RSS Feed MenuI am not a big watcher of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” although I’ve seen a few episodes. Nonetheless, just before the controversy arose about Mr. David apparently accidently splashing a picture of Jesus Christ with urine, I happened to tune in. After viewing it and seeing the arguments of those who felt this is the same old Catholic bashing from Hollywood, I believe Mr. David is being unfairly maligned.
The indefatigable defender of the Faith, Bill Donohue has weighed in against Mr. David but just like a cat that, sitting on a hot stove, avoids cold stoves thereafter, Mr. Donohue’s ceaseless battles against the secular enemies of Catholicism may have made him insensitive to distinctions.
For those unfamiliar with the show, Mr. David plays himself as a self-centered, hyper-critical, secular liberal of Jewish descent but not belief. His friends and acquaintances are all Hollywood liberals. When he encounters people of faith they are invariably employees or people with far less wealth and prestige than Mr. David. The only exception are a series of “bad Jews” who normally make a mockery of their own faith. Overall Abraham Foxman more than Mr. Donohue should have a beef with Larry David. His character, when he can get away with it, treats traditional religious believers with contempt. He does the same with Republicans and conservatives. On the show this is not presented as making him a finer human being, but often as a nervous tick that cuts him off from normal society and makes him an awful person.
In the episode under attack he has an employee who wears inappropriate midriff exposing clothing to work. She compounds this offense by not having the body for the ensemble. Mr. David and his friend Jerry Seinfeld confront her about this. Eventually he must go to her and her mother’s home to fix the resulting bad feelings. During this visit, having taken a drug that causes him to urinate with particular force, Mr. David inadvertently splashes a picture of Jesus Christ in the bathroom. He does not tell his hosts and runs off. The Catholic mother and daughter take this as a “weeping Jesus” picture and prepare to take it on the road as a miracle to inspire and convert. Eventually the truth comes out.
Some of this was pretty funny. None of it was anti-Catholic. First, Catholics are not Orthodox. They do not venerate icons. (Venerate is different from worship; no Christian worships icons). In other words, this devotional picture, unlike an icon, is not a part of ceremony nor intrinsic to the practice of Catholicism. It was a print of a renaissance image that did not come into vogue till after Catholicism was 1500 years old. Second, the Catholic Church itself is highly skeptical of “weeping Jesus” pictures, statues, and the like. Popular Catholicism often has an affinity for such signs, but ever since the Reformation, when the relics of the True Cross outweighed, all the forests in France the Church is leery of such items until irrefutably tested and found not to be fraudulent. The Church itself, when presented with such an item, would have had the same level of skepticism as Mr. David.
The credulity of his employee and the failure of courage and honesty of Mr. David, as well as his shallowness are the true sources of comedy in this episode. The show does not ask the viewer to laugh at Catholics in particular but human weakness and folly in general (and in Mr. David most especially). The idea that Mr. David would not make fun of Moslems is also ridiculous. Are we to monitor television shows for references to each religion now? It is an assault on artistic freedom to insist on some sort of “parody equity” rule in entertainment.
In any event, the humor would have to be done differently. Moslems do not have a large or long standing presence in America. Moslems have no tradition of “weeping Mohammad’s” for obvious reasons. The person Mr. David plays also would be far more sensitive to Moslem feeling than Catholic sensibilities, just as secular liberals are. It would take away verisimilitude for Larry David to treat adherents of the two religions the same way because those in Mr. David’s class and outlook do not do so.
HBO and television in general is, as Mr. David’s critics note, far more likely to insult Catholics than adherents of almost any other religion. Only Southern Baptists and Mormons are in the running for this dubious honor. That is because those religions go against the grain of modern liberalism more than others do, and cannot retreat into victimhood when attacked. From a Christian perspective this should be a badge of honor rather than of complaint. If Roman Catholicism acclimates itself to whatever the ideology of the moment is as well as the main line Protestant churches have, it will cease to be relentlessly criticized by the media and entertainment industry. It will also have ceased to matter. Larry David did not bash Catholicism last Sunday, but to insist that he bash other religions before he gets to do so makes no sense at all.
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm
It’s one thing if Richard Pryor satirizes black culture. It’s quite another thing if David Duke does it.
If there is some glimmer of truth in that analogy, it is buried by the fact that while in American history there is no legacy of devout Christians being lynched by athiests or liberal Jews … there most certainly is a legacy of blacks being lynched by Duke’s KKK.
In fact, to the extent that there have been any killings of Christians on theological grounds in America (outside, say, Native Americans offing the particularly persistent missionary from time to time) those have largely been intramural – consider the New York-Newark riots of 1853-54, the Orange riots of 1870-71, the “little red school-house riot” in Boston in 1895, the particularly heinous Ursuline Convent Riots in Boston in 1834, the Philadephia riots of 1844. There are quite a few more, and we haven’t even considered the Klan’s reign of terror – and not just in the South – for example, Klansmen were burning crosses in front of Catholic homes in Colorado in the 1920s.
Atheists, obnoxious as they are, simply “discriminate” against Christians by using the law to keep from having Christianity shoved on them at all times. Perhaps there are some Atheist riots out there I’ve missed, but I’d be surprised.
