Reading Time: 510 minutes

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
FROM THE TWENTIETH INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Hollywood Not Entirely Anti-Roman Catholic by the Late 1990s

In the previous chapter we saw that by the end of the 1980s Hollywood had not only cast off all remaining vestiges of Roman Catholic censorship, but had become decidedly anti-Roman Catholic in a great many of the movies that were produced. Nevertheless, it would not be accurate to say that Hollywood had completely rid itself of Roman Catholic influence.

According to a priest of Rome who spent most of his priestly life in Hollywood, by late 1998 the entertainment industry was not anti- Roman Catholic. Priest Bud Kieser, a former TV personality, movie producer, author, and founder of a Roman Catholic entertainment award, said of Hollywood: “They like us. They don’t like our position on birth control. They don’t like our position on abortion. They don’t like our position on women priests. But generally they like us. They like us for sticking with the poor, and honestly serving the poor. A major number of studios in Los Angeles have given very significant money to Cardinal [Roger] Mahony [of Los Angeles], for his inner-city scholarship fund. Significant money.” ⁵³⁴

What he said about studios giving money to Rome was true. Rupert Murdoch, the influential media mogul and a Roman Catholic, in 2000 donated $10 million towards the construction of a new Roman Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles. Murdoch had wide holdings in the movie, TV and publishing industries, including Fox Television, 20th Century Fox Films, the London Times and New York Post, Harper Collins and Zondervan publishing houses. And even though his movie and TV productions were immoral, Romish cardinal Roger Mahony readily accepted his donation, and in January 1998 made Murdoch and his wife members of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great. This knighthood is bestowed on behalf of the pope of Rome, and is supposed to be given to persons of “unblemished character” who have “promoted the interest of society, the [Roman Catholic] Church and the Holy See.” ⁵³⁵ Evidently, then, Murdoch and his wife had done just that.

What had begun to happen by this stage (the late 1990s) was that things were again changing. Roman Catholicism had dominated Holly wood during its “Golden Age”; then liberals and Marxists had risen to a position of dominance for some decades, so that by the end of the 1980s Rome’s power over Hollywood had been severely curtailed. But by the late 1990s an extraordinary thing was occurring: liberal/leftist Hollywood and Roman Catholicism, although certainly not actually merging, were beginning to find common ground in certain spheres. And this extended into the decade of the 2000s.

Yes: in Hollywood as virtually everywhere else, the Roman Catholic institution and the liberal/leftists, and even Marxists, were finding they had things in common. As priest Kieser said, the latter found much to admire in the former’s social programmes, even while rejecting its doctrines and its stances on particular issues. And this was in line with the Jesuit/Papist strategy ever since the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The entire Roman Catholic institution swung heavily to the left from then onwards, even promoting its own brand of Communism known as liberation theology, and pushing a pro poor agenda that was very appealing to liberals and Reds, regardless of what they thought of Rome’s position on other things. Common ground was found in leftist “social justice” causes, and this began to show itself even in Hollywood. Not completely, it is true; but plainly the earlier animosity was nowhere near as great.

And in a very short space of time, leftist-dominated Hollywood began to take a different approach to making movies of a religious nature. Let us examine this change.

“Spirituality” Makes a Comeback in Hollywood

According to Hollywood insiders Jack and Pat Shea, by 2001 a renewed interest in “spirituality” was sweeping through Hollywood. ⁵³⁶

The Sheas, a Roman Catholic writer/director couple, said that recent movies and TV programmes marked a return to the discussion of spiritual themes. “People are definitely more interested in spirituality these days,” said Jack Shea, who was president of the Directors Guild of America. According to his wife Pat, the head of Catholics in Media Association, this was shown by the success of such TV series as The West Wing and Touched by an Angel. She said, “We [Hollywood] got so secularised and were so afraid of saying anything about religion. Now, it’s all right to say you’re religious.”

So: first there was Roman Catholic censorship; then, in reaction to that and also in line with the times, there was the period of virulently anti-religious movies issuing from Hollywood, even specifically anti-Roman Catholic; and then, once that anti-religious reaction had begun to run out of steam and also as society entered a phase (again in reaction to the anti-religious phase) of embracing all kinds of New Age teachings, Roman Catholic mysticism, and other strange new religious experiences, Hollywood woke up to the fact that “there’s gold in them thar hills”- the hills of religion.

For a few years the Sheas had been meeting with Romish arch bishop, John Foley, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, as well as other Papist officials, in talks with entertainment representatives. Jack Shea said that producers and writers were becoming increasingly interested in the Roman Catholic “Church’s” attitude towards media, and were becoming increasingly aware that the “Church” of Rome was not “into condemnation” of the media.

Note what was happening in Hollywood: yes, “spirituality” was again gaining ground, but what was this? Roman Catholic mystic spirituality, and (although it was not stated by the Sheas) other forms of religious spirituality as well, notably of an eastern nature. But why was this? Hollywood was not suddenly being converted to Romanism. This was not a return to the Hollywood which was under the iron heel of the Papist-controlled PCA and the Romish Legion of Decency. But Hollywood producers and others had again become aware of the money-making value of producing films and TV series that catered to religious people. Not truly Christian people, but religious people. This did not by any means show a Damascus-road-like conversion occurring in Hollywood! As always, it was about money. This was even admitted by Pat Shea in the interview, when she said: “We also have to remind the Church that we [Hollywood] are a commercial entity, that it’s a business. It’s walking that fine line between the entertainment aspect of what we do and the responsibility of our influence on our audience.”

The Sheas pointed out the huge influence of the Roman Catholic “Church” on the arts through the centuries. Jack Shea said the “Church” should “continue to be involved in movies and television and all entertainment, because that’s how you reach people. That’s the language of the people now.” And Pat Shea said the “presence of Church people [in the industry] brings to mind our tremendous influence in our society – not only American society, but our products are shown all over the world.”

Indeed so. And so the tension continued between the desires of the immensely powerful “Church” of Rome, and the desires of liberal/ leftist Hollywood. For decades, Rome was dominant; then the liberals/ leftists/Reds rose to dominance. Rome changed tactics with the times, but never lost its desire to rule over the dream factories of Hollywood. It continued to exert a strong, behind-the-scenes influence, and always hoped and worked for more.

Let us examine what transpired in the first decade or so of the twenty- first century, for even though this reveals the ongoing tug-of-war between Roman Catholicism and liberal/leftism in Hollywood, it also reveals a rapprochement between the two, a finding of some common ground where they could co-operate, incredible as this was. And this common ground was so often found in the most unlikely of places.

The Harry Potter Phenomenon

Beginning with the first film adaptation of the Harry Potter series of books in 2001, each book was turned into a blockbuster movie. Countless volumes were written about this series, and it is not the present author’s intention to go into detail on the occultic nature of these books and films aimed at children, as this would go beyond the purpose of the present book. That they aggressively promoted witchcraft and other aspects of the occult has been thoroughly documented by many researchers. There can be absolutely no doubt of the great spiritual danger the stories pose to children. They provide young minds and hearts with an indoctrination into witchcraft, and their influence has been incalculable. ⁵³⁷

As has been shown in this book, over the decades Hollywood went from being an industry heavily under Roman Catholic influence to being an industry in which Roman Catholicism was frequently attacked and ridiculed (albeit Roman Catholic/Jesuit influence was still present), and at the same time the true Christian faith was attacked and ridiculed as well. It is not at all surprising, then, given the radical leftist/liberal and Communistic influence in Hollywood, that the Harry Potter books were viewed as an astoundingly useful tool, once made into movies, for promoting their agenda and corrupting the minds and hearts of children.

But even so, despite the overt witchcraft and paganism of the Harry Potter movies, institutions and individuals claiming to be “Christian” had fallen so far by then, had departed so far from biblical truth, that the Potter stories were actually praised by such neo-Evangelical magazines as World and Christianity Today, and by individual neo- Evangelicals and outright heretics such as Charles Colson, ⁵³⁸ Rick Warren, ⁵³⁹ etc. The Anglican “Church” (which is no more deserving of the name than Romanism) even published a guide advising people how to use Harry Potter to spread the “Christian” message! A former archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, described the story as “great fun” and a serious examination of good and evil. ⁵⁴⁰

The films were also praised by Romish leaders. Rome has always been adept at turning even the most unlikely things to its advantage. In the not-so-distant past it would have strongly condemned films such as Harry Potter outright; but now it was taking a different approach. Aware that huge numbers of Roman Catholics would flock to see the films anyway, Romish priests sought to find something – anything – “good” in the films, latched onto these, and then spun a bizarre yam about how even these dark, occultic, witchcraft-saturated films could be used to somehow do good! Unbelievable? One would think so. But here is the proof:

Michael Bernier, a Romish priest in Westfield, Massachusetts, USA, described himself as a “Pottermaniac”, and in 2007 he said that “Christians” (i.e. Papists) should not fear this devotion to a boy wizard. “On the surface level it does sound suspect and does raise red flags,” he said. But he stated that the magic in the stories was not sorcery, and went on to say, astoundingly: “There’s a great deal of Christian imagery and symbolism in the books. And I think it answers, at least in parts, a longing that we have for Christ”. ⁵⁴¹ What utter blindness! To see “Christian imagery and symbolism” in books about a wizard! And as for answering any longing people have for Christ, one can say with certainty that J.K. Rowling, the books’ author, was expressing no such longing whatsoever when she wrote them. But this has ever been Rome’s way: to take what people already accept and believe, and then “baptize” it, putting the best Popish spin on it that they can. This is what Rome did with the pagan holidays of ancient times, with the sacred sites of ancient paganism, with the pagan temples, with pagan gods and demigods, and with so much else. ⁵⁴²

Bernier added that he hoped readers would embrace the “goodness” of the books and the enjoyment of reading: “They’re wonderfully written books that appeal to kids and adults. They’re easy to read and they’re entertaining.”

Before he became pope of Rome, when he was still a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger (who became Benedict XVI) was the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the old Inquisition); and as such, he responded to a book written about the dangers of the Harry Potter stories by sending a note to the author, thanking her for her book and saying that if the accusations were true then they would be of grave concern. Priest Bernier claimed that as a result of this, many people wrongly believed that Benedict XVI “came out against the Harry Potter books.” He said, “Pope Benedict has not said anything actually about the Harry Potter books themselves. I don’t kn ow if he’s even read them.”

Whatever Ratzinger’s views of the stories, it was plain that by 2009 and the release of the next film in the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the Vatican was full of praise for it. It said the film made the age-old debate over good versus evil crystal clear. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said that this film was the best adaptation of the books to date. Although it criticised author Rowling for leaving out any explicit “reference to the transcendent” in her stories, it said the latest instalment nevertheless made it clear that good should overcome evil “and that sometimes this requires costs and sacrifice”. ⁵⁴³ So the Vatican was willing to overlook the occultic nature of the films in order to dredge up some nebulous moral about the overcoming of evil by good.

In 2011, when the final film instalment in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, was released, the review in L ’Osservatore Romano stated that although it might be too scary for young viewers, it championed the values of friendship and sacrifice! “As for the content,” one reviewer wrote in the paper, “evil is never presented as fascinating or attractive in the saga, but the values of friendship and of sacrifice are highlighted. In a unique and long story of formation, through painful passages of dealing with death and loss, the hero and his companions mature from the lightheartedness of infancy to the complex reality of adulthood.” ⁵⁴⁴

How far the Roman Catholic institution had come! – from once upon a time, via the Breen Office and the Legion of Decency, condemning anything remotely un-Papist and demanding changes, to now actually looking for and praising vague references to such things as friendship and sacrifice in an occultic movie! But this of course was perfectly in line with the changed Jesuit tactics which we have noted in this book. Putting a finger in the wind and noting the way the world was going, including the Roman Catholic world, the Jesuits did what they have always done: they loosened the rigid moral standards of previous times so as to retain a hold on the people.

The reviewer continued, writing that young people who had grown with Potter and his friends “certainly have understood that magic is only a narrative pretext useful in the battle against an unrealistic search for immortality.” Considering that even many adults would have to read that sentence twice to understand what the reviewer was saying, it is utterly ridiculous to believe that children viewed the Potter stories in this light! Millions of them were absorbed into the magic of the series, believed in the power of magic and sorcery as a result, and had a deep indoctrination into witchcraft and the occult.

Another reviewer in the same edition of the Vatican newspaper stated that the Potter saga championed values that “Christians” (i.e. Papists) and others share, and provided opportunities for “Christian” parents to talk to their children about how those values are presented in a special way in the Bible. Thus, once again, we see Rome’s method: sifting through the occultic evil of the story to supposedly extract the odd “value” which all people share. And this sinful approach was followed by many “Evangelicals” as well. Instead of going to the source of all truth, the Bible, they preferred to let their children learn “values” from a film about witchcraft, and then attempted to somehow get the children to take an interest in the Bible afterwards! Blind, lost souls, ignorant of the Gospel and strangers to Christ the Lord.

This reviewer then wrote: “Harry Potter, although he never declared himself a Christian, calls on the dark magician to mend his ways, repent for what he has done and recognise the primacy of love over everything so he will not be damned for eternity.” This Roman Catholic reviewer failed to understand that someone like Harry Potter was as lost, as damned to eternity for his sins, as the dark magician he was fighting against! This is because he, like all Papists, was himself a lost man, ignorant of the Gospel of Christ. To him, someone like Harry Potter was “good”, even though not a Christian, and thus (by implication) not going to be damned like the dark magician was. This is supposed salvation by one’s own works, which is the belief of Rome. But it is not the teaching of God’s Word, the Bible.

He also wrote that this film demonstrated that “from the pure of heart like the young Harry, ready to die for his friends”, come big lessons! Truly, this was one branch of Satan’s kingdom (Romanism) praising another branch of Satan’s kingdom (the occult)! The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the pure in heart, but someone like Harry Potter (if he existed) would not be among them. The “pure in heart” (Matt. 5:8) are those who have purified their hearts by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 15:9), and no others.

