Downton Abbey, a very popular series halfway through its third season on PBS, features a British family in possession of a huge and somewhat crumbling estate and the large staff employed to serve them.
The acting is excellent, the costumes stunning and the scenery most pleasing to the eye. The story lines are many, intricate and engaging. That said, a case could be made for watching the show solely for the few minutes in which Dame Maggie Smith appears in each episode.
Although some critics complain that Downton is just a sophisticated soap opera, not too many specify what they find “soap opera-ish” about it. It can’t just be that it focuses on complicated human relationships that suffer a lot of ups and downs. After all, most of the best literature ever written features such.
Some critics claim that it is excessively dramatic and that it is dominated (at least in the third season) by “explosive overtaxing emotion.” Others complain about implausible elements that are introduced to move the story lines along: elements like an heir to the estate engaged to a daughter of the present Lord Grantham, who reputedly drowned on the Titanic, but who survived, and then suffered amnesia and then became unrecognizable because of scars produced by the ordeal and returned to encounter a sister of the daughter engaged to him, a sister who truly loved him in the first place but didn’t know upon his return whether he was the real thing or an imposter who stole the heir’s story in order to steal the estate.
Yep, the implausible plot-advancing devices can be annoying although, admittedly, real life regularly features developments that could not be believed were they not real. My chief complaint is that the pace is often much too fast. I would like to savor some events more and watch some developments unfold more gradually. On the other hand, there is something wonderful about Downton Abbey’s efficiency, about it not needing to linger on a murder trial or a wedding.
I watch only two TV shows (fearing I will lose credibility, I won’t tell you what the other one is). Downton is only on for eight Sundays, so to get on my list that has only two slots is a huge achievement.
It is on my list because of the acting, costumes and scenery, but also because the story lines are engrossing and uplifting.
As good stories should, they exhibit important truths about human beings and life. They feature characters trying to live up to their highest duties and by their highest principles even at great inconvenience to themselves.
These individuals are truly good but still susceptible to bad judgment and sometimes even to immoral behavior. They exhibit genuine kindness and compassion. The characters undergo all sorts of interesting development, among them, maturing with the help of the older, wiser characters.
Unlike in the stories featured in most modern entertainment, nearly all the characters are in middle age and beyond, and they possess wisdom and share it with the younger set who profit by it. Watching dear Daisy, the kitchen assistant under the direction of the redoubtable Mrs. Patmore, struggle with all her interesting moral quandaries, is as fascinating as watching the aristocrats Mary, Edith and Sybil find their way. Julian Fellowes, the author, has succeeded marvelously in drawing out the humanity of all.
There are evil characters, too; those who seem to hate good people simply because they are good.
We get some indication that there are events in the past that can help explain their behavior — and that is always true for evil people — but we don’t get the sense that knowing these events would excuse evil action. Sin is definitely portrayed as sin and has harmful consequences. One of the most riveting scenes and events involved an implausible but arguably necessary death of a seducer, post coitus. He was left lying dead in the bed of Mary, who had repeatedly resisted his advances until they became irresistible. This event complicates her life and the life of others in a myriad of ways. What precedes and what follows the implausible event itself are so engrossing that the implausibility matters very little.
I used that scene as a teaching tool for seminarians and priests. We were discussing the moral culpability of agents. Mary is clearly a virgin and likely has not even kissed anyone. She puts on a show of being quite worldly but is not. A seductive gorgeous sheik appears on the scene and they flirt conspicuously. He corners her in a dark room and starts to kiss her; she notes that if she were to tell her father, he would be booted out in the cold. She tells him he must leave immediately in the morning. That night he appears in her room and attempts to seduce her. She rejects him several times but when he throws her on the bed and begins kissing her, she yields.
Teenage girls could learn a great deal from that scene since Mary’s loss of virginity is the story of many. Women sometimes naively try to protect men who have misused them and let them take advantage of them and then become overwhelmed by their masculine charm and proximity and likely curiosity. They did not seek to lose their virginity, they protested, and then they yield. What a marvelous scene!
Mary seems culpable: She knowingly and willingly yielded. But then, again, is she? She is a bit like the person who has her first taste of wine and likes it too much and continues to drink and before she knows it, she is drunk. She did not set out to get drunk, but one thing leads to another.
I can’t resist a show that is capable of provoking fascinating and instructive conversations.
Many of the other complexities of life are also wonderfully portrayed. Downton Abbey shows how very difficult it has been in many periods of history to find a good spouse. It shows how idleness is boring and makes one shallow and how taking up challenges, especially challenges that benefit others, enables people to “find themselves” and become rich and deep human beings. It shows the ups and downs of marriage while presenting marriage in a very positive light. It shows how difficult it is for those who have done well in their times to adjust to the changes that emerge in culture over time.
