I 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.
35 responses so far
1 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:42 am
Leave him alone? Indeed I’m happy to encourage him. Next stunt: he finds himself in an Appalachian outhouse and the pages of the Sears catalog are long since fully depleted and he has with him only a copy of the Koran….
2 solar // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hey, that was an unexpectedly great post. Learned without pretense, concise. What a treat while drinking my coffee.
Btw, you missed a golden chance there – rather than say ‘parody equity,’ say the once-in-a-lifetime phrase “parody parity.” It popped into my head and would fit like a glove.
I”m going to RSS this site.
3 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
Next stunt: he finds himself in an Appalachian outhouse and the pages of the Sears catalog are long since fully depleted and he has with him only a copy of the Koran….
Forgive the nit picking, but I’d imagine that the chances of finding a copy of the Koran in an Appalachian outhouse are on par with the chances of finding a Hassidic Jew in the Taliban.
4 MI-GOPer // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:02 am
John, you remind me of my Jesuit teachers who had the same propensity toward moral relativism and intellectual laziness you promote here… we used to say that the Jesuits would pad the kneelers for Satan if it’d get him into Church on Sunday –a meaningless act of “comfort” and accomodation for something that would likely never happen. Giving Larry David a pass for bigotry is obscene.
I’m sorry to write that you are flat-out wrong and while you can give Larry David a pass for his religious bigotry and anti-Catholic or anti-Christian bashing, but I don’t think God will or we should.
Liberals love to bash God; it’s a sport for those moral incompetents.
Probably the #1 far Left, liberal, Hollywood value is bashing God and religious faith at every turn possible. Larry David is a posterboi for Hollywood values and typical of the shock-jock Jewish entertainers (see also Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, Al Franken (ugh) , Bill Maher (double ugh) and even Kathy Griffin who deceptively claims, in the best Liberal traditions, to be an Irish Catholic) who have made a bundle off of anti-Catholic bashing and religious bigotry. You, in a way, empower them with your casual acquiescence to their bigotry made public for a laugh. Shame on you.
Larry David deserves to be called out for his patently offensive bigotry and HBO needs to be labeled for as the Home4BigotryOutlet. That’s what they’ve become; that’s what they are.
You are, of course, entitled to express even an uninformed opinion here but I’d recommend you stick to things you know –like conservative politics and policies. Leave religion to the better informed.
A year ago a group of far Left Democrat “activists” in West Hollywood, the epicenter of Hollywood values, thought it’d be cute to hang by a noose an effigy of Sarah Palin. The display was disgusting, divisive, immoral and symbolic of the culture of corruption on the Left –it was also a precursor of the the typical tone of harshly partisan rhetoric and conduct of Obama & his cronies and one that has given us a Nixonian Enemies List, a bunker siege mentality at the WH and more wars on more groups while the Prez dithers on the real war.
Back then, few mass media pundits or far Left leaders saw anything wrong with that display and berated those who took issue with the obscenity. In fact, Bill Maher said that “It was just good clean fun and conservatives need to get a thicker skin”. I can easily imagine you excusing away their conduct as glibly as you do Larry David’s here.
But you’d still be wrong and still be holding an uninformed, woefully inadequate opinion. And you’ll still merit shame.
5 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:04 am
Liberals love to bash God; it’s a sport for those moral incompetents.
Showing you have as much an understanding of liberal theology as you have about most opinions to the left of Rush Limbaugh.
Liberals often do love to bash dogmatic religion. That is not the same as bashing God. Let us know if you can ever understand this, and we can dialogue further.
6 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:08 am
balconesfault, I leave the mechanics of the stunt to the writers. Perhaps the actor would take the sacred tome with him because Newsweek had disappeared and he needed some reading matter.
7 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:20 am
balconesfault, I leave the mechanics of the stunt to the writers.
No reason to do that – write your own screenplay!
8 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:24 am
balconesfault, nobody would like my screenplay. I just suffest a scenario which, if screened, would amuse me. Especially the aftermath.
9 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:24 am
well, I meant “suggest”. Bad typing is one reason my screenplays wouldn’t play.
10 Kevin B // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:38 am
This is what Youtube is for. Grab (or borrow) a video camera, and head off to Appalachia (or the hills near Los Angeles, if that’s more convenient) to scout locations. If you’re lucky, your comic masterpiece will go viral.
11 Reason60 // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:46 am
Like solar, I enjoyed the post- very well written and argued.
My reasons for not being offended by the episode, or any other “Christian bashing” by Hollywood are twofold-
One, comedians make fun of their own culture more than any other; Richard Pryor and Crhis Rock ridicule black culture more than white culture; America is predominantly Christian, and so its natural that we satire the dominant culture. I suppose a writer could make a terrific sitcom episode laughing at the oddities of the Wahabbi sect of Islam, but who would get the joke? The Simpsons devoted an entire episode to Apu’s Hindu wedding, complete with transgressive and mocking references to Hindu gods and practices- but I wonder how many Americans even understood who the blue elephant in the scene was, much less why it was funny/ sacrilegous.
Second, one of the many reasons I (and a good number of Americans) scorned the liberals in the 1970’s was its constant drumbeat of self-pity and victimhood. The Right seems to be making that same mistake, always wailing about their victim status, bleating on and on about how hard they have it, how terribly put upon they are.
When the brave stoic John Galts of the world trudge around whining and sniveling about how pathetic they are, the rest of us are inclined to agree.
12 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Actually, Kevin B, I won’t try the youtube thing because I can’t afford the 24/7 security necessary to keep my head attached to my body after posting. Larry David possibly could, so I leave my suggestion with him.