What was going on? Simply put: Rome was following the tactics it had begun to use as the Jesuits moved away from supporting outright, top- down Roman Catholic censorship via the Breen Office and the Legion of Decency, and instead sought to influence movies more subtly, praising whatever they could about them, finding “morals” even when there were none, even working on the sets as advisors. They had come to believe that this was the only way forward for Rome: it could no longer prevent its people from attending the movies, so it might as well adopt the tactic of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. In typical Jesuit fashion, by appearing to their people to be progressive and modem and in no way fun-spoiling fuddy-duddies, they felt this would be the way to maintain their hold on their flocks. “Don’t condemn and forbid, rather praise where you can and issue weak cautions about whatever is simply too objectionable” – this in a nutshell was their tactic ever since they jettisoned the Breen Office. “Become all things to all men”, the Jesuit motto that is nothing but a distortion of the biblical teaching, lay at the heart of this tactic of theirs. Merge Romanism with the world as far as possible. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Rome, in order to keep the loyalties of the masses of pagans whom it baptized and declared to be “Christians”, retained their pagan temples and even their pagan gods, but gave them the names of “Christ”, “Mary”, the “saints”, etc., thereby keeping the masses happy and (bottom line) keeping the money flowing in. And today, centuries later, the same tactic is followed: the masses want their entertainment, so (the Jesuits have reasoned) far better to let them have it, but maintain a semblance of spiritual “oversight” by issuing cautions, telling the people to “be careful” while enjoying the films, and praising whatever they can.

The Lord of the Rings (2001): a “Fundamentally Roman Catholic” Movie

The film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy book, The Lord of the Rings, was released in 2001. And according to Tom Shippey, one of the world’s leading authorities on Tolkien and a scholar of early English language and literature at the Jesuit-run St Louis University (amazing how frequently the Jesuits crop up, is it not?), the story told in The Lord of the Rings is “fundamentally Catholic”. ⁵⁴⁵ Yet, he added, “On the face of it – it isn’t. The characters appear to have no religion at all. They are living in a historical limbo, a pre-Christian time. But they have an inkling of the revelation that is to come. They are like the philosophers in Dante’s Inferno, who are before Christ and are found in the first circle of hell.”

Shippey went on to point out that “The Inklings” was the name of the writers’ group that Tolkien belonged to with his friend, C.S. Lewis, who was an Anglican. Lewis, while a member of the Inklings, wrote The Chronicles of Narnia.

Tolkien was raised as a Roman Catholic. His mother converted to Romanism when Tolkien was a child. When she died he was raised by a priest of Rome, and remained a devout Romanist all his life. Yet he was perfectly willing to write the Ring series of books, which Shippey described as “alternative history.” He said: “Tolkien left gaps fitted to the Old Testament – at the start of Tolkien’s pre-history the people first come into the world fleeing from what seems to be the Garden of Eden.” Tolkien “studied the literature of pre-Christian to conversion times”, and taught the Edda, which was an Icelandic story of pre-Christian Norse beliefs. He also formed a club, called the “Coalbiters”, for the study and propagation of Norse mythology. ⁵⁴⁶

This Roman Catholic, then, loved to study and propagate paganism, and the film adaptation of his book was a yet further propaganda push for ancient heathenism – yet heathenism which Rome was willing to accept as being in some way pro-Papist. In truth, The Lord of the Rings could be taken as a summary of Jesuitism’s post-Code approach to movies: to find some way to use even blatantly paganistic films to promote Roman Catholicism, no matter how indirectly and tenuously.

It all fitted very well with Rome’s post-Vatican II approach to converting the world to Roman Catholicism: the interfaith movement, finding common ground with pagan religions, heathen beliefs of all kinds, merging Roman Catholicism with various heathenish religious practices and outlooks, so as to appeal to as wide a segment of society as possible.

The Passion of the Christ (2004): Showing Up the Enmity Between Roman Catholic and Liberal/Leftist Hollywood

Despite this new era of uneasy truces and of seeking common ground, Hollywood’s liberal/leftist/Marxist crowd were horrified when a top Hollywood actor/director went too far and made a blatantly pro-Roman Catholic movie, without compromising with the Hollywood leftists or toning the religious message down.

In 2004 actor/director Mel Gibson, a devout traditionalist Roman Catholic, released The Passion of the Christ. It became a phenomenal success at the box office, grossing $370.3 million in the U.S. by the end of its first year, and $611.9 million worldwide; but it was ridiculed and effectively boycotted by liberal/leftist Hollywood and by the liberal/ leftist press. Gibson, in fact, financed the making of the movie himself because the major movie studios would not touch it. In addition they turned on Gibson, portraying him as a “strange” Roman Catholic who did not accept the authority of the current Roman pope, or the use of English in the Roman mass. Warnings started to be issued that the film was anti-Semitic, a charge Gibson vociferously denied. Given the leftist/liberal/Red Jewish control of most of Hollywood, and its hatred of anything it considered “Christian”, this level of antagonism was not at all surprising.

Much of what is written below is excerpted and adapted from an article written by the present author at the time when the film was released, entitled “The Passion of the Christ”: Outreach for Antichrist , ⁵⁴⁷ Additional material has been added.

Before the movie’s official release Gibson began to tour the country, showing a preview to groups of Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants. He showed the trailer to the National Association of Evangelicals in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and to 350 Jesuits at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California. Speaking to a reporter, Gibson joked that he was nervous about how the Jesuits would respond to it: “We’re Catholics, right? We’re scared of the Jesuits. Every good Catholic is,” he said. ⁵⁴⁸

In 2003, before the film opened, the marketing director of Gibson’s Icon Productions hired A. Larry Ross Communications (ALRC) to promote the film among professing Christians. Ross had for years been the director of media and public relations for Billy Graham. ALRC did its work well: its massive promotional work among “Evangelicals” paid off. By the time the film opened it had already received a huge amount of free publicity – publicity which had bypassed mainstream Hollywood almost entirely.

Such was the utter spiritual blindness of so-called “Evangelicals” that many churches reserved entire movie theatres for themselves, with some even holding services in the movie theatre after the movie was screened! Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals in the USA, said the film would inspire believers for decades or even centuries. ⁵⁴⁹ Billy Graham strongly endorsed it – a man who also endorsed the Roman pontiff, John Paul II, accepting it when the man holding the position which for centuries Protestants have recognised as that of the biblical Antichrist, called him his brother. ⁵⁵⁰ Jack Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA, endorsed it. James Dobson, that promoter of psychoheresy, endorsed it. ⁵⁵¹ So did many others the world over. As the Lord Jesus said, “They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).

Gibson said during previews of the film, “The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film. I was just directing traffic.” And: “I think that the Holy Ghost is real. I believe that he’s looking favorably on this film. And he wanted to help. I could always use a little help.” ⁵⁵² His pious claims notwithstanding, his foul language showed up his real colours – but the “Evangelicals” were willing to turn a deaf ear to it. In an interview, he said of some Roman Catholic and Jewish scholars who sent him a report detailing what they held to be inaccuracies in the film: “They always [expletive deleted] around with it, you know?” And: “Judas is always some kind of friend of some freedom fighter named Barabbas, you know what I mean? It’s [expletive deleted]. It’s revisionist [expletive deleted]. And that’s what these academics are into.”

And the acceptance of this film by “Evangelicals” illustrates what we have stated earlier – that by the time the film appeared, so many, who claimed (falsely) to be Christians, saw nothing much wrong with Hollywood. It was not that many years before when Evangelical pastors regularly preached against ungodly movies, and members of their churches were not permitted to watch them if they wanted to remain as members. But as the tide of wickedness rose higher and higher, the voices boldly preaching against it grew fewer and fewer. The professing “Church” was engulfed by the world. The world entered the professing “Church”, and the “Church” justified this by saying it needed to be “relevant”, to “keep up with the times”, etc. Professing “Christians” started attending ungodly movies, as well as soaking up the filth of Hollywood in their own homes via their TV sets, and later via videos and then DVDs. And the pastors did nothing. In fact, for the most part they were as guilty as their flocks. Such things as holiness and separation from the world were now considered quaint left-overs of an earlier era. For multitudes hypocritically calling themselves “Christians”, the TV guide became more important than the Bible, and they knew the names and histories of their favourite movie “stars” better than the heroes of the faith. Television brought the cesspool of Hollywood right into the home at the touch of a button, and the majority of those who named the name of Christ did not care. They happily indulged in it all, and looked with disdain on those lone voices in the wilderness who dared to lift up their voices against such wickedness. Yet the Word of God speaks plainly: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes” (Psa. 101:3); “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil.4:8).

The fact that a movie like The Passion, made by such a man as Mel Gibson, could be so acceptable to the “Evangelical” world, was a terrible indictment upon the men filling “Evangelical” pulpits. A huge measure of the blame for the blubbering acceptance of this film by the so-called “Evangelical” world had to be laid squarely at the feet of the so-called “pastors”, the men who disgraced the pulpits of “Evangelical” churches. The pews follow the pulpits. When the shepherds go astray, how swiftly the sheep follow. How solemn that word in Jas.3:1: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation [margin: judgment]

That multitudes of professing “Evangelicals” flocked in their droves to watch this movie revealed the utter spiritual blindness that hung, like a thick cloud, over the professing “Christian” world; and it revealed the shocking spiritual bankruptcy of the vast majority of men standing behind pulpits. Gibson’s production company, quick to seize the opportunity to make ever more money from the film, marketed the film as “perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years” – and the “Evangelical” world fell for this slick marketing hype hook, line and sinker.

How possibly could a man like Mel Gibson make a sound biblical movie? Even apart from the fact that he was a traditionalist Roman Catholic, he had starred in violent, brutal, gory movies, full of foul language and sexual immorality. How then could he turn his defiled hands to so solemn a subject as the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory (even apart from the fact that no sinful, mortal man can ever properly depict the Lord Christ in a film), and handle such a theme with reverence, holy awe, holy fear, and with his eye to the glory of God? It was impossible. The Bible was written by holy men of God, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and it is holy men of God, men called by the Holy Ghost, who are to teach and expound it to souls. The men of the world cannot teach the true Christian the true meaning of any portion of God’s holy Word, and no Christian should ever go to the worldly for such instruction. What, then, were so-called “Evangelicals” doing, flocking to be taught the (supposed) meaning of the crucifixion by a wicked, immoral, idolatrous man like Gibson? And what were they doing, taking the work of such a man and attempting to use it for evangelism? They were blind, mad, those who “eat and drink with the [spiritually] drunken” (Matt.24:49). Like drunk men, they could not discern the truth, for indeed they were strangers to it.

The reason this film was so acceptable to so many who professed (falsely) to be Christians, was because Hollywood was so acceptable to them. Hollywood, with all its violence, adultery, fornication, sodomy, foul language, etc., etc. This was an extremely violent movie, and not that many years before most people would not have been willing to watch a movie with such extreme brutality; but years of constant, daily exposure to Hollywood “blood and gore” had desensitised people to such things, to the point where the average moviegoer had become quite used to it, saw little or nothing wrong with it, and in fact all too often actually craved it. Like the ancient Romans in the amphitheatres, who had an insatiable bloodlust and watched with relish the agonies of Christians being tom to pieces by wild animals, moviegoers crave ever more “reality” in movies, and Hollywood is all too ready to provide it. The Bible reveals the total depravity of all mankind; and certainly this depravity is revealed in the so-called “entertainment” industry.

This was a film described by Time magazine as “crimson carnage from the moment Jesus is condemned, half an hour into the 127-min. film.” ⁵⁵³ It went on to say that it was a film for “cast-iron stomachs; people who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified.” It stated that Mel Gibson had invented “a new genre – the religious splatter-art film”. It was a “relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh.

Gibson gives us Christ’s blood, not in a Communion cup, but by the gallon. Blood spraying from Jesus’ shackled body; blood sluicing to the Cross’s foot.” It was so violent that in some places cinemas actually provided “sick bags” for the audience! And yet despite such horrifying violence, many professing “Christians”, no less than those who made no such profession (thus showing that in reality there is no difference between them!), with an apparently insatiable appetite for movie violence and gore, and seeing no harm in it, were now able to go and satisfy their bloodlust by watching it in a supposedly “Christian” context – thereby supposedly “sanctifying” it. How true the following comment: “The ghoulish relish of hordes of professing Christians for the violence of this film is in stark contrast with the attitude of the followers of Christ who witnessed His crucifixion – ‘And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things’ (Luke 23:49). They could not bear the sight of His sufferings up close but displayed the natural reaction of abhorrence at the sight of a loved one’s sufferings and so ‘stood afar off’.” ⁵⁵⁴

Mel Gibson was raised a Roman Catholic, and considered himself to be a Roman Catholic traditionalist. He loved the Latin mass, the central blasphemy of the Romish religion. He had a priest of Rome on the movie’s set, who offered mass and heard the confessions of anyone who wished to confess. When asked in an interview if someone could be saved apart from the Roman Catholic “Church”, Gibson gave the centuries-old Romish answer: “There is no salvation for those outside the Church”. ⁵⁵⁵ And yet this devout, fanatical Romanist, spouting official Romish doctrine, was hailed as a true Christian by blind “Evangelicals” the world over!

So as far as Gibson was concerned, the film’s purpose was to show the supposed connection between the cross and the Romish blasphemy of the so-called “sacrifice of the mass”. This is exactly what Rome has always claimed: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘This divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. ”’ ⁵⁵⁶ This is an outright denial of the once-only, all-sufficient sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of His people. The Lord’s words on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30), are not understood by any Romanist; for they believe that in the mass, the sacrifice of Christ is re-enacted, day after day and year after year, hundreds of thousands of times around the world. Romanists do not understand Christ’s words to be referring to the fact that His great work was finished, and never to be repeated in any form or sense. How then, how possibly, could a movie about the crucifixion made by a devout Romanist ever be biblically accurate? And yet “Evangelical” pastors reserved entire movie theatres to show this film to their flocks!

Jim Caviezel, who pretended to play “Jesus” in the film, was a devout Roman Catholic who used the rosary, attended the mass regularly, and went to confession. During the filming, he and Gibson went daily to mass together, with Caviezel saying, “I need that to play this guy” (a true Christian would not refer to his Lord and Saviour so irreverently as “this guy”), and he went to confession regularly, saying, “I didn’t want Lucifer to have any control over the performance” (little did he know that Satan controlled the entire performance from beginning to end). He carried what he believed was a piece of the true cross on his person at all times, as well as relics of various Roman Catholic “saints”. This was a man, however, who, for all his “devoutness”, had previously starred in movies filled with profanity, violence, sex, etc. And this was the man whose face became the image in the minds of millions of people the world over whenever they thought of Christ!

