to call them out as liars.
@ Jeff: An imprimatur is a fairly low bar. A lot of dubious opinion and arrant nonsense have been given imprimaturs. I’m not saying this is arrant nonsense, but dubious opinion, yeah, I’m pretty much saying that. On this subject my opinion converges with CC’s. As for the purported events, I’m not calling anyone a liar, although it must be admitted that pious falsehoods are not unheard of. Even if the reportage is pretty close up to the facts, there are other possibilities. The woman may have been deluded. Or despite her apparent virtue she may have been in mortal sin.
The Christian has nothing to fear from evil - even Satan had to get permission from God to oppress Job. These movies do nothing but magnify the powers of darkness and make God look like a wimp. They instill fear of and can do incredible psychological and spiritual damage to an impressionable mind - not to mention how much of what people do gets blamed on the devil when the Bible says “each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14) “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believe…” See how the gospel saves those who walk in darkness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSBLLuzqfBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyOBPvZSjtE
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.