Religion, up to this point, hasn’t featured much in Downton Abbey. There was a remarkable scene In Season 2 where Mary, pretty much a cynical non-believer, prayed for the safety of a young man as he went off to war. The show subtly suggests that her prayers kept him safe. The idiosyncratic combination of Catholicism and communism professed by a passionate Irishman promises to develop into a fascinating set of conflicts.
I’m hooked. Downton Abbey is not perfect but it’s good, really good.
Janet E. Smith, Ph.D., holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.
Comments
Post a Comment
I agree. Well said. I,too, do not watch a lot of TV and there is certainly no current offerings that tempt me, except Downtown Abbey. I discovered it one Sunday night three seasons ago by accident and have been faithful to it ever since, for many of the reasons you cited. Refreshing in this climate of excess and vulgarity. Kudos to Julian Fellows and the whole cast and crew.
We stopped watching it shortly after we started - same episode, actually, when a homosexual kiss led me to believe, and I suspect rightly so, that DA was going to be a medium used to desensitize the public to the homosexual agenda. If Jesus had been sitting on the couch with us that evening, I would have been horrified that my Honored Guest was exposed to that. DA, not for me.
“Religion, up to this point, hasn’t featured much in Downton Abbey.”
It’s displayed quite prominently in the current season.
Ha Ha, I love to watch Merlin! Scenery is good, acting good, and each show basically gives a moral lesson. Even though it is in a somewhat fantastical story, it is not like any other TV show that dotes on sexuality. Precisely why I like it.
I’ve been hearing a lot about DA and I might just start watching it.
Thanks!
I agree, Downton is wonderful television, but hardly new (as anyone who has seen “Upstairs Downstairs” can verify). Whether it’s the Granthams or the Bellamys, Mr. Carter or Mr. Hudson, Mrs. Patmore or Mrs. Bridges, Anna or Rose, the homosexual Thomas or Alfred, and now the arrival of “new blood” in Lady Rose or Lady Georgina, it’s been done before.
I believe its appeal is also a testament to what else is on television; what networks call entertainment. If you get tired of the reality TV genre, the talent show genre, or the Law & Order/CSI/NCIS genre, there’s nothing left but to be a witness as to what goes on in the life of Snookie, Joan Rivers, or assorted housewives in various places.
No wonder we crave Downton.
JMJ I enjoy the British stage. One evening in the early eighties, I happened into a Dinner Theater at a Recreation Hall while TDY in England. I was impressed by the acting and the attire of those in attendance. Some years ago I started watching Downton Abbey and found it both enjoyable and educational. I know what you mean when you said; “I would like to savor some events more and watch some developments unfold more gradually.” I had felt it was demeaning for them to have Butlers, and Kitchen Staff, Maids, etc. But now I understand that those people take great pride in their work and an honor to work for their Employer. I liked it when they turned the Estate into a hospital during the war. Reminds me of the Corporal Works of Mercy. Viva Cristo Rey
Janet,
I started watching Downton Abbey and turned it off in the middle of the first episode. Generally, I love these kinds of dramas. I have a cupboard full of Masterpiece Theater reproductions. What made me turn it off was the two men kissing in the first episode. Others who continued watching tell me this story line did not continue long into the series. Still, it concerns me. Would not the actors be committing mortal sin on screen? This wasn’t just implied homosexuality, it was displayed for us with a gravely immoral act. How can we support that? Isn’t the director leading us to accept the Culture of Death? Most people probably think I over-reacted. What are your thoughts?
Well written and explored. If nothing else—it is worth watching for the settings and costume, and I find the lack of vulgar speech and excessive violence—very refreshing.
Watching a virgin get seduced is titillating, not the subject for a seminary class on morality, but if you have a class on immorality that might better fill the bill. I watched one show from this series from my Netflix streaming video account, but I emphatically loathed the scenes with the nobleman and the butler making out. Gack. Why are Catholics filling their minds with such garbage? Downton Abbey lacks the quality writing of great literature. The shows morals are too modern, and the way the characters live does not ring true to other portrayals of the era. I’m disappointed that this is being promoted in the National Catholic Register. The BBC has fascinated many with its series about the lives of the rich and their servants, but the other shows this one resembles did not sit so badly with me. Rather than watch this rot, it would be better to turn off your TV and pray.
I am also hooked. Another fact about Mary that I liked was that she never makes excuses for herself regarding the seduction. When she admits the truth to her mother, maid, father, current fiance, and Matthew she never denies being in the wrong and acknowledging that her actions have consequences. Her fiance and Matthew practically beg her to say it was love, forced, or some other excuse, but she does not deny or excuse any of it in that way. She even admits to Matthew it was lust.
Having watched the entire 3rd season, I disagree with some of this. The pace picks up in the latter episodes. And bad things happen. I do agree that the fallout from sin is represented well. But Thomas is a problem, and continues to be one. Miss O’Brien is bad to the bone. Just wait… Have your tissues ready for the rest of the season! I do love Downton. Best show on television.