And what did Caviezel himself say about the film? “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.” ⁵⁵⁷

Caviezel stated that many in the film crew converted to Roman Catholicism. And yet “Evangelicals” hailed it as a wonderful evangelistic tool! It led poor souls into the clutches of the Papal Antichrist – and they praised it as leading souls to Christ.

For all true Bible Protestants, the fact that this was a Roman Catholic movie was reason enough to utterly reject it. But the age is one in which so many, claiming to be Christians, see nothing much wrong with Roman Catholicism. The diabolical ecumenical movement has done the devil’s work very well. It was not that long ago when pastors regularly preached against Roman Catholicism, calling it what it is: the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the earth (Rev. 17:5).

No members of their churches were permitted to have any spiritual fellowship with Papists (2 Cor.6:14-18; Rev. 18:4,5). But this had all changed.

Modem “Evangelicals” were willing to forsake almost all biblical standards, and to adopt the Jesuit motto that “the end justifies the means.” If, to their minds, “souls were saved” by watching the movie, or “Christians were edified”, or “Christians had their faith deepened”, then the end justified the means. They professed to be “Bible-believers”, and very loudly and proudly said, “We believe nothing but what the Bible teaches!” But this was a lie. The reality is that they believed many things that were not taught in the Bible – and they rejected many things that were taught in it.

Also, contrary to what so many “Evangelicals” seemed to think, the film was not based solely on the Gospel accounts of Christ’s crucifixion. Gibson also based it, to a large extent, on the visions of two Roman Catholic nun-mystics, Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Emmerich claimed to have seen visions of the sufferings, death and resurrection of Christ, and these were recorded in her book, entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is easy to see where Gibson got the title for his movie! As for Mary of Agreda, she wrote a book entitled The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God as Manifested to Maty of Agreda. Of Emmerich’s visions, Gibson openly admitted: “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” ⁵⁵⁸ If this was really a movie based on the Gospel accounts, why did Gibson need to “thi nk of’ anything? All that is needed is in the Scriptures. But of course Rome has never believed that. Those two nuns did not believe it. That was why they readily added their own “stuff’, and why Gibson readily swallowed it.

The film subtly gives the impression that it was actually Mary who offered Christ as a sacrifice, not God the Father. “‘The Passion of the Christ’ leaves us with a vision of the sacrifice of Christ that is only dolorous [dolorous: full of grief; sad; sorrowful; doleful; dismal] and which puts into sharp relief the Roman Catholic notion not only of the importance of Christ’s agony, but that of Mary in ‘offering her Son’. In an interview with Zenit, the Roman Catholic News Service, Father Thomas Rosica … illustrated how ‘The Passion of the Christ’, in keeping with Roman Catholic theology, uses extra-biblical content to massively exaggerate the role of Mary…. ‘The Mother of the Lord is inviting each of us to share her grief and behold her Son.’ This use of extra-biblical material, emphasis on physical suffering, exaggeration of the role of Mary, and explicitly Roman Catholic theology should not surprise us, however, as these are all hallmarks of the primary inspiration for this movie: [Anne Catherine Emmerich’s] The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ .” ⁵⁵⁹

Then too, there are non-biblical “flashbacks” to Jesus’ childhood with Mary (again promoting Romanism, the cult of Mary). As for Satan, he is depicted as “an androgynous creature, a Gollum with weird sex appeal, who slithers through the crowd, working mischief.” ⁵⁶⁰

The film is thus an heretical mixture of aspects taken from the Gospel accounts, Roman Catholic mysticism, Mel Gibson’s own thoughts, unjustifiable poetic licence, and Roman Catholic doctrine.

What were some of the fruits of this film?

Something extraordinary, something diabolically evil, was witnessed in all this: this film pushed the devil’s ecumenical movement forward! For decades, Rome had been doing all in its power to woo the so-called “Evangelicals” into its embrace; and it was having much success. But this movie pushed “Evangelicals’ even further into the arms of “Mother Rome”. “Evangelicals” hailed Mel Gibson as a “born-again Catholic Christian”, an outright oxymoron, for no Roman Catholic is a true Christian. When the Lord saves an adherent of this false religion, Lie does not leave him in that error and heresy. Lie draws him out, just as Lie does for any member of any false religion whom He saves. If Gibson had been truly converted to Christ, he would have repented of his sins, which would include repenting of acting in and making his past movies, and he would have forsaken Romanism. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt.7:16).

The Passion was a giant leap forward for the ecumenical movement. It promoted Roman Catholicism on a huge scale among “Evangelicals”. “Mel Gibson’s movie savages the Word of God for the benefit of an accursed church with an accursed gospel…. We are at yet another turning point in the history of the Church.” ⁵⁶¹ Ex priest Richard Bennett stated: “The Evangelical church’s acceptance of Gibson’s movie gives shocking – maybe apocalyptic – insight into the state of popular Christianity today. Will history reveal this day as the time when Evangelicalism, on a popular level, merged with the Roman Catholic Church?” ⁵⁶² Certainly it greatly promoted the merger so desired by ecumenicals. The wall of separation between Roman Catholicism and “Evangelicalism” had been crumbling for decades, and this film was another, very powerful assault on that wall, causing it to crumble even further.

It burned into the minds of millions a graphic image of “Christ” that is utterly false. For millions of people, the face of Jim Caviezel became the face of Christ, as surely as multiplied millions for many centuries have had an image of Christ in their minds that was formed by gazing at statues, or paintings. After watching the film the arch-ecumenist, Billy Graham, said: “Every time I preach or speak about the cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind.” ⁵⁶³ He merely voiced what millions felt. But this is all idolatry. “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female” (Deut.4:15,16).

In the aftermath of The Passion, Mel Gibson was hailed by naive and foolish Charismatics, Pentecostals, and neo-Evangelicals as a wonderful Christian man. They ignored the fact that he was a Romanist, held to the usual heretical and blasphemous Romish doctrines, and had made an extremely pro-Papist movie. And yet as time went by, in addition to his Romanism Gibson demonstrated, by his sinful conduct, just what an unregenerate man he was. Among other things, he divorced his wife, to whom he had been married for over thirty years, and lived with his girlfriend, with whom he had a daughter – all after he had made The Passion. And in 2006 he was pulled over for speeding, and found to be drunk. He swore loudly at the arresting officers, and let loose with various anti-Semitic remarks, including making the accusation that Jews were “responsible for all the wars in the world”. ⁵⁶⁴ But the “Evangelical” world by and large did not care: Gibson was their hero.

The Passion of the Christ did wonders for Roman Catholicism, and shocked Hollywood. It revealed that even after many years of anti- religious liberal/leftist/Marxist propaganda via films, or at the least of very watered-down, effeminate, mystical references to “religion” on occasion, there were still millions of moviegoers who were devoutly religious (not Christian but religious), and who were willing to support overtly religious movies. And so the battle continued between religion and secularism, and indeed between conservative Romanism unwilling to compromise and “progressive’ V liberal Romanism in Jesuit hands, willing to compromise with the non-Romish world so as to get its way by other means.

Yes, Hollywood was shocked at first. Its agenda of opposing any thing too blatantly religious, too overtly “Christian” (according to its false understanding of “Christianity”), was threatened by the runaway success of The Passion. Hollywood was serving the idols of secular humanism, Marxism, eastern mysticism, and New Age spirituality. But now Hollywood’s love for another idol kicked in: the idol of Mammon. There was big money to be made by catering to the religious tastes of Roman Catholics and Protestants. These groups had not faded away, despite the relentless assault by liberals, leftists, Marxists, secular humanists and others in Hollywood and other influential parts of society. Ideological idols were all very well – being evangelists for the liberal/leftist/Marxist cause and all that – but at the end of the day Hollywood bigwigs still bowed before the idol of Mammon above all others. It was time to start milking the religious masses.

Disney was first to jump on the bandwagon:

The Chronicles of Narnia (2005): Occult Fantasy of a Closet Roman Catholic

The following is excerpted and adapted from an article written by the present author at the time when the film version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first appeared. The article was entitled “The Chronicles of Narnia”: Occult Fantasy of a Closet Roman Catholic. ⁵⁶⁵ There are also some excerpts from another of the author’s articles, entitled “ Faith-Based ” Films or Hollywood Heresy? ⁵⁶⁶

C. S. Lewis’ world-famous series of fantasy novels, The Chronicles of Narnia, were long praised as “Christian allegory” in many ecclesiastical circles. Lewis himself has been described in many of these circles as “the greatest Christian writer of the twentieth century.” And in 2005 the first book in the series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, was made into a blockbuster movie by Disney, the first of a series of movies to be based on the Narnia novels. The big question is: why?

For decades, Hollywood had ignored the millions of professing “Christians” as a market. It promoted everything that Christianity opposes: violence, profanity, sexual sin of all kinds, nudity, drunken ness, and a whole host of other sins. It had gone out of its way to mock Christians, to portray Protestant ministers as wild-eyed, dangerous fanatics, to ridicule the Bible, to attack everything held dear by Christians. But while this was going on, something was happening in the “Christian” camp. The times were changing, and millions of people who claimed to be “born-again Christians” were no longer as antagonistic towards Hollywood as earlier generations had been. The men in the pulpits no longer thundered against the movies, and the people in the pews were regularly attending the movie theatres, and soaking up the same filth that everyone else was enjoying. The vast majority of those now naming the name of Christ were in fact not truly born again at all! They were merely disciples of the new, popular, easy-believism, “call yourself a Christian but be part of the world too” doctrine that had been sweeping through churches for years. A false “gospel”, indeed, but one that was, and is, believed to be the true Gospel by millions today.

Nevertheless, despite their acceptance of so much Hollywood filth, many of these professing “Christians” still drew the line at attending movies that were just too depraved, even for them. And they kept their children away from them as well. Yet they were very willing to flock to watch a movie with a supposedly “Christian” theme. After all, they called themselves Christians! Hollywood, however, was not paying attention.

Until The Passion of the Christ, that is.

As we have seen, when Mel Gibson’s movie hit the screens it was a runaway success, and Hollywood was stunned. The masses of unregenerate worldlings who nevertheless called themselves “Christians” flocked to see it, and doubtless made Mel Gibson laugh all the way to the bank. And suddenly Hollywood sat up and took notice. Here was a very lucrative niche market indeed! One which Hollywood had been ignoring!

“The Passion really surprised Hollywood,” said John Buckeridge, the editor of Christianity Magazine (certainly not recommended for any true Christian!). Christianity Magazine ran a cover story on how churches could link into Narnia’s release to promote a “Christian” message. ⁵⁶⁷ “Everyone thought it would bomb,” he said. “What they didn’t realise was that there is an audience for a film with a Christian message.” Passing by his inference that The Passion was Christian, he was correct in saying that the movie surprised Hollywood, and made the moviemakers realise that there was a vast untapped niche market out there. “Disney recognises the marketplace. In Hollywood, money talks,” added Buckeridge. Very true! But this did not seem to concern him in the least, nor did he appear to note the obvious paradox of saying that Mammon is the god of Hollywood, and yet supporting Hollywood for making a movie (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) with what he claimed was a “Christian” message! Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). By Buckeridge’s own admission, Hollywood served Mammon. It could not, then, be serving God. And yet he recommended that churches make use of Narnia! “This could be as successful as The Passion of the Christ in triggering dialogue. There is a Christian parable in there,” he said.

And indeed, “churches” worked themselves up into a froth of excitement, convinced that this movie represented the greatest evangelistic opportunity since the previous year’s The Passion of the Christ. But as with that unscriptural Roman Catholic splatter-movie, so with this one: it just showed how biblically illiterate and doctrinally confused vast numbers of churches were. The truth about Narnia, and Lewis himself, is far, far darker than most “Evangelicals” would know, or, sadly, understand.

Millions of “Evangelicals” (along with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc.) had for many years claimed that The Chronicles of Narnia were wonderful “Christian allegories”, and they continued to do so once the movie was made. Russ Bravo, development director for Christian Publishing and Outreach, said: “There are clear Christian parallels you can draw from the storyline” of the Narnia books. As noted above, John Buckeridge, editor of Christianity Magazine, said: “There is a Christian parable in there”. ⁵⁶⁸ And the neo-Evangelical, ecumenical Christianity Today magazine, when recommending the Narnia series, said: “In Aslan [the lion in the stories], Christ is made tangible, knowable, real”; and: “Christ came not to put an end to myth but to take all that is most essential in the myth up into himself and make it real.” ⁵⁶⁹ What utter nonsense!

Here is something really sinister indeed: the Narnia books are sold not only in Christian bookstores, but in occult bookstores as well, and are recommended by the promoters of the occult game, “Dungeons and Dragons”! ⁵⁷⁰ Astounding: a series of books, written by a man professing to be a “Christian”, and hailed by many professing “Christians” as “Christian allegory”, yet the message of which is such that occultists are happy to sell them. Churches rushed to support the movie, encouraging their flocks to see it, and yet as those professing “Christians” sat there watching it they were doubtless rubbing shoulders with witches, Satanists, and other occultists in the audience who were deriving their own “message” from it. The professing children of light, sitting next to the children of darkness, watching the movie together, and both leaving the movie theatre satisfied, the one group convinced they had just seen a wonderful “Christian allegory”, the other group knowing that they had just seen an occult fantasy!

For this is precisely what the Narnia stories are all about: occultism, heathen mythology, magic. Lewis borrowed elements from the Bible, but he draped the stories in heathen mythology and outright occultism. He concocted a hybrid religious teaching, in line with his own deep fascination with heathen mythology, magic and occultism.

