- Apr 18, 2007
- 5,639
- 127
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Anyone seen the documentary Deliver Us From Evil?
http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php
What did you think?
I saw it when it was in theaters, and gut-wrenching and horrifying don't even begin to describe the film.
I brought this issue up here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5564901-is-celibacy-the-problem.html
There was a Catholic here on CF who did not care at all for my thoughts on the film, so the thread gets quite intense at times. It was pretty harrowing!
My responses are in black:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
It’s not a matter of evidence. I am not denying that certain priests committed horrible sins against the victims, against God, and against the Church. What I object to is the way the film depicts all of Catholicism, that every Catholic act as recorded in the film is associated with sexual perversity.
That impression of the documentary is based more on your anger, biases and imagination than reality. At the very least, it is not at all what I took from the film.
Please provide any evidence that Amy Berg is saying all of Catholicism and every Catholic is associated with perversity! She is saying no such thing, but you insist on claiming to be able read her innermost thoughts, motivations and intentions.
That is the issue that YOU refuse to deal with.
I have refused nothing. You approach this as if you have proven your issue to be fact rather than opinion. No such thing has even come close to being proven.
“Had writer-director Amy Berg confined herself to recording the evil machinations of former priest and pedophile Oliver O’Grady, she would have distanced herself from all criticism.
Again, why should she do this? Because the RCC is throwing a temper tantrum and making demands of her? She should censor her film because she is being intimidated with veiled, ominous threats of criticism?
Amy Berg has no obligation as a filmmaker to 'protect the church from a bad public image at all costs'. Her job was to report the facts of the case and she did that. She is a filmmaker, not a lackey apologist for the RCC.
Alas, she hasn’t been able to do so. That’s because her real target was never O’Grady—it’s been the Catholic Church all along.
Pure speculation and opinion. So now Bill Donahue also has the power to read minds, thoughts, intentions and motivations?
Now pay close attention as to how that underlined statement is given substance:
1) On October 4, when news of Congressman Mark Foley’s sexual follies were made public last fall, Berg took the occasion to mock the Catholic Church:
Please present any evidence that 'mocking' was the approach or intent Berg wanted to convey. Speculation and opinion. More street-level attempts at discrediting Berg. Fine for a school yard brawl, but hardly becoming of a church.
writing on the ‘Huffington Post,’ she ridiculed the idea that priestly sexual abuse was ‘old news,’ never once explaining why all the data show that the scandal was overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the 60s, 70s and early 80s.
Please show the evidence that this issue was mainly a 'phenomenon' of a past era or that it was an isolated incident.
I sincerely hope you are not contesting that these things are still not taking place in your clerical ranks, because the newspaper headlines state quite to the contrary!
Here is the next one:
On October 27, she concurred with Rosie O’Donnell on ‘The View’ that Pope Benedict XVI was responsible for overseeing the investigation of sexual abuse charges in the Catholic Church over ‘the last 20 years’; he allegedly did this while serving under Pope John Paul II. As a matter of fact, Cardinal Ratzinger (now the pope) was not appointed to deal with this problem until 2002—after the scandal hit the newspapers.
She was obviously confident of her information or she would not have included it in the film. Do you honestly think Amy would carelessly make allegations with potential legal ramifications in her documentary without covering her back? Furthermore, her production company would never have approved the film for release and national distibution without thier lawyers going through the finished work with a fine-toothed comb for accuracy.
Berg has no aganda????
No, I don't believe she does.
“Religion writer Charlotte Allen wrote of ‘Deliver Us From Evil’ that Berg ‘would have had a riveting film’ had she stuck to O’Grady and those who were party to his actions.
She did. Pure speculation and opinion to say she did not.
‘Instead,’ Allen said, she turned it into ‘a generalized anti-Catholic screed’ by allowing ‘mostly disaffected Catholic priests
So we are to believe these men are 'disaffected' just because he says so? Of course, anyone who speaks out openly and honestly against evils taking place in the church will be considered disaffected and with an agenda against the church. Does not make it so.
More intimidation tactics.
and victims’ lawyers’ to make free-wheeling charges against Catholicism.
Ah, so now we get to the nerve of the matter. I assume this is referring to the scene where the lawyer claims that he has encountered corruption, cover-up, etc. in the highest ranks of the RCC. It is pure speculation and opinion to claim that his charges are 'freewheeling' and not accurate.
This a man who has dealt with clients and cases that were intimate with the church heirarchy. Who would know better and what would he gain by lying?
Yet more intimidation and street-level tactics to discredit those who courageously speak out.
Again, are you that blind to my objections, and to the objections of Bill Donahue??