Thank you, Dr. Smith, for your excellent review of DA, a series I also enjoy. Just one note of clarification: while Mary does claim to be “damaged goods” later in the series, I’m not entirely sure she lost her virginity the night with the Turkish diplomat. After all, he promised to “leave her intact for her wedding day”, or words to that effect, which completed the “seduction”. I supposed what happened afterwards could be interpreted variously, but I think the “damage” could also be attributed to the fact that they had been (very!) intimate, and were not married.
I also can’t help thinking of St. Ignatius of Loyola’s point in his “Rules for Discernment of Spirits” when he compares the enemy of our human nature to a false lover or seducer. The last thing the enemy wants is for the young woman to reveal his designs to her father or husband. If only Mary had manifested to someone in her house what the diplomat was attempting, it would have been over long before!
You must have written this several weeks before the Register decided to runi it, Janet. I’d love your follow up commentary on the additional Irish/Catholic issues that have arisen since then!
Good article.
You say religion has not come up. You must have missed last Sunday’s episode. Now that the youngest sister has died , because of complications with child birth, there is an a fight about what religion the baby will. Catholic or Anglican. The father, Branson the old chauffeur, says Catholic, which I agree but I don’t have a say haha, Lord Gratham says Anglican. We will see if there will be a Catholic in the family.
Actually, Downton Abbey is not on BBC. It is on ITV.
Way to go, Janet. Your analysis is both incisive and challenging. Now we’re at the episodes where one of the babies is to be baptized as a Catholic - poor Lord Grantham is in a tizzy! Great theatre! Miss you in Toronto. Lorraine
I would like to see it. But what channel is it on and what time?
Many Catholics may find this review of DA written by Dr Janet Smith not quite in keeping with Catholic teaching particularly as regards the sin of scandal and sin of explicit sexual scenes as entertainment viewing for the Sabbath. I for one find this review not only offensive but also strangely hypocritical as it appears in the EWTN newspaper, THE NCRegister. While Downton Abbey is all the things she said in terms of supurb casting, excellent acting, beautiful costumery, slick dialogue,etc. while she mentions nothing regarding the titilating and explicit footage given over to sinful behavior (eg. the graphically homosexual scenes in first season)and the unflattering references to the Catholic faith in the current episodes.
I wonder at the wisdom and reasoning of using this series as instructive for seminary students to say nothing of the scandal of having given approval to this series with mostly adult themes in a family Catholic newspaper. Can you imagine the founder of EWTN endorsing in such glowing tones this series? I have seen Dr Smith on EWTN many times and liked what she had to say especially when she has championed the cause of ProLife. I find it hard to believe it is the same woman writing here. I
wonder if the Bishop in Detroit has approved using this series in his
seminary to teach about the moral culpability of moral agents? Does he
even know?
My Heavens’—some hard nosed critics here. I won’t watch regular TV becasue of violence and language (cop shows ad nauseum)—DA does not come close to American trash tv. It did not dwell on the Homosexual issue, and the character has been condemned for it by the other servants. I do no think some of these commentators would be merciful to a sinner trying to repent. Their delicate moral fiber has been deeply wounded—so DON"T WATCH!! And don’t sit in judgment of those who enjoy DA. Far more upsetting than this series is abortion, religious persecution and violent crimes in our country. It is so generous that the critics here are spending 45 minutes praying for those victims—at least that is the impression they seem to give—that they are saintly and DA viewers are not.
It’s television. Just because its not as bad as much of what is on…most of what is on. Doesn’t mean it’s profitable for teaching. It just means its not as vile. It’s like saying small sins are oK. Personally, I’m baffled by this article. What was the point? To throw out some DA fluff piece? I see nothing worthy of the three minutes I spent.
I think that the apparently homosexual servant does not conform to the saccharine or chic portrayal that network TV holds aloft. This character is cunning and vicious and his sexuality depraved and egocentric.
Anyone getting tired of the hackneyed, old patriach and his moribond butler who can’t get with the times till the gals usher them into the modern ways? Just wish it weren’t soooooo predictable.
Patt…you, along with others here, seem to try to defend the indefensible. For those who say that the homosexual theme is not
dwelled upon are simply denial. This adult theme made up almost half of
two hour viewing. To say your comments were made before last night ( Feb 10th) and therefore you cannot have known? Hogwash…anyone can see with
half a brain where this is headed: to soften the harsh views of those
with any sense of what constitutes sexual morality as tantamunt to bigoty. Granted it is cleverly done by the writer. Carson, who most
vehmently protests Thomas’continued presence at the abby, is shown as
being a stiff and unbending prude who is “behind the times”. He is
pressured by the more “compassionate” members of the household to change
his moribund views on homosexual behavior for the more compassionate view that Thomas simply cannot help it. As if homosexuals have lost their will
somehow and are robotically committing mortal sin without any possibility of culpability.Is this what the Catholic church teaches? NO!