Many of the Narnia characters are in fact gods and demons from pagan mythology! Aslan is the god-like lion who is seen as Christ in the stories; and yet in heathen mythology this lion represents the sun. In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan is said to be “coming and going”; to have “golden” eyes, face and fur; to have “warm breath”; to scatter golden beams of light; to be big and bright; etc. And according to the Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols, by Gertrude Jobes, the sun is seen as a lion, golden in colour; with its breath symbolising the sun’s rays; etc. In addition, the ancient sun- worshippers believed that the sun died as it reached its southernmost point, bringing winter. It was “reborn”, or resurrected, when it returned northward, bringing spring. In the Narnia series, when Aslan returned to Narnia, it became spring; and after dying at night, he was resurrected in the early morning! ⁵⁷¹

In another book in the series, Prince Caspian, the heathen god Bacchus appears, along with “wild girls.” They dance a wild “magic dance” in a “grove” (a place of heathen worship, Exod. 34:13; 1 Kings 15:13; 16:33; etc.) on “Midsummer night”, having been seated in a “wide circle around a fire”, with various kinds of wine available, and “wheaten cakes”. Lewis was simply copying the heathen doctrines surrounding Bacchus. For in paganism, Bacchus was the god of wine; he attracted women to him, who danced and were possessed with occult powers; Midsummer eve is a witches’ festival held on June 24; there is dancing, feasting, cakes and wine!

Throughout the Narnia books, Lewis writes about dryads, nymphs, satyrs, fauns, etc. The Cromwell Handbook of Classical Mythology> classifies these as demons. His books also deal with such occult practices as alchemy, clairvoyance, astrology, crystal gazing, necromancy, magic, talismans, etc. The Lord forbids such occult practices in many parts of His Word, e.g. Deut. 18:9-14; Gal. 5:20; Isa. 8:19,20; Acts 7:42,43.

Who was C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963)? He was a writer, critic, professor of English literature, a man who held senior positions at Cambridge and Oxford universities, and he is praised (incorrectly) as a “Christian apologist.” The ecumenical neo-Evangelical, J. I. Packer, called him “our patron saint” (an interesting choice of title, considering that it is Romanists, and not Evangelicals, who have “patron saints”). ⁵⁷² According to the far-from-Evangelical Christianity Today magazine, Lewis “has come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism” (an interesting choice of “heroes”, considering that Aquinas was a Roman Catholic apologist, Augustine was an early “Catholic” in doctrine, and Aesop, although he taught many moral truths with his stories, was a heathen). ⁵⁷³ But despite the fact that Lewis’ books on “Christian” apologetics rank him, in the minds of many – Romanist, Anglican, liberal, “Evangelical” – as one of the most brilliant defenders of Christianity in the twentieth century, the facts tell a very different story indeed. It is enough of a danger sign to know that he is so admired by Roman Catholics, Protestants, conservatives and liberals – quite obviously then, he was not a sound theologian, but “broad-based” and ecumenical; but there is certainly plenty of evidence to show just what kind of a “Christian apologist” he really was.

From a very young age, Lewis was attracted to occult fantasy and fiction; for example, Norse and Celtic mythology, magic, etc. He was to immerse himself in Norse mythology. By the age of 12 he was “hooked” on fantasy, elves, etc. And he himself said that he came to the very frontiers of hallucination. His favourite literature in his early years included E. Nesbit’s occult fantasy works. Twenty-five years after he claimed to have become a Christian (he was clearly never truly converted) he said that he still read these with delight. And this ungodly mixture of light and darkness, of a little truth mixed with magic, myth, etc., comes out in his various writings. ⁵⁷⁴ He also immersed himself in the writing of the atheist and early science fiction author, H. G. Wells. At school, he attended a high Anglo-Catholic “church”; but he gradually dropped what he thought was his “Christianity” in favour of occultism, particularly the Norse mythologies.

At the age of 27 he met J. R. R. Tolkien, and they became close friends. Tolkien, author of the occult fantasy, Lord of the Rings, was a devout Roman Catholic. They would meet weekly to drink, smoke, and discuss each others’ stories. Tolkien would speak to Lewis about the Roman Catholic “christ”; and he worked on Lewis until he accepted the account of Christ as a “true myth. ” ⁵⁷⁵ This is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Either the account of Christ is true, or it is myth. It cannot be both. It is blasphemous to speak of the account of the Lord and Saviour in this way. But it fits in perfectly with Lewis’ love of mythology, which he was steeped in.

Lewis eventually joined the Anglican institution, and was Anglo- Catholic in doctrine; but he was greatly influenced by Tolkien, and at heart Lewis was clearly a “closet Papist.” He was certainly no Evangelical! The ecumenical Christianity’ Today magazine, which praised Lewis and recommended his Narnia books, still had to admit that Lewis was “a man whose theology had decidedly unevangelical elements”. ⁵⁷⁶ And even the neo-Evangelical ecumenical author, J. I. Packer, who used Papist language and called Lewis “our patron saint”, admitted that Lewis was “no such thing” as an Evangelical; yet he has become the most widely-read supposed “defender” of “Christian” basics among professing “Evangelicals!” ⁵⁷⁷

Lewis had no interest in judging the soundness or otherwise of certain denominational traditions. In the preface of his famous book, Mere Christianity, he wrote: “The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two ‘Christian’ denominations. You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic…. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.”

An Evangelical? Not in the least. He was thoroughly ecumenical.

His stated aim, in Mere Christianity, was to present “an agreed, or common, or central or ‘mere’ Christianity.” In other words, those doctrines which are common to all who call themselves “Christians”, including Papists, Anglicans, ecumenists, liberals, etc. He was so concerned to achieve this aim that he submitted parts of his book to four ecclesiastics for criticism: an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic. ⁵⁷⁸ He believed that one is free to choose whichever “tradition” one likes the most. Sound doctrine and godly practice – these were of no consideration to Lewis.

He was so adept at reducing “Christianity” to a very, very low common denominator, a “mere Christianity” as he himself called it, that his writings, in addition to being acceptable to Roman Catholics, “Evangelicals”, liberals, ecumenists, etc., are even acceptable to the Mormons! In April 1998, Mormon professor Robert Millet, dean of Brigham Young University, spoke at Wheaton College on the topic of C. S. Lewis and said that Lewis “is so well received by Latter-Day Saints [i.e. Mormon cultists] because of his broad and inclusive vision of Christianity”. ⁵⁷⁹

Lewis did not believe in the biblical doctrine of penal substitution, and thus promoted a false doctrine of the atonement. He denied the doctrine of man’s total depravity. He believed in the Popish heresies of baptismal regeneration, salvation by works, the mass, purgatory, and praying for the dead. He did not believe in the biblical doctrine of repentance. He did not believe that the Holy Scriptures were inerrant, and thus rejected the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. He believed in theistic evolution. He denied the doctrine of hell. He thought that the salvation of unbelievers was possible. And he also requested the “last rites” of the Roman Catholic institution on his deathbed. ⁵⁸⁰

Lewis did not openly join the Roman Catholic “Church”. But despite holding to some non-Papist doctrines, that he was a “closet Papist” there can be no doubt, as the evidence above shows; and Papists have loved his writings and claimed him as one of their own. In a favourable article on Lewis published in The Catholic Herald, entitled “Why ever didn’t C. S. Lewis become a Roman Catholic?” the author wrote: “we may surely say that we are honouring the memory of a man whose mind was naturaliter Catholica“. ⁵⁸¹

Michael Coren, a Papist author who wrote a biography of Lewis for teens, entitled C. S. Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia, was asked by the Roman Catholic news agency, Zenit: “What do Catholics need to know about C. S. Lewis?” This was his reply: “They should know he wasn’t a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have become one eventually. G. K. Chesterton became a Catholic in 1922 but had really been one for 20 years.” He went on to say: “Lewis… was a man of his background but his views were very Catholic: he believed in purgatory, believed in the sacraments, went to confession.” ⁵⁸²

No wonder, in the light of Lewis’ belief in, and propagation of, Popish teaching, he was described by a high-ranking Jesuit theologian as “probably the most successful Christian apologist of the twentieth century.” ⁵⁸³

But did Lewis, in fact, actually join the Roman Catholic institution before his death? Papists say he did not; but he confessed his sins regularly to a priest of Rome, and he received the Romish sacrament of the “last rites”, on July 16, 1963. ⁵⁸⁴ And it is highly unlikely that he would have received the “last rites” if he had not in fact formally converted to Rome! So there appears to be more to Lewis’ love of Romanism than at first meets the eye. There are aspects to all this that are very mysterious. He certainly appears to have been a Papist before his death.

As noted above, when the film of the first book came out, “churches” worked themselves up into a froth of excitement, convinced that this movie represented a huge evangelistic opportunity.

The movie’s makers made a concerted effort to include “Christian” organisations throughout the production of the movie. And religious leaders (specially selected!) were given a sneak preview at 140 venues throughout the United States. Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media, said this preview was just one aspect of promoting the movie. “We’re willing to talk to almost all audiences that want to hear about the movies we make,” he told the Texas Catholic newspaper. “People seem to be interested that we’re going to churches to promote this movie, but we’re also going to schools, libraries, boy scout and girl scout groups. We’re going everywhere.” ⁵⁸⁵ In other words, once again money was the motive. It did not matter whether the interested groups were Roman Catholic or Evangelical churches, secular schools or libraries – the movie was promoted to all because they knew it would appeal to all. The supposedly “Christian” content was sufficiently downplayed so as not to offend anyone, and yet it was sufficiently present so that it could be interpreted any way the viewer desired. As Flaherty said: “We’re interested in telling great stories and being true to the original themes of the author. Many times these great stories we want to tell will have elements of faith in them, and we don’t shy away from that. If people interpret the original themes of the book to have elements of faith in them, then they will probably see those same themes in the movie.”

Mere “elements of faith”; people “interpreting the story to have these elements of faith”; this was what passed for “Christian entertainment”. If this really was a Christian movie, the Christian message would be clear, bold, and all-pervasive in the story. But it was not.

Flaherty admitted the real motive behind such movies when he said that Hollywood producers “are going to be open to any audience that can make them money. If it helps sell tickets, moviemakers are going to emphasise Christian elements in movies.” And that is the bottom line! Hollywood producers had not suddenly exercised faith in God, but they most certainly had faith in the trend of religious movies to make money for them, and they most certainly had faith in the gullible “Christian” public to flock to such movies and blow their money on them!

In Britain, a so-called “Evangelical” publisher sent out special Narnia packs to churches. Christian Publishing and Outreach (CPO), which distributed material to 20,000 churches, approached Disney and was granted permission to use two images from the film for its Narnia packs. Russ Bravo, development director for CPO, which provided posters, DVDs, invitation cards and folders, said: “A lot of churches have been ordering and will be staging their own events. We have seen very big demand across the range. We have a what-to-do guide, outlines that give ministers ideas on how to deliver sermons and material for Sunday schools”. ⁵⁸⁶

Had things really sunk so low? Had the “Evangelical” world really sunk to such depths that ministers were given sermon outlines based on a Disney movie of an occult fantasy book written by an unregenerate Anglo-Catholic? Was this now the source for ministers’ sermons – a movie instead of the Bible? Yes, this really was how bad things had become. A generation or two ago, ministers were preaching against the movies; now they were going to the movies for their preaching material!

In the UK the Methodist organisation, Methodist Children, wrote a special Narnia service. ⁵⁸⁷ Not to be outdone, Manchester Cathedral staged a Narnia day; and St Luke’s Anglican “church” in Maidstone decided to give out free tickets to single parents, as it had also done when The Passion had been released! “We are giving away £10 000 worth of tickets to single-parent families in and around the area,” said a spokesman for the “church”. “It’s a Christmas gift from the church to families who may not be able to afford to go to the cinema.” £10 000 could purchase a lot of Bibles to be distributed freely, or Gospel tracts; the sort of things one would expect a church would want to give away freely. But this was not a Christian church. For this Anglican “church”, its concept of “outreach” and “evangelism” was to get people into a movie theatre to see a Hollywood blockbuster!

Any notion of Christians being separate from and unspotted by the world was jettisoned long ago by the majority of institutions falsely calling themselves “churches” in the West. Faced with fast-emptying pews and the corresponding loss of income, they decided that they needed to re-write the Gospel, re-define Christianity, and become fashionable and “relevant” in the world; in a word, to become precisely what the Bible forbids Christians to be (Jn. 17:11,14-16; 1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Jas. 1:27). But the Word of God is ignored by most who call themselves “Christians” today, and in its place they have formulated their own policy – to be as much in the world as it is possible to be; to show the world that “it’s cool to be a Christian”, and that being one does not in any sense mean that a person must deny himself anything. Their attitude is, “We can have the world and Jesus too!” Their message is, “Being a Christian doesn’t mean you can’t go out for a night on the town. Christians can participate in virtually all the activities anyone else participates in; the only difference is, we have Jesus as our Saviour!” The tragedy is that such “Christians” are Christians in name only. They are as lost as anyone else. The Bible is very clear: “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19). They have never known the Lord and Saviour, the holy, harmless, undefiled Son of God who is separate from si nn ers (Heb. 7:26), and who came into this world “to save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Disney, of course, was smiling all the way to the bank, grateful indeed for the gullible thousands of churchgoers who naively assumed that this movie was great Christian entertainment for their kids. It brought in more money – a lot more money – and money, after all, is Hollywood’s god.

The movie was occult fantasy supposedly delivering “the Gospel” in the form of magic, sorcery, and heathen mythology. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of children, already increasingly paganised and opened up to the black arts through a barrage of occultism and fantasy adventure, most notably by the Harry Potter books and movies, were now indoctrinated even further into pagan beliefs and practices – even while they were being told by “churches” that the Narnia books were Christian. What spiritual confusion and devastation this was creating in young hearts and minds!

Hollywood Starts to Make Other “Faith-Based” Movies After the Success of The Passion and The Chronicles of Narnia

What is written below is excerpted and adapted from an article written by the present author, entitled “Faith-Based” Films or Hollywood Heresy ? ⁵⁸⁸

In the past, professing Christians knew that Hollywood could not, as a general rule, be relied upon to produce decent, moral, clean entertainment. Preachers thundered against supporting the sinful “entertainment” that spewed from the movie industry. And the ungodly garbage that Hollywood dished up was for the most part shunned by those claiming to be Evangelical Christians.