MI-GOPer // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:40 pm
BlankHead blathers: “No – Catholics do not worship the saints depicted by the statues and paintings.”
First off, BlankHead, many Catholics do, indeed, worship relics of saints and the saints themselves with the hope that touching the holy relic or praying to the saint will cure them of their illness. It is not, as you incorrectly point out, “intercession” with God through the medium of a saint.
In fact, last summer we took a family vacation, in part, to San Giovanni Rotondo & watched thousands of people worship the remains of Padre Pio, drink the water from the spring well in the village and rub the land’s dirt on their skins for physical and spiritual healings. We learned, at a high point in his life, Padre Pio was denounced by the Church and forbidden to teach because he was a “noxious cancer, a Socrates”. The Church might not have tolerated Padre Pio through most of his life, but as he said to his flock –his real work comes after his death. The ordinary people we met were worshiping the priest’s remains.
Stand in line sometime with the pilgrims at Lourdes, or at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, or talk with the priests and bishops in line at the basillica at Ars, France. It’s a lot more than just veneration; it’s worship of the saint.
No need for an apology.
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:46 pm
MI-GOPer
Were I out to score cheap political points, I’d accuse you of anti-Catholic bigotry for ascribing to Catholics beliefs that the Church would declare heretical.
But I’m really just aware that this is simply ignorance, and a manifestation of your willingness to believe and argue vociferously for things that you are clueless about.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed “by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them” (374).
“Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’” (CCC 2114).
The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor.
MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:41 am
BlankHead declares, tongue deep, deep in cheek: “Were I out to score cheap political points,”
That couldn’t happen; it would break your normal practice here.
Then, contends, “But I’m really just aware that this is simply ignorance, and a manifestation of your willingness to believe and argue vociferously for things that you are clueless about.”
Nice try at the usual far Left double dust up: discredit your opponent & marginalize them. It a chapter straight out of “Saul Alinsky Tactics for Dummies”.
Nope, BlankHead, the real irony here is that as some trollish atheist, you’re trying to tell anyone of faith what their faith is about. Sorry to say, you lose. As do the Church elders who want to enforce theological authority but often fail. Catholics around the world still worship the saints, their holy relics, paintings and statutes and many do it right alongside the local bishop and parish priest.
Ignorance on the issues of faith is your province, BlankHead. It’s why you can’t see anything wrong with Larry David making fun of a well known miracle by splashing urine on an image of Christ.
Get back under the bridge, daylight is coming my trollish friend.
MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:43 am
Again, no need for an apology; your reputation for ignorance precedes you.
balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:54 am
Again, no need for an apology; your reputation for ignorance precedes you.
Once again, the correct response here would be “thank you for not accusing me of being anti-Catholic” for alleging that Catholics regularly engage in heretical beliefs.
Your ability to pervert other people’s theology seems to only be exceeded by your lack of class.
Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm
balcones, i haven’t been reading here for long, but i think it’s clear you have less class than a monthly meeting of the velvetta chefs at a trailer park in new jersey. you might want to brush up on those saul alinsky debate techniques before trying again to one-up someone who is your intellectual superior. just saying.
balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Just saying what?
I do enjoy how you all have to have a label for everything, rather than discussing issues on merits. You don’t see me accusing every crackpot idea you have of coming from William Krystol, do you?
That said, this is a very simple matter. The Catholic Church expressly considers worship of any physical object to be heresy. In addition, the Church considers worship of Saints to be heresy.
I am defending the dogma of the Catholic Church – MI-GOPer is basically saying that the teachings of the leaders of the Catholic Church are irrelevant, given his own personal opinions of what he’s seen Catholics doing.
And yet, somehow I’m the one here who is not properly respectful of religion?
MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I think you’re missing the point, again, sigh, BlankHead. It isn’t that you aren’t being respectful of religion, you’re just irrelevant. Atheists & liberals don’t get to lecture anyone on religion, let alone what the Catholic Church teaches or what the faithful find relevant.
I love this line: “balcones … (I) think it’s clear you have less class than a monthly meeting of the velvetta chefs at a trailer park in new jersey. (Y)ou might want to brush up on those saul alinsky debate techniques before trying again to one-up someone who is your intellectual superior”.
Brilliant. Witty. Dead on accurate.
balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I think you’re missing the point, again, sigh, BlankHead. It isn’t that you aren’t being respectful of religion, you’re just irrelevant.
Whatever.
Atheists & liberals don’t get to lecture anyone on religion, let alone what the Catholic Church teaches or what the faithful find relevant.
As for liberalism:
.Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.
CARITAS IN VERITATE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
As for lectures – I am simply citing Catholic teachings to you. If you have alternate Church sanctioned and approved teachings you would like to cite, I welcome them. But you do not have the right to tell Catholics how they believe – that is for the Church to say, and the Church has spoken quite clearly on the matter. You are accusing millions of Catholics of apostacy by your ignorance, and that is offensive.
Catholics certainly venerate statues and relics. They do not worship them. Period.