Surely it is the intention of the writer to “softly” pressure his audience to make the same moral accomodation. Suddenly, Thomas goes from
one of the most reviled in the cast, to one whom we owe our sympathy for he cannot “help” himself. He turns from being perpetrator to victim. Isn’t this just what we are doing today in our current society? Or being encouraged to do? I am wondering now that everything is more out in the open, if perhaps Dr Smith will have to revise her opinions about DA being great tv? About being suitable material for a seminary class on moral culpability? And what about the rest of us who consider viewing adult men and women committing sinful acts acceptable moral behaviour
for passing the Sabbath evening? Do we stand convicted? Or can we rationalize our behaviour like much of those commenting here seem capable of doing, including the reviewer. It makes one wonder about why we are
subscribing to NCRegister? Is what we are getting here to be relied upon as truely Catholic? I would like to see Dr Smith, somewhere in the near future, how she can justify what she has written in light of truly Catholic thinking.
any other weekday presentation as Catholic fare?
There are some interesting thoughts in the comments regarding what makes appropriate teaching tools in the classroom. Taking the theoretical and making it practical is always hard, especially when it comes to complex theological ideas. I, too, use examples from the entertainment industry in my Scripture classes for this very reason - they give a common starting point for a conversation to illustrate a point. They also show that even secular entertainment can be put to use for thinking about the faith, which is something that we often forget. Using secular entertainment helps teachers to meet people where they are - both where they are in what they are watching for entertainment, and where they are in what they are living out in our fallen would, just like the struggling Downtown characters.
Three points. First, DA is doing a very poor job of showing homosexuality in a positive light. Thomas is one of the most despicable characters on TV.
Second, consider the books I was not allowed to read as a child because my parents felt they promoted a alternative lifestyle: The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The men had long hair and did not wear shoes. They also wore robes instead of pants. This made them hippies and therefore dangerous.
Third, Julian Fellowes is himself a devout Catholic. You can read more about that here.
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19523
All of these people condemning Downton Abbey as trash because of Thomas’ storyline—nay, because of a single scene in an early episode—clearly don’t realise that the show does not glamorize Thomas’ behavior or hold him up as a heroic figure. Based on some of these commenters’ delicate sensibilities, I suppose they would condemn Fantine in Les Misérables for being a prostitute; indeed, if they had watched further, they would likely have had exactly the same holier-than-thou attitude toward poor Ethel in Season Three.
I find Thomas’ story to be the most realistic portrayal of the reality of men suffering with same-sex attraction—particularly during an era when even Christians were lacking in empathy and charity toward such people, though it looks like not much has changed in a hundred years.
Thomas is such a tragic figure; you don’t like him because of his conniving, smug, selfish ways, and yet, especially with recent developments in Season Three, my heart breaks for him and his suffering (with more realistic consequences for his actions, just like Mary).
Perhaps it is because I am a young, practicing Catholic man carrying this cross that I empathise with Thomas. In any case, I am very disappointed in so many of these commenters’ attitudes. There is a far cry between portraying a sad reality of our broken world and presenting that reality as hip, morally ambiguous, or glamorous, but it would seem that many of these oh-so-pious readers lack the spiritual maturity to discern that difference.
What viewers like and don’t like about Downton Abbey is probably that it is too real! And good triumphs over evil.
As a lifelong addict of history it is truly a Masterpiece! But then I have always been a fan of Masterpiece Theatre, including being a charter member of WGBH Educational Foundation, the first and still the best of its genre. It won’t be easy to top the production Downtown Abbey.
I am not a TV watcher. My wife started watching DA while I wrote my homilies for the week. Then I wrote earlier and took up interest in the show. From a pastoral standpoint, Ethel’s situation makes an interesting point as to why many protitutes enter that life style - survival. Yes we should ask women to choose life but when they cannot get the assistance they need to support that favorable decision, sometimes things fall short, and they cohabitate, most often to their own detriment and the detriment of their children. Perhaps we ought to take a mroe concise look, as a human race, on reconciliation, and Mrs Crawley has become a vehicle of her times for it. As for Thomas, I don’t think any behavior is a “can’t help it” unless it is Psychotic or seriously Neurotic. ON the other hand, Thomas may have a redeeming quality to be later described. As in real life, life is a balancing act and the characters in DA certainly reflect it rather than the fairy tale garbage that makes most TV not worth watching. British TV, even their sit-coms, is so much more realistic for that reason. It does not insult one’s intelligence.
This is why I don’t subscribe to NCR. This is (allegedly) a Catholic website. You need to promote Catholicism.
DA does not advocate Catholicism. Thumbs down to Janet Smith (and S. Greydanus) as Catholic media bloggers.
As a side note;
Is EWTN becoming dependent upon government rather than God? A recent show ‘Catholicism on Campus’ advocated for the government’s redistribution of wealth. This is not charity. Charity is a choice. Thanks be to God for giving us free will.