And in addition to producing immoral movies, over the years the movie industry has frequently produced films which are direct attacks on the Christian faith. In such movies Christ the Lord, His Gospel, and His followers, are ridiculed.

Occasionally producers have made biblical “epics” such as Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments, or Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth, and others of that nature; or they have zeroed in on biblical accounts containing a lot of fighting or romance (such as Samson and Delilah, a favourite theme for obvious reasons in this age of sexual immorality), and some of these movies have been touted as being “accurate” and “authentic”; but not only were they usually nowhere near as biblically accurate as they claimed to be, such films were not made in order to further the Christian faith, evangelise the lost, or build up true believers in their faith. They were simply attempts by the moviemakers to rake in mega-bucks from sweeping biblical sagas; and they often succeeded in doing just that.

By the 1980s the movie industry was becoming increasingly pervasive in society; and at the same time, as churches were moving away from their doctrinal foundations and from practical separation from the world, pastors no longer preached against ungodly entertainment. Professing Christians were increasingly attending the movies, no matter what was showing, and without much condemnation from the pulpits, if any, for the hirelings occupying them knew on which side their bread was buttered. Besides, the pastors were all too often just as much devotees at the shrine of Hollywood as anyone else.

Then came the invention of videos, which brought the movies right into the living rooms of multiplied millions of people the world over. Suddenly, pastors not only had to condemn attending sinful movies, but to be consistent they had to condemn the bringing of those same movies right into the homes of their flocks. And this was something most pastors simply were not prepared to do. They compromised, they fell silent, their own children brought home the same Hollywood junk, and in no time at all a revolution had taken place which continues to this day. Professing Christians were watching anything and everything, seemingly without any conscience about it. The entertainment industry is a very different monster to what it was in the 1970s, in that today it is all-pervasive in society. Literally everywhere one goes, one is bombarded with it, in the form of music and movies. Television screens are in shops, malls, cars, and sometimes in every bedroom of people’s homes. Many people rent DVDs a number of nights a week – certainly they watch TV throughout the entire evening. Many, in fact, watch it almost all day long as well, even at work. By 2007 the content of movies and television programmes had become the most popular topic of conversation in America, according to the Bama Research Group! ⁵⁸⁹ And the rest of the world was not far behind. Computers provide instant access to the make-believe world of Hollywood and its equivalents. The so-called “stars” are seen everywhere, on magazine covers, posters, etc. We truly live in an entertainment-saturated world.

But even so, the moviemakers did not, as yet, tap into this vast and constantly growing market with films containing a specifically “Christian” content (or what passes for such). After all, the millions of so-called “Christians” attending the movies, and buying up or renting the videos or DVDs, were just as content as those who made no profession of Christianity to watch whatever Hollywood vomited out! They did not care if the movies glorified violence, or were filled with sexual immorality of all kinds, or foul language and blasphemy. Every so often a prominent “Christian” commentator would take a swipe at the filth being glorified in the movies, but hardly any of them ever advocated the only biblical response: staying away from them. They would bemoan the filth, but continue to go and watch it, along with the millions of others who would be found sitting in churches on Sunday mornings, even though their Friday and Saturday nights were taken up with watching ungodly movies, and the rest of the nights in the week were given over to soaking in the same from their TV screens at home. A study by a leading Hollywood marketing firm, MarketCast, suggested that “Christians”, in addition to readily watching mainstream “entertainment”, were also drawn to violent fare – even the most conservative among them! Joseph Helfgot, president of MarketCast, said, “There’s a wind going through the production community about responding to religion. But when it comes to movies, people distinguish between moral issues and entertainment issues. And most people, even the very religious, are very happy with their movies.” ⁵⁹⁰

What an indictment of those calling themselves Christians! Most people, even the very religious, are very happy with the movies that are churned out. They will watch precisely the same movies as those who make no profession of faith in Christ!

But of course, being religious, they would also love to watch “religious” movies; and Hollywood did not cater for this. It was in fact very anti-religious.

Until, that is, The Passion of the Christ.

As we have seen, this Roman Catholic splatter-movie took the world by storm, purporting to be an accurate, authentic depiction of the crucifixion of Christ, although it was nothing of the sort. Not that long before this, a film of this nature would have been shunned by Evangelical Protestants. But times had changed. Those calling themselves Evangelicals were not what they used to be! They were now avid moviegoers, vast numbers of them, with no qualms about watching scenes of horrific violence. They were also softened up to Roman Catholicism by decades of the ecumenical movement, being told by their own spiritually blind pastors that Romanism was “just another Christian church”, Roman Catholics were “brothers and sisters in the Lord”, etc. And what is more, the vast majority of them were by now so ignorant of sound biblical truth that they readily embraced Arminianism, shallow counterfeit evangelistic methods such as “movie evangelism”, “music evangelism”, the “altar call” and the “sinner’s prayer”, and the lie that they must be “in the world (i.e. part of the world, doing what the world does) to win the world” (so obviously contrary to Jn. 17:14-16, 2 Cor. 6:14-18, etc.).

Therefore when The Passion came out, they swarmed into movie theatres by their millions, urged on by their pastors. Protestant ministers pronounced this Papist film a “true Christian movie” and a great evangelistic tool, perhaps one of the greatest ever. And now Hollywood woke up to the vast “Christian” market out there. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists number tens of millions in the United States alone, and tens of millions more in the rest of the world. It is true that huge numbers of professing “Christians” had for years shown that they were more than willing to watch anything and everything the non-Christians watched; but The Passion proved that they would also flock in huge numbers to a “Christian” movie. But also, such a movie would attract still more professing “Christians”, those somewhat more discerning than the common herd, who still had some standards left and would not go to watch movies which were an overt attack on their morals or their faith. “A segment of the market is starving for this type of content [i.e. religious content],” said Simon Swart, general manager of 20th Century Fox’s U.S. home entertainment unit. ⁵⁹¹ FoxFaith, Fox’s “Christian” division, declared that they were targeting, in particular, Evangelical or “born-again Christians”, who had often rejected popular entertainment as offensive. In fact, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment built up a network of “Evangelical Christian” moviegoers, including 90 000 congregations and a database of over 14 million mainly “Evangelical” households.

In the wake of the phenomenal runaway success of The Passion, Hollywood sat up with a jolt. The Passion grossed many hundreds of millions of dollars in worldwide box office proceeds. Dollar signs began to flash in producers’ eyes. There was a huge untapped – and extremely lucrative – market out there. They now knew that millions of professing “Christians” would rush to watch movies claiming to be “Christian”. And they would not even be very discerning – they would pretty much gobble up any old religious or pseudo-religious fare that Hollywood served up!

The vice-chairman of Universal Pictures, Marc Shmuger, said of the “Evangelical” market, “It’s a well-formed community, it’s identifiable, it has very specific tastes and preferences. In every fashion, you need to customize your message to your audience.” ⁵⁹² This quote shows plainly enough that it is all about making money as far as the movie producers are concerned. Some studios actually began turning to experts in “Christian marketing” to scan their scripts for content that would be objectionable to “Christians”, and come up with marketing plans to target the “Christian” audience.

And so the moviemakers began to add things into their movies which they thought would appeal to “Christians”, and to take things out which they thought would offend them. An example of adding something in: in a movie called Mr And Mrs. Smith, which was about professional assassins, when a neighbour’s car is stolen a crucifix hangs conspicuously from a rearview mirror, and the actors wear borrowed jackets that read “Jesus Rocks” as they go undercover. And the movie’s director said, “We decided to make the next-door neighbour, whose crucifix it is, be hip, young, cool Christians. It’s literally in there for no other reason than I thought, This is cool.” ⁵⁹³

And an example of taking something out: during shooting of the movie Flightplan, actor Peter Sarsgaard was instructed to strike the word “Jesus” from his dialogue. “They said: ‘You can’t say that. You can’t take the Lord’s name in vain’,” Sarsgaard said of the film’s producers. ⁵⁹⁴

Well, if such additions and deletions satisfy professing “Christians”, then truly what passes for “Christianity” is shocking! A crucifix in a scene would once upon a time have thrilled no one but a Roman Catholic; and if those calling themselves Evangelicals are impressed because some godless moviemaker puts a crucifix in a particular scene, or makes the actors wear jackets with the words “Jesus Rocks”, then what passes for “Evangelical Christianity” is so far from being biblical that there are no words to adequately describe it. Likewise if the removal of a single use of the Lord’s name makes “Christians” assume that the movie is a good one!

But in the wake of The Passion, it was not just that moviemakers were making a few changes to their movies such as the ones described above – they realised that entire movies should be made to appeal to the “Christian” public.

As we have seen, the next major, supposedly “Christian” movie was The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. And following the massive commercial success of The Passion and The Chronicles of Narnia, 20th Century Fox announced that it would be producing as many as a dozen major “faith-themed” films a year, aimed at Evangelicals, under its new “faith-based” division, FoxFaith. This was described by the Los Angeles Times as “the biggest commitment of its sort by a Hollywood studio.” But it was certainly not the only studio to commit itself to this. And yet again, straight from the horse’s mouth as it were, we were made aware of the kind of “Christian” movie that would be produced. “We want to push the production value, not videotape sermons or proselytise,” said Simon Swart of Fox’s U.S. home entertainment unit. ⁵⁹⁵ “We are not here to proselytise, we are making entertainment,” said Steve Feldstein, senior vice president of FoxFaith. ⁵⁹⁶ Tragically, millions of professing “Christians” would rejoice over this hypocritical, dollar-driven interest by a major studio in producing such movies.

Make no mistake about it, Hollywood was still blatantly anti- Christian. The studios and producers were willing to chum out some “Christian-themed” movies if they believed it would make money for them. But it was extremely naive to believe that the moviemakers had all suddenly experienced some kind of conversion! It was all about profits. The Passion proved there was a vast “Christian” audience out there willing to waste their money on this kind of film, and the moviemakers rushed to cash in on that. But the movie industry was still committed to its agenda of making films which attack biblical Christianity, true Christians, the Gospel of Christ, and the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It had not changed.

Yet spiritually blind “Evangelicals” could not see what had happened! In fact, they welcomed it! Increasing numbers of churches began to make use of movie-like screens at the pulpits, where clips from movies, both religious and secular, were made accessible for churches to download, and were used to illustrate the pastor’s sermon! Professing “Christians” could easily recount scenes from their favourite films, but found it difficult to recall the central theme of the previous week’s sermon – and pastors and churches were well aware of it, and thus were swinging over to the use of film clips in their sermons. And they believed that in doing so they had made their churches more relevant to society! How deceived they were. All they had done, by integrating popular culture with their version of the “gospel”, was that they had created a hybridised “gospel” that was nothing but “another gospel” entirely, and not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ! When a man behind the pulpit has sunk to such a low that he needs to pepper his sermon with scenes from Hollywood movies, he has acknowledged that Hollywood – ungodly, wicked Hollywood – is, as far as he is concerned, more powerful than the God of the Bible, and that such gimmicks are necessary today to enable people to “understand the Gospel”.

Such was the state of what passed for “Christianity” by the twenty- first century.

The Exorcist: In the Beginning (2005): the “Prequel” to the Exorcist Movies

This film, a so-called “prequel” to the earlier Exorcist films, supposedly covers the time when the Roman Catholic priest-exorcist discovered his “vocation”. And despite the fact that the film was described by a Roman Catholic film critic as “at times lurid and grotesque”, and “often exploitative”, this same film critic, who praised the original Exorcist film as “deeply Catholic” and “supervised at every step by Jesuit theological advisors”, stated of the latest offering: “Still, with all those reservations, it does have its merits, and does have a Catholic framework.” And: “Altogether, the film is a sense-battering experience, which is of course what most people who go to see this film want. Viewers should try also to absorb a good Catholic lesson or two.” ⁵⁹⁷ Incredible! Instead of simply saying such a film was not worth viewing, he called on viewers to try to get a Roman Catholic lesson or two out of it! Just as priests and reviewers did with the Harry Potter films, so this one did with this film: he attempted to find whatever thin strand of “good” (according to his definition) he could in it, and then to use this to justify watching the movie by claiming it had merit and a Roman Catholic framework!

As we have seen, this had been the Jesuit/Papist strategy ever since they came to reject the PCA and its Code.

The Da Vinci Code (2006): Anti-Roman Catholic Fiction, Yet Turned to Rome’s Advantage

Not everything in Hollywood was going Rome’s way again, but even so Rome turned what it could to its advantage. What is written below is excerpted and adapted from an article written by the present author at the time when The Da Vinci Code was causing a stir worldwide. The article was entitled Exposing The Da Vinci Code. ⁵⁹⁸

The novel on which the film was based, written by Dan Brown, was first published in 2003. By April 2005, 17 million copies had been sold worldwide, in 44 languages. Some claimed that it was the most successful work in history after the Bible. It was on the New York Times ’ best selling list for three years. In 2006 the film version appeared – and, just like the novel, it was an outright attack upon the Lord Jesus Christ, His blessed Gospel, and His true Church. It presented a false “christ” and a false presentation of what the Bible teaches, and millions were deceived by it into believing that Christianity is a lie, built upon falsehood and deception. Most people are extremely ignorant of both biblical truth and real history, and thus are unable to discern the difference between fact and fiction in the story. Therein lay its immense danger. It presented “another Jesus” and “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4).

A man who was a chairman of Sony Pictures (which was behind the movie) before becoming a producer said: “The amazing thing about this book is that it’s provocative: is it all true? Isn’t it true? As a history book it’s extraordinary. As an exploration of the evolution of a particular religion, it’s extraordinary.” ⁵⁹⁹ Note how this fictional work was being described as “a history book” – not fiction, but non-fiction!

Certainly millions became so convinced that it was substantially true, even though presented as fiction, that large numbers of them visited the sites mentioned in the story, such as Westminster Abbey in England, the Louvre in Paris, Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, the Chateau de Villette near Versailles, etc. The owner of the Chateau stated: “This book revealed the truth that the Catholics have been hiding for thousands of years…. The book is fiction, but it’s based on truth.” ⁶⁰⁰

What, then, is The Da Vinci Code all about?

