23 November 2009

Fr. Barron on 2012: Spoiler Alert!

Fr. Robert Barron nails "2012" as anti-religious, specifically anti-Catholic and "boring."


  1. Anonymous6:33 AM

    I am left wondering what is WORTH seeing in terms of media. I don't even own a television any longer. I began to feel as if it was akin to installing a huge conduit for sewage to enter the house. I was at the gym the other day and Oprah was on the tvs there [no one can be away from tv long enough to exercise]. She was interviewing porn stars and talking about the "explosion" of interest in pornography by housewives. I am not married. It wasn't my demographic in any sense of the term but I was sickened by it. Why can't more inspirational, informative things be shown?

    I, for one, would welcome it. On television, in movies, books, etcetera. Our culture is "shot."

    Sorry for the downer message.

    And referring to the other post: my brother was one of those people who was operated on while still conscious. His arms were strapped down and he could not motion to anyone. He felt everything that went on. It wasn't pretty.

    This is a barbaric time. I don't like it when I think such things or say such things. But it just seems accurate.

  2. I saw he movie, you can definitley see and anti cathoilic bias. On all the occasions when the sign of the cross is used by anyone on the movie, it seems to be of no avail to them and something terrible happens to them right afterwards. Its is used by a boxer, by a Russian mafia patrone, by the cardinals right before St Peter's collapses, by a pilot who thanking God for stopping his plane from falling into a cliff and who right aftewards doing it, the plane falls. On the other hand, the first person who descends from the "arks" is a budhist monk.
    Note: The Italian prime minister (Berrusconi!! haha) Decides not to get on the "arks" because he prefered to stay and pray at the Vatican.
    No catholics, nor any other Christian for that matter is visibly included in the survicors of mankind. Only (visibly again) Muslims, budhists, rich people, politicians, soldiers and anybody who could afford to get on them.

    Nice isn't it?

  3. I have often found Father Barron to be tremendously insightful and very clear. I am happy for this review and have decided not to pay to see this movie.

    Daniel Arevalo

  4. I respectfully disagree with Fr. Barron (of whom I'm a fan). The facts do bear his opinion, but I think he is over-reading. If destruction of the Vatican is anti-Catholic, do we think Robert Hugh Benson was anti-Catholic in Lord of the World?

    Stipulating that the flick is too silly to be worth all the discussion, if anyone cares to waste time on an alternative view, here's my look at how anti-divorce and actually wholesome the flick is. http://tinyurl.com/ygh5g7e

    And if you REALLY want to have to go to confession for spending too much of the time God gave you on this improbable and plotless movie, here's a second post responding directly to Fr. B. The first comment is interesting.

    Just in the interest of balance :)

  5. Scott W.6:28 PM

    If destruction of the Vatican is anti-Catholic, do we think Robert Hugh Benson was anti-Catholic in Lord of the World?

    I don't recall him calling it anti-Catholic, but I fully believe him that this is the typical scoffer's infantile fantasy--a movie rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine" where all the backnumbers get crushed and swallowed up by the earth, and all the Right Sorts of people are spared. The only thing silier I can think of is from the '67 version of Casino Royale in which the Evil Overlord (Woody Allen) plots a form of biological warfare that will make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inches tall.