Pray for the seminaries at the campus where this poor show was taped. Pray for Catholicism!
To anyone who is concerned about the homosexual kiss in the first episode: I too was taken aback, but was told by others that the relationship does not come back (so far it hasn’t).
In fact, Thomas, the gay character is anything but glorified. He is portrayed as a struggling soul who carries a lot of pain and anger. I think this is a contrast of typical American tv drama that glorfies sin over and over and doesn’t show any true struggles or conseqeunces. As Dr. Smith pointed out with Mary, she struggles very much because of her sin. With the case with Thomas, he continually struggles and seems like he is looking for fullfillment (but in the wrong places—homosexuality, money, power, etc.)
I encourage anyone to continue watching if that scene discouraged them. I think it shows TRUE human struggle and drama without the glorifacation of sin. Very teachable and very entertaining.
Ed, I think your comments are very wise and true. I agree that some of these readers lack spiritual maturity to handle real situations of real human struggles. I think DA shows this beautifully with strong character development and storylines. I love your Les Mis analogy. Perfect.
I’m sorry you find yourself struggling, be assured of my prayers for you today.
I think the bottom line is that it’s a soap opera.A very well produced, beautifully costumed soap opera.People enjoy waiting for the next episode to unfold just as they did back in Dicken’s time when newspapers printed weekly installments of novels.
I’m sorry that some of the raunchier scenes were included, otherwise I think it’s very well done.
I hope Dr. Smith wrote this prior to the third season because I too loved Downton Abbey until then. The past two Sunday’s I’ve sat in horror as the intentions of the writer is revealed. Downton Abbey is set during a time of social upheaval in England which could be compared to our own. The upper class and the lower class both questioning their position in society is analogous to us questioning what position our religious beliefs should play in society. The problem is position can and obviously have changed but religious beliefs are part of being a Christian. We can have compassion and tolerance up to a certain point, but changing laws to accommodate gay ‘marriage’ isn’t one of them. Homosexuality is a sensitive issue which Christians have shown much compassion for but also call for those with same sex attraction to recognize chastity is their call. Actually, chastity is God’s plan for us all. Even in married life, there are times to be chaste and sometimes due to illness it could be a long time. The very idea of describing an individual in purely sexual terms is anti God. We are children of God called to live a life for Him and others. Focusing on one aspect of someone is belittling to the whole person. Homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex is sin and has consequences. Each act carries with it a complication that God calls us to avoid because he loves us. Downton Abbey is trying to show the change in classes of the early 20th century with change in moral attitudes also.
Compassion is necessary at all times but God’s Truth doesn’t change.
For those defending Downton Abbey:
First, pointing out that an action may be wrong is not the same as judging the state of the souls of people who have engaged in it. Personally, I appreciate it when others lovingly point out my short comings or mistakes. No one here has claimed to be holier than anyone else.
Second, for me at least, whether Thomas is portrayed in a positive or negative light (and there seems to be some disagreement on that) is a side issue. I am concerned with the fact of the passionate kiss between two men. It desensitizes us to homosexuality right at a time when we are fighting gay “marriage.” I also think that the act itself was a mortal sin. {Not just an implied mortal sin, but an actual on-camera one.) So it seems to me that if we are to brush it aside, we are saying that mortal sin is appropriate fair for entertainment. In an earlier generation, such a scene would never have been tolerated by Catholics. Are we so starved for good entertainment that anything better than the usual fare on TV, no matter how immoral in itself, is now okay? Nobody has to watch TV. We were made for union with God. I do not think watching mortal sin on TV helps us achieve that goal.
Adults use drama and art to process our lives and morality. If we refuse to watch depictions of evil, we are reduced to cooking shows and elevator music. We would throw out Shakespeare because Romeo and Juliet kill themselves and Macbeth shows witches. I am a newcomer to Downton Abbey, and have not seen the first two seasons. It seems to me that this season is a study in the Christian themes of kindness and mercy and conversion. We see opportunities for choice in treatment of sinners, and we see the ripple effects of sin. We have seen sinners brought back by the unrelenting support of others, and by the disastrous consequences of being found out. We see schemers and stone throwers get their due. At least formal hospitality is shown to “outsiders” which eventually melts into relationship. These are fine lessons taught in a lovely production, with actresses in incredible dresses!
The fly in this ointment is that there are unmistakable anachronisms regarding causes of homosexual attractions and women’s superiority. The writers’ bias and 21st century sensibility shout pretty loudly across the screen, which I recognize and dismiss for what they are.
Downton Abbey has some actors speaking anti-Catholic lines, but also has the example of a Catholic man standing firm in his Catholic faith. Yes, there is a character who is homosexual who acts on his impulses as do many of the lusty heterosexual characters, but they pay a price for their immorality and are forgiven. The good name of Downton Abby seems to come first just as we have seen in some organizations and in the church in some unfortunate instances. Lighten up—it’s a TV show that presents a balanced view of life in England in that time-frame.