The author, rejecting the biblical truth about the Lord Jesus Christ entirely, wrote that the divinity of Christ was a myth invented by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD. And his novel laid out a huge supposed “conspiracy”: that Mary Magdalene actually married Jesus Christ, that they had children – and that “the Church” covered this truth up, destroying Mary’s character by writing of her in the Gospel accounts as an immoral woman! Furthermore, the author claimed that the “Floly Blood” is the supposed bloodline from Christ and Mary Magdalene; and that the “Floly Grail” is not a chalice, but Mary herself!

To support his theory, Dan Brown claimed that the Dead Sea scrolls show a stronger association of Mary Magdalene with Christ than what we read in the Bible. Fie also had references to the so-called “missing Gospels”. ⁶⁰¹

Fie claimed that in the painting called “The Last Supper”, by Leonardo da Vinci, Mary Magdalene is depicted on the right of Christ – supposedly a female apostle along with the other apostles. Fie claimed that her place was usurped by a male hierarchy, thereby suppressing the “sacred feminine.” And he asserted that the Roman Catholic institution organised a massive cover-up of this truth.

The story made reference to so-called Gnostic “gospels”, such as The Gospel of Mary. Other sources used by Brown were: The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine, and, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. These give a good idea of where Brown’s intellectual and spiritual leanings lay. ⁶⁰²

According to the story, the royal historian, Sir Leigh Teabing, an eccentric obsessed with the “Floly Grail”, shelters Robert Langdon, a Flarvard professor of Religious Symbology, at his French chateau. Another character is Sophie, a French cryptologist able to decipher codes and puzzles, working with Langdon. Teabing shows Sophie The Gospel of Mary, supposedly written in Greek in the second century AD. It would be best to quote directly from the book at this point: ⁶⁰³

“‘I shan’t bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union [said Teabing]. That has been explored ad nauseam by modem historians. I would, however, like to point out the following.’ He motioned to another passage. ‘This is from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

“Sophie had not known a gospel existed in Magdalene’s words. She read the text:

“‘And Peter said, “Did the Saviour really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? ”

“‘And Levi answered, “Peter, you have always been hot- tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the Saviour made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Saviour knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. ” ”’

Teabing explains that Peter was jealous of Mary Magdalene. ‘“The stakes were far greater than mere affection,’ Teabing told Sophie, ‘because at this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects he will soon be captured and crucified.’” So he told Mary how to carry on his Church! Teabing added, ‘“I dare say Peter was something of a sexist.’”

“‘This is Saint Peter,”’ said Sophie; “‘the rock on which Jesus built His Church.’” To which Teabing replied: “‘The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene.’”

The book continues: “Sophie looked at him. ‘You’re saying the Christian Church was to be carried on by a woman?’ ‘That was the plan. Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene. ’ ‘And Peter had a problem with that,’ Langdon said, pointing to The Last Supper. ‘That’s Peter there. You can see that Da Vinci was well aware of how Peter felt about Mary Magdalene.’” The suggestion was made to Sophie that in the painting by Leonardo, Peter was leaning menacingly towards Mary, and slicing his blade-like hand across her neck.

Next, Teabing pulls out a chart of genealogy, and shows Sophie that Mary Magdalene was of the House of Benjamin, and thus of royal descent. Sophie is told that Mary Magdalene was not poor, but that “she was recast as a whore to erase evidence of her powerful family ties.” “But why,” she asks, “would the early Church care if Magdalene had royal blood?” It is explained to her that it was her consorting with Christ that concerned the early Church, rather than her royal blood. “As you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon – King of the Jews.

By marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines, creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.”

Then Teabing dropped his bombshell: “The legend of the Holy Grail is a legend about royal blood. When Grail legend speaks of the chalice that held the blood of Christ, it speaks in fact, of Mary Magdalene, the female womb that carried Jesus’ royal bloodline.”

‘“But how could Christ have a bloodline unless…?’ Sophie paused and looked at Langdon. Langdon smiled softly. ‘Unless they had a child.’”

“‘Behold,’ Teabing proclaimed, ‘the greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the lineage, and the vine from which the sacred fruit sprang forth!”’

The Bible, God’s Word, refutes Brown’s lies:

Firstly, the divinity of Christ was not invented by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century. The Bible is lull of clear references to His divinity. To list just a few of the many passages which reveal it: Psa. 45:6,7 with Heb. 1:8,9; Isa. 7:14 with Matt. 1:22,23; Isa. 9:6; Jn. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:5-8; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16. Dan Brown showed both his utter contempt for God’s Word, and his abysmal ignorance of the Bible and of history, in making this absurd claim.

Secondly, the Lord Jesus Christ did not marry Mary Magdalene, nor beget children by her or anyone else. The Son of God came into this world to save sinners – this was His divine mission (1 Tim. 1:15). Mary Magdalene was one such sinner saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ. He cast seven devils out of her (Mk. 16:9; Lk. 8:2).

The Bible tells us very little about Mary Magdalene. She was with Mary the mother of the Lord, and some other women, near the cross when Jesus was crucified (Jn. 19:25). She sat over against the sepulchre when Jesus was laid in it (Matt. 27:6); and very early on the first day of the week, the day of His resurrection, she came to see the sepulchre, and to anoint Jesus’ body with spices, and found it empty; and she was the very first to whom the risen Jesus showed Himself after His resurrection (Matt. 28:1-10; Jn. 20:1-18; Mk. 16:1-11; Lk. 24:1-10). She was a devoted and faithful disciple of the Lord Jesus.

But there is not a word about her being of the House of Benjamin! And Jesus certainly did not marry her! Dan Brown’s fantasy was not the first to suggest that the Lord Jesus married Mary Magdalene – it is a lie that has cropped up many times before. This is because of a supposition (for that is all it is) that Mary Magdalene was the prostitute mentioned in Lk. 7:37-50. There is nothing whatsoever to support this supposition. They were two different women. But wicked men love to put forward this suggestion of a marriage between Christ and a supposed prostitute, for then it makes Christ appear to be a man of loose morals. They paint the entire scenario in their brains: the founder of a new sect physically attracted to a very worldly woman. They entirely ignore the fact that we are nowhere told Mary was a prostitute, and besides, the Lord Jesus set her free from Satan’s power, and she became a devoted, holy disciple. That is not “juicy” enough for their sinful minds!

When Jesus met Mary Magdalene after He rose from the dead, what did He say to her? “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” (Jn. 20:17). He would not so much as let her touch Him! He told her to go and tell His disciples that He was going to ascend; and this is what she immediately did (Jn. 20:17,18). And thereafter He did not appear to her alone, although she certainly would have spent time with Him in company with all His other disciples, before His ascension.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not marry anyone. Marriage was ordained by God for the good of ma nk ind. Christ was God from all eternity; He came in the flesh, without laying aside His divinity, but taking a human nature into union with His divine nature; and He came into this world to purchase a “bride” with His own blood. But His “bride” consists of all the elect, all those for whom He laid down His life and shed His blood. The true Church is the mystical bride of Christ. He has no physical bride, nor ever any need of one (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23-32; Rev. 19:6-9; 21:9). Nor did the Lord Jesus beget children physically. The Bible says that His spiritual “children” are His elect people, for whom He died (Heb. 2:13).

It is nothing less than heresy and blasphemy to say that the perfectly sinless Son of God married a woman, and begot children.

This is proclaiming “another Jesus” indeed (2 Cor. 11:4) – not the true Jesus Christ revealed in His Word. It does not matter in the least if there are scrolls supposedly showing a stronger association of Mary Magdalene with Christ than what we read in the Bible – it is the Bible that is divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). We did not have to wait till the twentieth century and the discovery of certain scrolls to ascertain the truth about Christ and Mary Magdalene – the books that comprise the Holy Scriptures, divinely inspired, were written in the first century AD, during the lifetime of the apostles, and furthermore were known to the true Church from that time on (see, for example, Col. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:15,16; Rev. 1:1-3,10,11). God’s Word is settled. No more writings are ever to be added to it.

As for the so-called “Gnostic gospels”: one of the characters in Brown’s novel says of them that they are the “unaltered gospels”. In saying this, he implies that the four Gospels found in the New Testament were altered, and therefore cannot be trusted. Of course, he could not give any evidence for this; but millions of readers accepted it anyway.

Gnosticism, the word being derived from the Greek word meaning “knowledge”, was a heresy that arose in the early centuries of the Christian era. Gnostics claimed to possess special occult knowledge relating to God, salvation, etc. Gnosticism is not Christian in any sense, for it is unbiblical and anti-biblical. Aspects of it were exposed and refuted by the inspired writers of the New Testament Scriptures (e.g. Col. 2:8-23; 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 1:14; 1 Tim. 6:20; 1 Cor. 8:1). Unregenerate men are always seeking extra knowledge, and there is a particular attraction towards supposed knowledge that is “hidden” from the majority and known only to a select few. Herein lies the attraction of Gnosticism, in all its forms including modem ones; and herein lies also the attraction of Dan Brown’s fantasy to many: the attainment of “knowledge” supposedly hidden for centuries, occult “clues” hidden in mysterious places, tantalising hints of something beyond the awareness of the masses.

Men will eagerly sift through the Bible for supposed “hidden” messages or information, all the while ignoring, or failing to see, the plain, straightforward message of the Bible – the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of salvation; or they will eagerly search outside the Bible for supposed “hidden” messages that to their minds contradict and overthrow the truth of the Bible (as in The Da Vinci Code). Either way, Satan is the winner. For by such means he keeps men from knowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the only Saviour of sinners. For, “Neither is there salvation in any other [than the true Christ of God]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Lost men eagerly search for “hidden” knowledge here, there, and everywhere; but the true, saving knowledge of the Gospel is hidden from them, unless and until the Ford opens their eyes. Truly, truly, “if our gospel [the true Gospel of Christ] be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:3,4).

Thirdly, it is a total fallacy to claim that Mary Magdalene was supposed to carry on Christ’s Church, for “Jesus was the original feminist”; but that her place was usurped by a male hierarchy, thereby suppressing the “sacred feminine”; and that “the Church” covered up the “truth” about Christ and Mary Magdalene, destroying her character by writing of her in the Gospel accounts as an immoral woman. One fantasy after another from Dan Brown’s brain!

There was, after all, no such “truth” to cover up. Christ was not married to Mary, and they did not have children. The Gospel accounts do not say much about Mary Magdalene at all. The writers of the Gospels did not depict her as an immoral woman. Very few details of her life are given.

The New Testament makes it very clear that Christ chose the apostles, and that they were all men. Mary’s place was not usurped by a “male hierarchy” – she never had a place to begin with, as one of the band of apostles.

As for the “sacred feminine”, this is all hogwash. It is very appealing to many in this age of militant feminism, and of goddess-worship by New Agers, witches, and others. Millions today are turning to the worship of a female deity, and anything that promotes that concept in the minds of the general public is very acceptable to them. Warbling on about the “sacred feminine” was a sure-fire way for Brown to up the sales of his book.

Besides, to believe the absurdity of this “cover-up” is to believe that the four Gospels were written by “the Church” (i.e. in Brown’s mind, the Roman Catholic “Church”), rather than by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This, if true, would mean that the four Gospels are mere fabrications, to which were attached the names of the four men to give them authenticity. But it is not true. The Gospel accounts were written by men who lived in the first century AD, and who were Christians, disciples of Christ. The Roman Catholic “Church”, which only came into existence centuries later, had absolutely nothing to do with their authorship. The Roman Catholic institution is guilty of very many cover-ups throughout its history, but this was not one of them. It could not “cover up” when it did not even exist!

As for the “evidence” in the famous painting called “The Last Supper”, by Leonardo da Vinci: let us for a moment assume that da Vinci really did depict Mary Magdalene on Christ’s right side, supposedly as being a female apostle. We are sure that authorities on the painting would deny that he did any such thing, but let us, just for a moment, suppose that he did. So what? Are we to be so foolish as to make a mere painting, by a Roman Catholic artist (however brilliant), our authority? Are we to set aside the testimony of God’s own Word, the Bible, attested by many infallible proofs, on the basis of this supposed “hidden clue” in a painting? Has the world gone mad? Evidently it has, when millions of gullible readers can reject the truth of God’s Word on such flimsy “evidence” as this.

The Brown story presents Peter as a “sexist”, jealous and scheming man (for he supposedly knew Christ wanted Mary to establish His Church, but was very opposed to this), and even a man who contemplated the murder of Mary Magdalene. What a terrible distortion of the truth about the godly apostle, Peter, a faithful Christian and minister! A simple reading of Peter’s own epistles, or of his sermon on the day of Pentecost, will provide the reader with an accurate picture of this humble, zealous servant of Christ. Nothing in the biblical account presents Peter as jealous of Mary Magdalene, scheming, with murderous thoughts towards her; and as for that modern-day, “politically-correct” term, “sexist”, it is too pathetic for words.

Thus, this fiction is an attack upon the Lord Jesus Christ, for it depicts Him as a mere man, who fathered a child by Mary Magdalene. And it is an attack upon the Gospel of Christ, for obviously anyone who believes in, and follows, Jesus Christ, if He was who the book says He was, is following a mere man. In addition, as The Da Vinci Code makes reference to so-called Gnostic “gospels”, which are not divinely inspired but merely the works of enemies of the truth, people are drawn to accepting such lies as the “Gospel truth.”

But it is also an attack upon the true Church of Christ. Some might say, “But it’s an attack upon the Roman Catholic institution, not the true Church!” However, it is not that simple. Nothing Dan Brown wrote could ever expose even a fraction of the lies, false beliefs, human traditions, and massive cover-ups that characterise Roman Catholicism. The truth about Roman Catholicism is far more horrifying than anything in Dan Brown’s fiction. He wrote of how the Papal institution supposedly invented a story about Mary Magdalene and got this story incorporated into the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ. This is fiction, not fact. Rome did no such thing. But what did the Papal system do? It baptized the heathen doctrine of the mother-goddess worshipped around the world, calling this false deity “the Virgin Mary”, and exalted her to a position even superior to that of its own false “christ”! It gave “Mary” powers that the true Mary, the mother of the Lord, never had, it commands its blinded adherents to pray to her, sing hymns to her, build shrines in her honour, and it sets her up as assisting Christ in the salvation of the world! Truly, Romanism has invented a tale about Mary: not the “Mary Magdalene” of Dan Brown’s imagination, but the “Mary” worshipped by over a billion Roman Catholics worldwide as the “Mother of God”! The truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

But the problem with The Da Vinci Code s attack on Romanism is this: it presents the Romish institution as “the true Church”; thus, anything in the story exposing the falsehood of the Romish “Church” is seen as exposing true Christianity, by the millions who read it! And thus, by presenting Roman Catholicism as “the Church”, it leads its readers to believe that Christianity is a lie; a deception!