To be blind to something must first require that something be a reality. This has not been established. The objections are pure conjecture, nothing more.
Again, I repeat, it is the way the entire Church is depicted. It is a hatched job.
In your opinion.
No one is opposed to the truth being told, but charges agaisnt the entire church is unfounded and hateful.
Please show evidence that Berg is making these charges against the complete, total RCC, including the lay membership. Such a claim is pure fiction.
At best, she is saying that the prelates, heirarchy, leadership, administration and priesthood have some serious problems. She may also be making a case that the way the priesthood is set up causes more problems than not.
Anything else is wild speculation.
Nowhere did I say leadership should not be implicated, nor did I say that leadership is innocent. You completey missed the point, and you continue to miss the point.
No I have not and am not. Your point that she is implicating the entire church from the Pope right on down to the church janitor has not been proven and therfore I will disregard it as sleazy tactics to discredit Berg.
Not even the President of the United States can just show up at the Vatican and expect an instant audience with the Pope on demand.
Please provide evidence that the victims marched up to the gate and arrogantly 'demanded' to speak to the Pope and did not politely ask for an appointment either at the time or a later time.
It doesn’t work that way. The whole "victim denied access to the Church leadership" is a farce, because there is a certain CIVILIZED protocol.
Unbelieveable. These people have had thier lives and, in some cases, thier faith destroyed beyond repair and you are worried about protocol and ettiquette?! And then for good measure you call them 'uncivilized'??!
I had better move on before I say something I will regret.
Is your own mayor readily accessible to you on demand?
Please show evidence they 'demanded' anything. From the footage I saw, they calmly and politely approached the gate. They were turned away by the gaurds with no explanation and the option of meeting at a possible later time was taken away.
The show is phoney.
In your opinion. Pure speculation.
The Pope gets 30 death threats a month, and you think anybody with a complaint can just run in and see the Pope??
A......'complaint'? Oh wow. The destruction of hundreds of childrens' lives and the ripping away forever of thier innocence is a mere 'complaint' and not a crisis or immediate emergency.
Get a grip man. This is not someone going to the concession stand saying thier popcorn is cold.
Not everyone is that stupid that they can't see the phoniness in that film.
I will ignore the personal attacks this time and not report it. I stand by the film and do not believe it was 'phony' in any way, shape or form. If that makes me 'stupid' in your mind, that is entirely your problem, not mine.
If the pope didn’t know about it, why did he meet with the U.S. Cardinals over the matter???
If the pope knew about it and nothing was done at the time, that doesn't really help your case.
Obviously, the Church did a rotten job. She’s learned. Has yours?
Whats the name of your church so I can look up all the sicko ministers in it. Or are YOU covering up???
This is not about my church. Stop trying to derail the thread topic.
Regardless, all you have to do is place your mouse on my church icon and it will tell you. If you have any information on 'sicko' ministers preying on children who may be employed at this time, please let the General Conference know and they will take immediate action. We certainly will not transfer them to a different location.
Maybe you are, but that hate flick certainly isn’t.
That was entirely uncalled for. Your anger and hatred is beginning to show.
Most people forget or ignore the state laws that demand the victims and families be protected from unwanted public exposure, and many times the bishop was acting under orders from a judge,
Or under orders from the Vatican to protect positive church image at all costs.
but priests and bishops get tried and convicted by the all-mighty media, which is reputed for truthful journalism. Again, I am not denying that some bishops mishandled things, and if they have violated any laws, they should be punished the same as anyone else.
Yes they should be. But instead they are promoted to the office of Cardinal.
First your hate flick doesn’t have the facts right.
In your opinion. Pure speculation.
BTW, repeatedly calling it a 'hate flick' will not miraculously make it so.
Second, nobody is denying that horrible things happened.
Both the Monsignor and the Bishop denied any knowledge of these horrible things and lied in thier depositions.
Third, you won’t give the name of your church, if you have one, so that we can have proper context to a serious problem.
My church is not under discussion here. I don't have to 'give' anything. You are free to use your mouse and place it on my church icon and it will tell you. Please stop implying I am trying to 'cover up' anything. It's right there on my icon and in my user profile.
No church is immune.
Please point to anywhere in this thread where I have claimed my church is immune to these things.
Why drag up 5 year old scandals other than to discredit the Catholic Church? For what?? So you can claim a moral high ground?
Are you implying this stuff is still not going on? I hope not. There have been countless incidents in the media since the time of the O'Grady scandal.
Your attempts at demonizing me won't do much good, because nowhere have I ever claimed to have the moral high ground.
I have dragged out nothing. The documentary is public fodder and thus fair game for discussion here. If you don't like it, go find another thread that is to you preference.