@Bette: the homosexual character is portrayed as the most evil character on the show. It does not desensitize the public at all. I wish they hadn’t shown that, but I’m honstly surprised that any show today dares to portray the homosexual character as being so bad.
As always I shake my head at the supposed christians among us, who are more than ready to throw the first stone. As to the poor commentator who wonders what would happen if her savior was sitting on the couch alongside them when the “Homosexual scene” came on.. Well don’t you think “HE” would already know about the content before you saw it? And was waiting to see your reaction to one of G-d’s creations? You do realize of course, that those “people” are actors and not necessarily even “homosexual”.
Since the beginning time G-d, has known who we are as it says in the bible. Why would it surprise Jesus, that there are homosexuals? Would it surprise him more that bible was used to support slavery or that many christians omit the Book of Sirach. And its admonishments about the dangers of gluttony, accumulation wealth and how to comport yourself with family, society and G-d.
Sometimes the holier than thou crowd should take a little time to wonder why G-d, only gave them divine wisdom. Maybe just maybe, the voice you follow so assiduously is the Prince of Darkness, as opposed to the Lord of Light.
A simple opinion of the author has caused a turmoil. Thank you saintly-holier- than- thou- more- catholic- than -the- pope commentators.
Do Americans think that the BBC provides all television shown in the UK? I ask this because of two reasons. Firstly, this article states (as I have already commented) that the BBC produces Downton Abbey when in fact it is a production of ITV. Secondly, I came across another article today which is written by an American and which refers to a programme being shown on ‘BBC Channel 4’. So, for the benefit of Americans who might think that in the UK the BBC has a monopoly on providing television can I say that as far as terrestrial television channels are concerned we have BBC 1, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 and a considerable number of Freeview channels which mainly show films and programmes which have already been shown on other channels. ITV is a commercial organisation which is fully paid for by advertising. Adverts are also shown on Channel 4 and Channel 5. The Freeview channels also show adverts. ITV 2, ITV 3 and ITV 4 show mainly repeat programmes. The BBC lost its television monopoly in the 1950s when commercial television started.
@Bette: I’m afraid that I posted my previous comment before watching the second part of the most recent episode (actually, still haven’t watched it—-just heard about it) which has an extremely historically inaccurate portrayal of Thomas being accepted into Downton despite his homosexuality. Nevertheless, I still think that it does not soften our acceptance of homosexuality into the culture, since doubtless he will still be a moral cesspool. Read about it here: http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2013/02/todays-top-stories-february-11-2013.html
Disappointed that Dr. Smith likes this show so much—did she watch Season 3, or the 1st episode for that matter of fact. With Dr. Smiths logic, we can justify watching almost anything—just so we can use it as a “teaching tool”. What do you think of “The Notebook”? A lot of teaching points in that one.
Dr. Smith,
I used to admire you so much, but now I am appalled to see that you think Downton Abbey is “really good” and that"the story lines are engrossing and uplifting”?!?!?. I have some advice for you: Stick to theology, and keep your day job. As someone with a degree in literature, and having watched Masterpiece Theatre for 30 years, I can say that this is by far one of the worst-written shows ever. My husband and I howl with laughter at many of the lines which are supposed to be serious. The plot lines are implausible and written from an inappropriate 21st century perspective. It is a soap opera of the lowest quality, and the only reason to tune in is to see the scenery and costumes.
Dr Smith—it is obvious that your readers are going to continue to judge you. I have no idea what they were expecting you to be. Mother Theresa? It seems you are not allowed to relax and enjoy entertainment fluff—no, you must view only movies on saints and educational subjects. You are not allowed to be merely human.
I wonder if these folks are what is known as TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS? I find them at times VERY judgmental on everything. I hope it never comes up that you might not have your head covered at Mass…
Dr. Smith - I am surprised at all those scandalized at your review. I find the show a visual delight. Yes the characters face some moral dilemmas. Yes there’s a story line concerning homosexuality - but it’s hardly being celebrated. And guess what? I’m clever enough to see when someone is trying to feed me a point of view or agenda. What kind of expectations should we have of entertainment? I actually have very few and this is the first TV show I’ve watched in years since its much better than much else. The funny thing is, I know how to process what I see on TV and still stand firm in my faith. I have a lot of practice. I live in this world.
Psalm 133:1
” Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity.”
Kristine—thank you for making the point—how to process what we view. If it isn’t a MORTAL SIN—proceed.