But in a backhanded way The Da Vinci Code, despite its anti-Romanism, actually played right into Rome’s hands. How so?

The first way in which this occurred was when Opus Dei began turning the story to its own advantage. Dan Brown wrote of Opus Dei in the book. Opus Dei (Latin for “God’s Work”) is a secretive Roman Catholic organisation, extremely powerful and wealthy. Opus members include priests and non-priests, men and women, married and unmarried people, and many hold key positions in business, politics, etc. Often their affiliation to the organisation is unknown to others. These are facts! And so Brown saw an opportunity to make Opus Dei a part of his conspiracy book, as being deeply involved in protecting “the Church” from its enemies: murdering, drugging people, etc. Opus Dei, of course, denied all these things: as sales of the book soared, the Opus website stated, “Opus Dei is a Catholic institution and adheres to Catholic doctrine, which clearly condemns immoral behaviour, including murder, lying, stealing, and generally injuring people”.

Such disclaimers notwithstanding, anyone with an understanding of the true history of Roman Catholicism knows that Roman Catholic doctrine has never stood in the way of the Roman Catholic institution being involved in murder, lying, stealing, etc. History is replete with the evidence. The Jesuit Order alone has been guilty of all these things and more – and although the impression is given that the Jesuits and Opus Dei are enemies, behind the scenes this is certainly not always the case. The fact is that Opus Dei, like the Jesuit Order, is a dangerous organisation that will stop at nothing to achieve its goals. So Brown was correct in this. This is why his story became so popular: there was just enough truth in it to make it all seem plausible, in the minds of millions.

Amazingly, however, although The Da Vinci Code did not depict Opus Dei in a good light at all, the organisation turned the book to its own advantage. For example, in Britain a Radio 4 programme on 27 October 2005 claimed to have been granted “unrestricted access” to Opus Dei; and Channel 4 TV’s “Opus Dei and the Da Vinci Code” aired on 12 December 2005. But the interviewers on both programmes treated Opus Dei with kid gloves. “The interviewers did not press issues and did not probe. This was presumably a condition of access to Opus. One investigator was a former mo nk . The alleged ‘unrestricted access’ was stage managed and – mostly limited – to the women’s quarters. (The women in Opus are entirely separate and inferior to the men.)… Channel 4 had posed the question, ‘Does Opus Dei deserve its sinister portrayal?’ The programme’s tame verdict was a foregone conclusion”. ⁶⁰⁴

Given the huge influence Opus Dei members exert in all fields, including the media, this is not surprising.

But Opus was not finished turning Dan Brown’s story to its advantage. On the TV programme, 60 students at the London School of Economics were shown attending a lecture on 5 May 2005, entitled “The Da Vinci Code and Opus Dei: the Da Vinci Code Fact or Fiction? Opus Dei Tells All.” And the lecturer was Andrew Soane, Director of the Opus Dei Information Office in Britain. Another Opus director, Jack Valero, said: “A few years ago Opus Dei was virtually unknown outside Catholic circles. Now 70 million people have heard of Opus Dei. They have heard a pack of lies. We can now explain what Opus Dei is and what it does…. It is a great opportunity.”

Valero also said, “People read the book and phone in.” When the interviewer suggested to him, “Dan Brown is your best recruiting agent,” Valero replied, “Maybe he has done something he did not intend to.”

In addition, Roman Catholic journalist, John L. Allen, wrote a book entitled Opus Dei: Secrets and Power Inside the Catholic Church. He was granted access to Opus personnel and records to which others were not permitted. But: “Allen uses the fictional caricature of Opus in The Da Vinci Code to make points in Opus’ favour. Even where criticism of Opus is unavoidable it is muted and over qualified. This book could lead many Roman Catholic parents to take a more favourable view of Opus”. ⁶⁰⁵

Thus Opus Dei managed to actually use the unprecedented interest in Brown’s book to get people interested in the organisation, and even to recruit new Opus members!

And the second way in which the book, and the film, actually played into Rome’s hands is as follows: some of the things Brown wrote about the Roman Catholic institution, Opus Dei, etc., are true. But the trouble is that his story was such a mixture of some truth and much error. Thus on the one hand, there are those who have no idea what is fact and what is fiction, and therefore they believe the lies and fantasies of the author relating to the Lord Jesus Christ, His Gospel, etc. But on the other hand, there are those who understand that it is fiction, and who come to the following conclusion: “The book is a work of fiction, by its author’s own admission; it’s just a story; it is not meant to be taken seriously; and thus there is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is anything sinister about the Roman Catholic Church. He was writing a story, nothing more.” And as a result, they will in the future view the works of serious researchers into Rome’s wicked doings, intrigues, plots, schemes, assassinations, etc., in the same light! Whenever a serious work appears, exposing some aspect of the dark deeds of the Papal system, the tendency will be for many to dismiss it lightly as “a Da Vinci Code-type conspiracy theory”. Especially as, in the light of all the negative publicity generated against it by the book, the Vatican went out of its way to present itself as nothing like the kind of institution portrayed in the book. It is a past master at slick make-overs.

Either way, Satan’s purposes have been served. And the same is true of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code.

Bishops Issue Documents to Guide Papists in Dealing with the Media

And so the love-hate relationship between the Roman Catholic institution and Hollywood continued. In 2006 bishops’ conferences issued guidelines to Roman Catholics concerning the media. The Australian bishops’ conference published a document entitled, “Go Tell Everyone: A Pastoral Letter on the Church and the Media.” Recognising what it considered to be the positive aspects of the media, the document called on Roman Catholics to be “critical users”, not “passive consumers”, of the media. The media, it stated, should be used to communicate the Roman Catholic “gospel”. And later in the year the Canadian bishops published a document entitled, “The Media: A Fascinating Challenge for the Family.” In it, they stated that the media’s immense power can be positive, if they inform and educate; “But they also have the capacity to harm the family by presenting a false vision of life, love, family, morality and religious beliefs.” It recommended that families view the media critically, and react to media bias against religion by means of protests. It also set out a series of recommendations for parents on how to instruct their children in media use. ⁶⁰⁶

Rocky Balboa (2006): another Pro-Roman Catholic Movie

What is written below is excerpted and adapted from an article written by the present author, entitled Rocky Balboa: a “Christian Boxer”? ⁶⁰⁷

The Passion of the Christ set the ball rolling, and thereafter one movie after another was churned out with a supposedly “Christian” theme, or at the very least supposedly “Christian” undertones. In 2006 Hollywood served up Rocky Balboa, described as “the final round in the award-winning Rocky franchise.”

Hollywood actor Sylvester Stallone created the character of “Rocky”, a heavyweight boxer, decades earlier in a movie of the same name; and the first one was followed by a string of sequels. Then in 2006 he made, and acted in, what he said would be the last Rocky movie. Except that this one was touted as a movie to build one up in one’s “Christian” faith!

Incredible? Astounding? This reveals the depths to which those claiming to be “Christians” had sunk, when they could praise a boxing movie as containing a “Christian” message that should be studied, discussed, promoted, and even used as an evangelistic outreach tool!

What was the movie about? The following is an overview taken from a website called RockyResources.com, with the present author’s comments inserted at appropriate points:

“Rocky Balboa is an inspirational story that depicts a man who honorably answers the call in his life. With the odds stacked against him Rocky finds something left to give [What “call”? – the “call” to punch up another man for fame or money? Has the so-called “Church” reached the stage where the gory sport of boxing is now to be viewed as a call, if a man is “good” at it? Apparently yes].

“The greatest underdog story of our time is back for one final round of the Academy Award-winning Rocky franchise, former heavyweight champion Rocky Balboa steps out of retirement and back into the ring, pitting himself against a new rival in a dramatically different era.

“After a virtual boxing match declares Rocky Balboa the victor over current champion Mason ‘The Line’ Dixon, the legendary fighter’s passion and spirit are reignited. But when his desire to fight in small, regional competitions is trumped by promoters calling for a re-match of the cyber-fight, Balboa must weigh the mental and physical risks of a high profile exhibition match against his need to be in the ring [His need to be in the ring? Do certain men actually have a need to be boxers? A “need” used to mean food, clothing, shelter. Other things were “wants”. But apparently the fictional character of Rocky has a “need” to be a boxer. Would someone else then have a “need” to be a knife-fighter, perhaps? After all, if a man has a “need” to be a boxer, then really anything is possible. And more importantly, do some Christians have this “need”? Apparently yes, if the fanfare about this movie was to be believed].

“Rocky Balboa motivates us to face our own challenges with perseverance, community support, and prayer [Prayer? Does Rocky pray for victory in the ring? Do others pray for him to win? That anyone could even think a movie about a boxing champion could ever possibly motivate anyone to face one’s challenges with prayer is shocking enough. What has modern-day “Christianity” become?].

“The story presents a dynamic opportunity for insightful discussions about where we find our courage, how we overcome losses and remain faithful, and what we define as victory” [The Bible answers all these matters perfectly. True courage comes from the Lord; believers remain faithful to the Lord by His grace, for He enables each one of His elect to persevere to the end; and as for overcoming and the true definition of victory, the Bible says: “For whatsoever is bom of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith ” (1 Jn. 5:4). But apparently we need to hold discussions about these things, being guided by this movie about a boxing champion! Not even a movie about the life of Paul, or Peter, or David, or Moses – a movie about some fictional boxer called Rocky! “The Lord is my Shepherd,” wrote David in Psa. 23:1, and the Holy Spirit guides into all truth, Jn. 16:13. But Rocky would be the shepherd of vast numbers of blind moviegoers, by guiding them (they believed), if not into all truth, then at least into a whole lot. Instead of turning to Christ, multitudes of “churchgoers” now turn to the cinema, and to superstars for answers to life’s problems. And the most tragic thing of all is that huge numbers do not even see anything wrong with this. Their lives are so dominated and controlled by Hollywood, that they do not even perceive the problem!].

And what of the man who created and played the part of “Rocky”? According to Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink.com, Sylvester Stallone considered himself “reborn”. He said this during a teleconference with pastors and religious leaders, as reported on RockyResources.com. But let us delve a bit deeper. Focus on the Family was so ecumenical that it would not bother to make this distinction, but we must: Stallone was, by his own admission, a Roman Catholic. So when he spoke of being “reborn”, we have to bear in mind that he evidently meant this in the Roman Catholic sense. And what is that? According to Canon 208 of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, one’s “rebirth” is when one is baptised! And Canon 849 says that by Roman Catholic baptism, “people… are bom again as children of God”. Thus a Roman Catholic means something radically different from a true Christian, when he speaks of being “reborn”.

Stallone said: “I was raised in a Catholic home, a Christian home, and I went to Catholic schools and I was taught the faith and went as far as I could with it. Until one day, you know, I got out in the so-called real world and I was presented with temptation. I kinda like lost my way and made a lot of bad choices.”

Stallone spoke of Romanism and Christianity as being one and the same. This is how a Romanist would talk, of course, and the ecumenicals at Focus on the Family and elsewhere would readily accept Romanists as Christians, but the fact is that Romanism is not Christian, and there is the world of difference between a “Catholic home” and a Christian one. It is the difference between darkness and light.

He said he realised his fame was not the most important part of his life, and that God could help a person overcome his past. “The more I go to church, and the more I turn myself over to the process of believing in Jesus and listening to his Word and having him guide my hand, I feel as though the pressure is off me now.”

He also said: “You need to have the expertise and the guidance of someone else. You cannot train yourself. I feel the same way about Christianity and about what the Church is: The Church is the gym of the soul.”

When he said this, Stallone was sixty. And like many people who reach this age, he had doubtless begun to think about death, and the life hereafter. He doubtless truly realised that fame is fleeting, and that life itself is short, and all the money and fame in the world cannot take a man to heaven. And so he turned to a false religion, as so many do in their later years. What a tragedy.

Stallone said that the infamous character of Rocky was meant to reflect the nature of Jesus! In the conference call with pastors and religious leaders he said, “It’s like he was being chosen, Jesus was over him, and he was going to be the fella that would live through the example of Christ. He’s very, very forgiving. There’s no bitterness in him. He always turns the other cheek. And it’s like his whole life was about service.”

It was shocking enough that men calling themselves “pastors and religious leaders” would even bother to have a conference with Stallone over this movie and his supposed “Christian faith”. Any true pastor, given the opportunity to speak with Stallone like that, would use it to witness to him of Christ the Saviour. But no – these men talked to him for the purpose of hearing what he had to say about the “faith lessons” of his boxing movie!

That was shocking enough. But that Stallone compared his character with the Lord Jesus Christ! – there seem to be no depths to which false ministers, blind leaders of the blind, will not sink, for they did not immediately and vociferously refute such a wicked notion. Stallone said, “it’s like his [Rocky’s] whole life was about service.” A boxer whose whole life is about service? A boxer who “was being chosen, Jesus was over him, and he was going to be the fella that would live through the example of Christ”? Where was the condemnation of such rubbish from the “pastors and religious leaders”? Deafening silence.

On a section of the website entitled “Faith Leaders Respond” (also called “Pastors and Leaders: Their Response”), one could see the kind of men (and women!) described as “Faith Leaders” and “Pastors”. To name just a few:

Stuart Shepard, Managing Editor of Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink.com: “Stallone spoke of being reborn in a teleconference with pastors and religious leaders concerning faith elements of the unlikely sixth {Rocky) movie…. I have to confess I was won over by the real-life story of redemption I heard. I’m believin’ it.”

What would we expect from this particular source? Focus on the Family: ecumenical, riddled with psychology.