How much do you feel celibacy contributes to the rate of pedophilia in the RCC clergy?
http://www.deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php
What did you think?
I saw it when it was in theaters, and gut-wrenching and horrifying don't even begin to describe the film.
I brought this issue up here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5564901-is-celibacy-the-problem.html
There was a Catholic here on CF who did not care at all for my thoughts on the film, so the thread gets quite intense at times. It was pretty harrowing!
My responses are in black:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
It’s not a matter of evidence. I am not denying that certain priests committed horrible sins against the victims, against God, and against the Church. What I object to is the way the film depicts all of Catholicism, that every Catholic act as recorded in the film is associated with sexual perversity.
That impression of the documentary is based more on your anger, biases and imagination than reality. At the very least, it is not at all what I took from the film.
Please provide any evidence that Amy Berg is saying all of Catholicism and every Catholic is associated with perversity! She is saying no such thing, but you insist on claiming to be able read her innermost thoughts, motivations and intentions.
That is the issue that YOU refuse to deal with.
I have refused nothing. You approach this as if you have proven your issue to be fact rather than opinion. No such thing has even come close to being proven.
“Had writer-director Amy Berg confined herself to recording the evil machinations of former priest and pedophile Oliver O’Grady, she would have distanced herself from all criticism.
Again, why should she do this? Because the RCC is throwing a temper tantrum and making demands of her? She should censor her film because she is being intimidated with veiled, ominous threats of criticism?
Amy Berg has no obligation as a filmmaker to 'protect the church from a bad public image at all costs'. Her job was to report the facts of the case and she did that. She is a filmmaker, not a lackey apologist for the RCC.
Alas, she hasn’t been able to do so. That’s because her real target was never O’Grady—it’s been the Catholic Church all along.
Pure speculation and opinion. So now Bill Donahue also has the power to read minds, thoughts, intentions and motivations?
Now pay close attention as to how that underlined statement is given substance:
1) On October 4, when news of Congressman Mark Foley’s sexual follies were made public last fall, Berg took the occasion to mock the Catholic Church:
Please present any evidence that 'mocking' was the approach or intent Berg wanted to convey. Speculation and opinion. More street-level attempts at discrediting Berg. Fine for a school yard brawl, but hardly becoming of a church.
writing on the ‘Huffington Post,’ she ridiculed the idea that priestly sexual abuse was ‘old news,’ never once explaining why all the data show that the scandal was overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the 60s, 70s and early 80s.
Please show the evidence that this issue was mainly a 'phenomenon' of a past era or that it was an isolated incident.
I sincerely hope you are not contesting that these things are still not taking place in your clerical ranks, because the newspaper headlines state quite to the contrary!
Here is the next one:
On October 27, she concurred with Rosie O’Donnell on ‘The View’ that Pope Benedict XVI was responsible for overseeing the investigation of sexual abuse charges in the Catholic Church over ‘the last 20 years’; he allegedly did this while serving under Pope John Paul II. As a matter of fact, Cardinal Ratzinger (now the pope) was not appointed to deal with this problem until 2002—after the scandal hit the newspapers.
She was obviously confident of her information or she would not have included it in the film. Do you honestly think Amy would carelessly make allegations with potential legal ramifications in her documentary without covering her back? Furthermore, her production company would never have approved the film for release and national distibution without thier lawyers going through the finished work with a fine-toothed comb for accuracy.
Berg has no aganda????
No, I don't believe she does.
“Religion writer Charlotte Allen wrote of ‘Deliver Us From Evil’ that Berg ‘would have had a riveting film’ had she stuck to O’Grady and those who were party to his actions.
She did. Pure speculation and opinion to say she did not.
‘Instead,’ Allen said, she turned it into ‘a generalized anti-Catholic screed’ by allowing ‘mostly disaffected Catholic priests
So we are to believe these men are 'disaffected' just because he says so? Of course, anyone who speaks out openly and honestly against evils taking place in the church will be considered disaffected and with an agenda against the church. Does not make it so.
More intimidation tactics.
and victims’ lawyers’ to make free-wheeling charges against Catholicism.
Ah, so now we get to the nerve of the matter. I assume this is referring to the scene where the lawyer claims that he has encountered corruption, cover-up, etc. in the highest ranks of the RCC. It is pure speculation and opinion to claim that his charges are 'freewheeling' and not accurate.
This a man who has dealt with clients and cases that were intimate with the church heirarchy. Who would know better and what would he gain by lying?
Yet more intimidation and street-level tactics to discredit those who courageously speak out.
Again, are you that blind to my objections, and to the objections of Bill Donahue??
To be blind to something must first require that something be a reality. This has not been established. The objections are pure conjecture, nothing more.