I was revolted at the sight of two men slobbering down each others’ throats and immediately swore off the show, which up to that point was rather interesting. The homosexual agenda of de-sensitizing and normalizing the masses to perverse behavior is leading us straight down the path of the Roman Empire. 2 to 3 percent of the populace is succeeding in persuading everyone they are 20+ percent, and sadly, they soon will be because people like my nieces and nephews are buying into the bogus civil rights argument and resigning to their low self-esteem by joining the ranks of the oppressed, rather than competing for the affection of the opposite gender. Were it not for recruitment, the percentage would remain at 2-3%, but since girl scouts ( and probably soon the BSA) accept and normalize such behavior, we will likely see Sodom and Gomorrah rebuilt in the next generation. Just as our Holy One True Faith is still reeling from the homosexual infiltration of seminaries (and meekly finding its footing, let alone its authoritative voice), the secularists are winning the day and shouting us down as hypocrites.
I pray more fervently each day, and hope you do too!
Also mesmerized. But I think you also have to give credit to the beautiful manners and customs, the social formalities that we have lost. It’s like a cool drink of water on a blazing hot day. I mean, I can’t go to target with seeing underwear straps, panty lines, bulges pushing out between t-shirts and tight pants, hearing the f-word in a conversation that should be behind closed doors and is instead is screamed in the cereal aisle on a cell phone for all to hear. But no one seems to be bothered. It’s a crazy world. But we can watch Downton, where people actually use dressing gowns and change clothes for meals. They are beautiful and their manners are beautiful, even “downstairs”. Love it.
I think the “Bambi meets Godzilla” death of Matthew was most disappointing. He lost his importance once he sired the heir to Downton. I know the actor wanted to leave the show, but Fellowes could have made his death more interesting. Murder, perhaps? Or some kind of political riot?
.
You should also remember that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland were and are involved in civil war.
.
If you don’t like homosexuals, too bad—the show is being accurate that all such behaviors have existed. It’s admirable that Thomas is still accepted in the household and they protected him from arrest. Catholics should have such compassion.
You mistake my concern. I certainly like many homosexuals. I have no problems with anyone’s private life and their right to be who and how they are. What concerns me is the rampant “normalization” and shameless public displays targeting the vulnerable youth of our society. I dislike it just as I disliked seeing Jimmy Smit’s exposed backside on NYPD Blue years ago. I dislike the cheapening of the evil by Law and Order’s Sick & Twisted Unit episodes and even the the inference from shows like CSI(wherever) and Criminal Minds, that the crimes they portray and the perverse mindset such acts require are not only not rare, but are commonplace. I dislike hearing the “victims” describe the “crimes from the TV in the other room when my children are in earshot, and (and act upon such incidences as quickly as possible). Coarsening our society as the ancient Romans did theirs does not bode well for our “advanced civilization”. Not at all.
It is easy to love a sinner and despise their sin. It is no more noble to endorse it than it is to condemn it. I don’t go around espousing anti-gay rhetoric, but I do go around telling people to turn off their TV’s if the content of the program is something I believe harmful to our youth. I’m not all that old, but I long for the days when subtlety ruled the screen, and a closing door or fade to black was “‘nuff said!” Ratings did more harm than good. Before we rated movies, there were lines we didn’t cross because they did not need crossed to advance the plot. “In Cold Blood” was a far better movie than any of the “SAW’ series, and James Bond flicks reached the brink, but didn’t devolve into as much nudity as that NYPDBlue episode. The gay affair of Downton could have been MUCH more tastefully handled as could 90% of what passes for drama these days.
Hey there, fellow Catholics. If you don’t ever look at the sinner you can’t forgive the sin. It’s a drama. It was never meant to be used for the new evangelization, but rather as an entertainment. That said, Jesus did not get up and run away from the sinners. He came to save them and he seemed to know a good deal about the sins they committed and also their rationalizations for committing them. How can you have compassion and live in a bubble?
Dr. Smith and many happy viewers of DA don’t seem aware of the distinction that must be made between viewing “acting” and “doing.” Showing violence on the screen is not intrisically immoral because the actors are not really hurting each other, they are only pretending to. Bombs are not really blowing up people and guns are not really shooting people. But it’s different when sexuallity is displayed: People really are nude, passionately kissing, petting, etc. It is immoral to do these things outside of marriage and certainly not publicly and it’s immoral to pay the actors do to these things by watching. So the sex scenes shown on DA are wrong, plain and simple. I have the same cricitism of the Les Miserables movie. It’s not wrong to say bad things happen but you don’t have to show it. It’s not wrong to say Fantine was a prostitute but it’s wrong to show the prosititutes doing what they do. We know what they do so the only reason to show it is to titillate. Sex sells. So sex scenes are intrisically immoral even if they the message of the movie or show is good.
MM
If a program is recorded—one can FAST FORWARD through such scenes. Oh yes—some people leave the room.
Or one can not watch at all.
MM - Now THAT’s what I’m talkin’ about! I can leave the room, but if its on at a home where my child is visiting, or if my brothers and sisters insist on watching the 1st ten episodes when visiting on a holiday, I’m left herding children out or simply walking out in disgust and praying harder. Certainly I object to my tax dollars supporting such displays.