13 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:34 pm
By the way, I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I want in any way to hinder Mr. David’s comedic endeavors. I would rather see him further expand his artistic reach. Let’s face it, the satirizing of Christianity has gone on at least since the days of Voltaire and there is very little room for anything original in it. And, anyway what’s fun about picking on people who are exhorted to turn the other cheek? Indeed they often turn the other set of cheeks as well (see Jimmy Carter ca. 1979).
Like Sam Goldwyn, I’m tired of the old clichés, I want some new clichés. A Koran episode on Curb Your Enthusiasm would be a welcome and fresh start in religious satire.
14 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Let’s face it, the satirizing of Christianity has gone on at least since the days of Voltaire and there is very little room for anything original in it.
Oh please! Had someone just a couple years ago done a parody where the VP nominee of a major political party underwent religious rites from an African preacher to protect him/her from ‘every form of witchcraft’ we’d have all agreed this was over-the-top silliness, on par with some of some of the most extreme episodes of South Park or The Family Guy.
And 100 years ago the commercial success of the Left Behind book series would have seemed preposterous.
The many and diverse permutations and perversions of Christianity will continue to provide ample fodder for artists and satirists for a long time, no doubt. The peculiar melting pot of religion and capitalism that often rewards theological innovation over traditionalism virtually ensures it.
15 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Figured out how to get my old ID back after the site swap.
balconesfault, recent religious excesses are probably less weird than in the past (people used to burn witches, now they invoke defensive protection from them). By the way, be careful of dissing Africans. Cultural sensitivity, you know. We the melanin-challenged should not be passing judgment on the practices of those whom we may be visiting.
The Left Behind series certainly would not have seemed preposterous back when the year 1000 AD approached and the Millenialists got wound up. Those days made the left behind fans look like Unitarians.
16 Kevin B // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm
The witch hunts reported from Africa recently are not so benign as you make them seem. This Kenyan witch hunter is not the kind of person I want to see a possible presidential candidate “pallin’ around with”.
17 Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm
dear ms fault, i don’t think anyone was talking about liberal theology. they were talking about how liberals and people generally in the democrat party are anti-god and anti-religion and especially against people of faith whom they belittle and brow beat until they recant and become darwinians.
you might think mi-gop doesn’t know about liberal theology, but then, it has nothing to do with this post or his/her comment as i read it.
maybe you should put down that sizable ax you’ve been grinding and start reading what people write here instead of what you need to have had them write so you can grind down that axe a whole lot more.
just a suggestion which you likely won’t take seeing how you’ve responded to others’ in the past.
18 Churl // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Kevin B, so what is the story of Palin and the witch hunter?
19 Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 3:00 pm
i did watch the show and Larry David is bashing Christians and Catholics. you’d have to be a insensitive moron to see it otherwise. and as for the author’s claim that Catholics don’t worship icons, evidently he hasn’t been inside a pre-vatican 2 church in a while because there are statutes and paintings that are indeed near-worshiplike adoration complete with special biers to carry them around the outside of the church on easter and special saints’ days and what about holy relics, john? jeepers.
20 Kevin B // Nov 2, 2009 at 4:56 pm
You can google Sarah Palin witchcraft to see her connection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Google Pastor Thomas Muthee, to find out more about him.
I actually think this is a non-story. I don’t think Palin supports the killing of accused witches in Kenya any more than President Obama supports the actions of the Weather Underground. It’s just a juicy story to get the blood boiling.
21 MI-GOPer // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Wow, a year old story goes viral with the democrat trolls!
KevinB writes: “It’s just a juicy story to get the blood boiling.”
I’m guessing that rbottoms, the troll who inflames and incites for the simple pleasure of disrupting honest debate, is the new General of Trolling Keyboarders here? The transparency in the base motives of you guys is amazing. No wonder the Left and Democrats are losing issues and elections faster than a lie can usher forth from Obama’s lips.
22 MI-GOPer // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Independent, I also watched the show by force –I’m not a fan of Larry David’s show but others are in our home and Sunday is their night to control the remote. I thought it was pretty typical liberal bashing of religion and, by a far Left liberal Jew, of Christianity in particular. Nothing new –except for the all the apologists who think its acceptable. Of course, the liberal trolls who post here are almost exclusively atheists.
23 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Independent: as for the author’s claim that Catholics don’t worship icons, evidently he hasn’t been inside a pre-vatican 2 church in a while because there are statutes and paintings that are indeed near-worshiplike adoration
No – Catholics do not worship the saints depicted by the statues and paintings.
Well, caveat – there is an adoration of the Virgin Mary that comes close to worship.
But otherwise, those saints are seen as intercessors with Christ – certainly one can come to one in supplication, for those intercessory qualities, but not in worship. It would be sacriligeous to worship a mere mortal, even if that mortal were a Saint.
24 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Reason60:
Those who write these bitter attacks (they’re not just “satires”) on Christian culture aren’t usually Christians themselves. They are very often atheists, who are contemptuous of all religion as “superstition.” You won’t find a lot of devout Christians among TV writers.
It’s one thing if Richard Pryor satirizes black culture. It’s quite another thing if David Duke does it.
25 Conservatives Curb Their Enthusiasm « Around The Sphere // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:44 pm
[...] #3: John Vecchione at The Website Formerly Known as New Majority, FrumForum Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
26 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.
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:43 am
Again, no need for an apology; your reputation for ignorance precedes you.
31 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.
32 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.
33 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?
34 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.
35 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.
You must log in to post a comment.