Again, I repeat, it is the way the entire Church is depicted. It is a hatched job.
In your opinion.
No one is opposed to the truth being told, but charges agaisnt the entire church is unfounded and hateful.
Please show evidence that Berg is making these charges against the complete, total RCC, including the lay membership. Such a claim is pure fiction.
At best, she is saying that the prelates, heirarchy, leadership, administration and priesthood have some serious problems. She may also be making a case that the way the priesthood is set up causes more problems than not.
Anything else is wild speculation.
Nowhere did I say leadership should not be implicated, nor did I say that leadership is innocent. You completey missed the point, and you continue to miss the point.
No I have not and am not. Your point that she is implicating the entire church from the Pope right on down to the church janitor has not been proven and therfore I will disregard it as sleazy tactics to discredit Berg.
Not even the President of the United States can just show up at the Vatican and expect an instant audience with the Pope on demand.
Please provide evidence that the victims marched up to the gate and arrogantly 'demanded' to speak to the Pope and did not politely ask for an appointment either at the time or a later time.
It doesn’t work that way. The whole "victim denied access to the Church leadership" is a farce, because there is a certain CIVILIZED protocol.
Unbelieveable. These people have had thier lives and, in some cases, thier faith destroyed beyond repair and you are worried about protocol and ettiquette?! And then for good measure you call them 'uncivilized'??!
I had better move on before I say something I will regret.
Is your own mayor readily accessible to you on demand?
Please show evidence they 'demanded' anything. From the footage I saw, they calmly and politely approached the gate. They were turned away by the gaurds with no explanation and the option of meeting at a possible later time was taken away.
The show is phoney.
In your opinion. Pure speculation.
The Pope gets 30 death threats a month, and you think anybody with a complaint can just run in and see the Pope??
A......'complaint'? Oh wow. The destruction of hundreds of childrens' lives and the ripping away forever of thier innocence is a mere 'complaint' and not a crisis or immediate emergency.
Get a grip man. This is not someone going to the concession stand saying thier popcorn is cold.
Not everyone is that stupid that they can't see the phoniness in that film.
I will ignore the personal attacks this time and not report it. I stand by the film and do not believe it was 'phony' in any way, shape or form. If that makes me 'stupid' in your mind, that is entirely your problem, not mine.
If the pope didn’t know about it, why did he meet with the U.S. Cardinals over the matter???
If the pope knew about it and nothing was done at the time, that doesn't really help your case.
Obviously, the Church did a rotten job. She’s learned. Has yours?
Whats the name of your church so I can look up all the sicko ministers in it. Or are YOU covering up???
This is not about my church. Stop trying to derail the thread topic.
Regardless, all you have to do is place your mouse on my church icon and it will tell you. If you have any information on 'sicko' ministers preying on children who may be employed at this time, please let the General Conference know and they will take immediate action. We certainly will not transfer them to a different location.
Maybe you are, but that hate flick certainly isn’t.
That was entirely uncalled for. Your anger and hatred is beginning to show.
Most people forget or ignore the state laws that demand the victims and families be protected from unwanted public exposure, and many times the bishop was acting under orders from a judge,
Or under orders from the Vatican to protect positive church image at all costs.
but priests and bishops get tried and convicted by the all-mighty media, which is reputed for truthful journalism. Again, I am not denying that some bishops mishandled things, and if they have violated any laws, they should be punished the same as anyone else.
Yes they should be. But instead they are promoted to the office of Cardinal.
First your hate flick doesn’t have the facts right.
In your opinion. Pure speculation.
BTW, repeatedly calling it a 'hate flick' will not miraculously make it so.
Second, nobody is denying that horrible things happened.
Both the Monsignor and the Bishop denied any knowledge of these horrible things and lied in thier depositions.
Third, you won’t give the name of your church, if you have one, so that we can have proper context to a serious problem.
My church is not under discussion here. I don't have to 'give' anything. You are free to use your mouse and place it on my church icon and it will tell you. Please stop implying I am trying to 'cover up' anything. It's right there on my icon and in my user profile.
No church is immune.
Please point to anywhere in this thread where I have claimed my church is immune to these things.
Why drag up 5 year old scandals other than to discredit the Catholic Church? For what?? So you can claim a moral high ground?
Are you implying this stuff is still not going on? I hope not. There have been countless incidents in the media since the time of the O'Grady scandal.
Your attempts at demonizing me won't do much good, because nowhere have I ever claimed to have the moral high ground.
I have dragged out nothing. The documentary is public fodder and thus fair game for discussion here. If you don't like it, go find another thread that is to you preference.
How much do you feel celibacy contributes to the rate of pedophilia in the RCC clergy?