Any kind of TV or video watching REQUIRES supervision. Many of the “made for children” videos have vulgar (sometimes called “bathroom humor” references) in them.
Hollywood thrives on the vulgar—its in almost every movie made these days.You must, absolutely must—be a supervisor of what comes into your home and how yo will handle it.
Even the news can be frightening to children.
I rarely turn on the TV anymore—except for maybe the weather, thats about the only thing you do not get biased reporting on.
To the person who asked what channel Downton Abbey is on ... I don’t have a TV hookup/no cable. I watch Downton Abbey online at pbs.org. The site is wonderful .. and this season they’re even better about posting the current episode timely. I used to have to wait until Monday, the day after to watch but this Season 3 .. I can watch it on Sunday, just a few hours after the 9pm ET time has past.
Why is it that on Downton Abbey there is the homosexual coverup by Lord Grantham at the crickett match? When police come to investigate the complaint of homosexuality against Thomas, Lord Grantham covers up and coerces Carson and the young butler to keep quiet. He then awards Thomas’s love interest, James/Jimmy) with a higher position in order also to keep him quiet.
Meanwhile for 10 years the secular press, Hollywood, and EVERYONE have blasted the Catholic Church for doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Of course, no one agrees with priests abusing children, however some of the victims were the same age as James in Downton Abbey.
The press wailed when Bishops covered up (Lord Grantham), when others were coresed into silence (Carson and the young butler) and others awarded higher positions for their silence (Jimmy).
Note that in Downton Abbey, it was mentioned that prison would be a terrible place for poor homosexual Thomas to go to…so we were all supposed to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile the courts couldn’t throw Catholic priests, innocent or not, into prison fast enough.
Looks as if the old double standard is at play here.
Susan M: Interesting analogy but there is no double standard because Grantham and his friends are not Catholic and so do not teach homosexuality is a sin. Meanwhile bishops and priest do and so there is hypocrisy. No one likes a hypocrite. Although a homosexual may not act on his desire, which is not a sin, placing him and keeping him within the priesthood creates a problem of temptation which should be acknowledged and dealt with. Something our Church leaders have poorly done, probably because there is a ‘gay mafia’.
Lori,
You miss the point. Downton Abbey is a secular show produced by a secular company. It is the secular press that crucifies the Catholic Church.
The secular press wailed about the Catholic Church’s homosexual coverups and silence yet THEY produce a show with a homosexual cover up and silencing!
I hear no wailing and threats to ruin the secular press by taking them to court. They should be wailing about themselves, crying about their show with the homosexual coverup, and volunteering to put themselves in prison and shut down their press offices.
If they don’t do that they are hypocrites.
I don’t see why anyone is watching TV anymore in the USA… anyone who is a Christian that is. Nor do I understand the necessity (?) of Dr. Smith commenting on a TV series - moreover one like DA. Why? What was gained by this review? Are her seminarians ennobled?
“Whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely gracious, if there is anything excellent anything worth of praise ... think on these things.” God through St. Paul in the letter to the Philippians.
One other thought. Might one become coarsened to sexual immorality if one is constantly working one’s way through this sorry mess? Might this happen to those in ministry? Even those teaching in a seminary? Certainly. It is not uncommon. How wonderfully The Lord Jesus handles this problem with the story of the woman caught in adultery. The great spiritual teachers beginning with St Paul tell us - all of us - to FLEE lust. Our culture wants to dally over the titilating. This not good idea in my humble opinion.
Sex is good. God made it good. Follow the directions….
My roommates and I accidentally skipped a couple episodes in Season 1. So we had no idea about Lady Mary’s scandal until it was referenced by Cora. You would think that our viewing experience would have been hampered by such an oversight…but it wasn’t! The integrity of the storyline held just fine without any on-screen depictions of adultery. True, real stories should deal with human nature, moral depravity included. This does not mean, however, the DA needed to portray Lady Mary’s objectively evil action on-screen. Had I watched that episode with my children, I would have just fast forwarded or turned the TV off. The bedroom scene was unnecessary. Arguing that it is harmless is ridiculous. Period.
Yes, gravely immoral acts are portrayed all the time on television. But there is something quite Catholic about being particularly thin-skinned with regards to the sixth and ninth commandment. We must guard our eyes, but is it too much to ask Hollywood to help us out with that endeavor? Perhaps Dr. Smith thinks so, but I refuse to accept that defeat.
Susan M, I understand and appreciate your thoughts here, but the scandals that the news is obsessed with were real and Downton Abbey is fictional. I don’t think the comparison is very strong here, although I know what you’re trying to say.
Lea S,
I understand the difference between reality and fiction.
But what you’re saying is that we can write anything we want and it’s OK even if hypocritical because it’s fiction! If we have criticized a certain institution in real life but write the exact same thing in a story line it’s OK - and not hypocritical - because it’s fiction, not reality!
One may be fiction and the other reality, but the immorality is the same whether in a book, on TV or in real life.
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.