Dick Rolfe of The Dove Foundation: “I had a very favorable overall impression of the movie…. One Biblical profanity is the only ‘speed bump’ in an otherwise compelling movie.”

This was supposed to be a movie with “Christian” undertones, and yet it contains a “biblical profanity”. And incredibly, this man shrugged his shoulders and said it was just a small “speed bump”, nothing to be concerned about, the movie was still great! This was the level to which so-called “Christian” leaders had sunk! Who cares what the Bible says, it is fine to use a little profanity, the movie is great anyway – this was the message such a statement conveyed.

The Catholic Digest: “There’s a tremendous spirituality connected with the character of Rocky, because the entire thing was based on good Christian values and dilemmas – whether he could persevere through the storms.” Thus Roman Catholics were considered to be “Pastors and Leaders” as well. This movie was acceptable to both Papists and “Protestants”, in true ecumenical spirit. It therefore could not in any sense present the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor be truly Christian.

Francis Maier, Chancellor, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado: “[Rocky Balboa] is a really excellent film…. It’s also one you can take the kids to.” A little “biblical profanity” and a message that boxing is an acceptable sport notwithstanding. But of course the Papists would praise it.

Roman Catholic nun, Rose Pacatte, of the “Daughters of St. Paul”: “One theme that stood out for me was the whole idea of self esteem. And how important that is to be formed…. That’s a good message for people to know and hear.” Apart from being yet another comment by a Papist, under the title of “Pastors and Leaders”, this was just nonsense. What does the Bible say about “self esteem”? “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). Esteeming others better than oneself, in true humility, is the very opposite of the arrogant “self esteem” mantra of modem psychology. But again, this is the kind of thing that would appeal to a Papist, and to millions of others as well.

The home page of the website was designed to provide “useful” tools to learn about the movie, “and utilize the film as a teaching, preaching or outreach opportunity. If you are a church, school, or small group leader, there are some excellent resources here that will help you ‘get in the ring’ with Rocky.”

When a pastor has reached the stage of using a film about a boxer to supposedly “teach” the flock, or an evangelist is using it as an “outreach opportunity”, then truly, there are no words to adequately describe the state of what passes for “Christianity” in our times. The Bible has been set aside, and the words and methods of sinful men have replaced it. Truly, truly, the “watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs” (Isa. 56:10). These prophetic words are once again fulfilled: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3,4). They will not read and study the Bible for themselves, but will turn to fables, to the movies, and embrace them as the truth; and unless a “teacher” gives them what they want, they will not support him. So there are “heaps” of false “teachers”, scratching the ears of deceived souls and catering to their lust for worldly entertainment. That is where the money is.

There was a “Register for Updates” section on the site, which said – amongst other things –

“Tell us how we can serve you:

“- I am a MINISTRY/ORGANIZATION and we would like to partner to promote the film.”

It also advertised “Leader Resources” – including a “Leader’s Guide” – to “help in creating lively discussions about faith themes found in Rocky Balboa. The material includes discussion starters, scriptural references, fun trivia, tools, and effective actions, which could include hosting an interfaith event,” etc.

Ah! There we have it. The material could be used to host an “interfaith event”! Roman Catholics, Protestants – maybe even others – all joining together as one big happy family, to promote Rocky Balboa as a movie with profound “faith themes”! The blurring of fantasy and reality had reached this stage. People are so devoted to the idolatry of the movies, that their whole lives revolve around going to see them, analysing them, and molding their lives according to them. And religious leaders realised this, and began cashing in on it. They could not hold onto their flocks by the Bible alone, but felt they must cater to a generation that lives like a parasite on the Hollywood host. Is this an exaggeration? .Everywhere, everyone talks about the movies, talks as if these movies and their stars have a life of their own, and talks as if they have profound wisdom which we should all live by. And religious leaders kn ow it. So they cater to it. Instead of sound teaching from the Bible, they provided discussions around supposed “faith themes” found in this movie. Instead of biblical separation, they promoted interfaith events around it.

One could also order the “Rocky Balboa Outreach Box”! The advert said: “This kit is designed for faith, educational, and community leaders to help tell the story of Rocky – one of courage, faith, and perseverance.” It is the task of the true Bible teacher to tell the story of Christ the Lord! But these false shepherds, these blind guides, were going to be telling the story of this fictional boxing character! – and in doing so, they would feel they had “done the Lord’s work” and “witnessed” to people!

True courage, faith and perseverance are found in the lives of the real men and women of the Bible, as well as in the lives of true Christian men and women throughout history. How possibly could the story of a boxer, and one moreover who is not even real, convey such things? It is utterly impossible.

On the “Digital Resources” (“Content for Webmasters”) section of the site, for the “Website Administrator Electronic Press Kit”, 2 Timothy 4:7 appeared from some Bible version or other: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith”! The King James Version says, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith”.

It is true that Paul the apostle, both here and also in 1 Tim. 6:12 and 1 Cor. 9:26,27, uses boxing as an illustration of the spiritual warfare in which Christians are engaged. But he is not condoning boxing with these words! For the Bible says of Christians, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19,20). The Lord is certainly not glorified by a man punching another man repeatedly for entertainment, for “sport”, causing blood to spurt from his face, bruising his body, and even punching him unconscious! This is mindless, senseless violence and does not in any sense glorify God. Many boxers suffer severe injuries, even to their brains. And nor does it bring glory to God for anyone to sit watching such “sport”, enjoying the spectacle. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Boxing cannot in any sense be compatible with such things as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Gal. 5:22,23). And it is impossible for one to go from watching a boxing match in a spiritual frame of mind: “whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report… think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Boxing stirs up passions in men. It stirs up anger, hatred, feelings of revenge and retaliation. Self-defence is legitimate; but beating up someone for fun or “sport” is sinful, plain and simple.

To misuse 2 Tim. 4:7, as was done by those promoting this boxing movie as a movie with “Christian” themes, revealed a shocking lack of understanding of the Bible, and of what it truly means to be a Christian.

The Nativity Story (2006): Yet Another Pro-Roman Catholic Movie

In late 2006 the film, The Nativity Story, made its appearance. The story was told from the point of view of Mary and Joseph, and a huge amount of poetic licence was taken with the characters. This is how it was justified by screenwriter Mike Rich, who considered himself “a devout Christian”: “There’s very little detail in Scripture other than small accounts in Luke and Matthew. That means sourcing material while staying true to the Gospel.” ⁶⁰⁸

But he did not stay true to the Gospel. He sent his script to those described as “leading theologians, Jewish scholars and Biblical experts”. And, as one Roman Catholic reviewer put it, the film was: “A composite of the birth narrative accounts in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, embroidered with apocryphal traditions as well as the imaginative inspiration of the filmmaker”. ⁶⁰⁹

The movie’s co-producer, Marty Bowen, was a Roman Catholic. He said: “Growing up, I’ve always put Mary on a pedestal. She was beyond reproach, and we never took her off that pedestal. When you see a statue of Mary in a church, she’s not real; she’s plaster. We’re trying to make her real. We want to portray her as a fairly normal girl becoming a young woman. We grow with her in this story; it’s an extreme character arc.” ⁶¹⁰

Further evidence of the unbiblical, pro-Roman Catholic nature of the film was given by the young girl who played the role of Mary, Keisha Castle-Hughes. She said: “The biggest thing, you never think is that she [Mary] was just 14 and carrying a child. She was just a girl, and then the next day, she’s a woman and married, and the next she becomes like the mother of the world.” ⁶¹¹ Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was 14 years old. The Bible does not tell us, and there is no other way of knowing for certain. Secondly, Mary never became “mother of the world.” But Rome certainly refers to her as “Mother of the Church”.

Also, in the film Mary’s parents not only appear, but are named – Anna and Joachim. The Bible, of course, does not give the name of Mary’s mother, but this has not stopped Rome from coming up with one: “St. Anne” has always been the name associated with Mary’s mother in Roman Catholic tradition, without any basis in fact. And the unbiblical nature of the film continues, with Mary being troubled over her upcoming marriage to “a man I hardly know, a man 1 do not love” (nothing like this exists in the Bible account); the three “Magi” (the Bible does not mention how many there were; this again is Roman Catholic tradition); the star being explained as a rare convergence of Venus, Jupiter and an astral body (the star was miraculous and was a real star, not some natural cosmic convergence); references foreshadowing events in Christ’s life, such as Mary washing Joseph’s feet, Joseph being angry over merchants in the temple, and others.

But Rome has never let the facts get in the way of a good propaganda story. This is what The Nativity Story was, and Rome was just glad that yet another movie could be harnessed for its own ends.

The Golden Compass (2007): Another Hollywood Attack on Roman Catholicism

Of course, despite the resurgent interest in Hollywood in making movies with a religious message, things did not all go Rome’s way: Hollywood, at its heart, was still decidedly anti-Christian and anti- Roman Catholic. And this was demonstrated, yet again, with the release of The Golden Compass.

Based on the first book in a trilogy entitled His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, and put out by New Line Cinema in partnership with Scholastic Media, it was an attack on Roman Catholicism. This was denied by Nicole Kidman, the lead actress and a professing Roman Catholic. She said, “I was raised Catholic. The Catholic Church is part of my essence. I wouldn’t be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic.” ⁶¹² Her denial notwithstanding, however, the film certainly promoted an anti-Romanist message. According to a Roman Catholic reviewer, “I vehemently disagree with Nicole Kidman. The trilogy, His Dark Materials, is the most seductive and diabolical attack upon God and the Catholic Church that I have ever encountered in books for children. Throughout all three volumes, Pullman is seeking to alienate children from God and the Catholic Church. By volume three, he has children joining the fallen angels in a final demonic attack upon the Kingdom of God.” ⁶¹³ In the movie the explicit attacks on the Romish religion were toned down, but the author well knew that after seeing it children would rush off to buy the far more explicit books.

Pullman said in an interview, “Atheism suggests a degree of certainty that I’m not quite willing to accede. I suppose technically, you’d have to put me down as an agnostic. But if there is a God, and he is as the Christians describe him, then he deserves to be put down and rebelled against. As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it’s a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny. How they have the… nerve to go on Thought for the Day and tell us all to be good when, given the slightest chance, they’d be hanging the rest of us and flogging the homosexuals and persecuting the witches.” He came out openly and said, “My books are about killing God.” He also said: “[English poet William] Blake said that [poet John] Milton was a true poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it. I am of the Devil’s party and know it.” ⁶¹⁴ He also said in an interview: “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” ⁶¹⁵

This poor benighted man was unable to distinguish between the false religion of Romanism, a harlot pretending to be the virgin bride of Christ, and the true Church of Christ which has never killed or persecuted anyone.

He also knew that he could get away with his blatant message because people were at the time focusing so much on the Harry Potter books and films that his own trilogy could slip in “under the radar”. He said, “I think that as long as people are agitated about whether Harry Potter makes you into a satanist, they’re not going to be very bothered with me. So, I’m happy to [take] shelter under the great umbrella of Harry Potter.” ⁶¹⁶

According to the story, demons are the friends of children, animal spirits which embody the souls of people and accompany them through life; God was not the Creator of the universe, but a usurper; heaven and hell do not exist; the “Church” desires the “dehumanisation” of children by separating them from their personal friend-demons; God must be killed and the “Church” must be vanquished for the good of humanity; God is finally destroyed; the pope is called Pope John Calvin and the Vatican is moved to Geneva to reflect Calvin’s authoritarian rule over that city; Romish priests kidnap children and one priest is an assassin; etc., etc.

As an example of the blatant hatred for what Pullman considers to be “the Church”, there is this diatribe, uttered by a witch in the story: “There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too… not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan’t feel. That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.” ⁶¹⁷

Another character in the story says, “The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all.” ⁶¹⁸ This particular character is a lapsed nun. In addition, the story contains messages in favour of witchcraft, sodomy, evolution, divination and premarital sex.

As is very evident, the books are not just an attack on the false Roman Catholic religion, but on biblical Christianity as well. There is a mighty spiritual war going on, and it is a war for souls. Satan will make use of pro-Papist films, and of anti-Papist films, to achieve his goals. Either way, he plays both sides and he wins.

Rambo (2008): a “Christian Rambo” Movie

Sylvester Stallone, fresh from his foray into the pro-Roman Catholic religious movie world with Rocky Balboa, then decided to make a fourth movie in his Rambo series, about a Vietnam-vet action hero. Only this time, playing to the renewed interest in pro-religious films, he gave his latest offering (simply entitled Rambo) a religious twist.

In the story, Rambo is approached by some American missionaries who want him to lead them into Myanmar (the former Burma) to bring aid to the oppressed Karen tribe, many of whom are Christians. He does so, and later, when Burmese troops capture the missionaries, their pastor asks Rambo to rescue them. The film contains the usual Stallone- movie extreme, gory and stomach-turning violence: people being blown up, beheaded, impaled, etc. Any supposed “moral” message (or even pro-“Christian” message) is simply lost under the horror of this gore-fest. 619 But this did not trouble the multitudes of professing “Christians” who went to see the film, and doubtless thought highly of the Roman Catholic Stallone for slipping what they believed to be a “pro-Christian message” into the film. Thus is evil justified. Those who want to be entertained by evil will always find ways to justify it. The task is just made a whole lot easier when the moviemakers claim the trash they chum out contains some kind of “moral” or “religious message.”

A poll conducted in 2008 by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in the United States found that 61% of Americans believed their religious values were under attack by the media. 59% believed those who ran TV networks and major film studios did not share their religious or moral values. 43% believed there was “an organized campaign by Hollywood and the national media to weaken the influence of religious values in this country.” ⁶²⁰ And yet these high percentages did not give the Hollywood or TV network moguls any sleepless nights. They simply continued to make their anti-religious films and TV programmes, and to rake in millions. The reason is not hard to find, and it is just as true today as it was then: Americans might know that there is something utterly rotten within Hollywood; they might object to the attacks on their religious values; but at the end of the day, they have become so addicted to the media, so mesmerised by its entertainment, that they are simply unwilling to give it up. They continue to watch the very films and programmes which they know are blatantly attacking their religious beliefs. And what is true of Americans is true of millions throughout the world.