Five Reasons to See and Talk About Noah


noahI confess. I did not go into the movie Noah with a tabula rasa. I first read the scathing review of popular blogger, Matt Walsh. Then, curiosity peaked, I watched Sr. Rose Pacatte’s review. She loved it. Confused, but also intrigued, I decided I would just have to see for myself.

There have been a wide range of views in the Christian community about this film, exemplified in the reactions of Sr. Rose and Matt.

Rick Warren, the well-known pastor of Saddleback Church, took offense before seeing the movie. And he is not alone. Some Christians, with or without seeing the film, have responded to the film with disgust, umbrage and ruffled feathers.

Perhaps it is the fact that the writer-director, Darren Aronofsky, is a self-professed atheist who did not set out to tell the Bible story exactly as it was recorded. Or perhaps it is because the character of Noah in the movie is, at times, disturbingly violent and angry. Or maybe the telling of this story doesn’t merge well with our fairy-tale, plasticized versions of the Noah of childhood memories.

It could be any number of these things. All I know is that I enjoyed the film, and with this in mind, I want to share with you five reasons to go to see the film, talk about it and decide for yourself:

1. The Need to Share Our Stories: “How dare someone steal and interpret with liberties our precious heritage!” This is the attitude I am picking up among some Christians. It seems we feel that the story of Noah somehow “belongs” to us. However, the story of Noah does not belong to Christians.

Obviously, it is in what we call the Old Testament so it first “belonged” to the Jewish traditionIslam also claims Noah as one of its prophets. So, this is a story that “belongs,” at the least, to the three major world religions. Not to mention the fact that it is a human story, so Noah really belongs to us all.

Before I get harried comments about religious relativism, I want to emphasize that, as a Christian, I absolutely believe that the story of Noah does belong, in a sense, to salvation history. It is only in the context of the coming of Jesus that the story can be fully and properly understood. But this does not mean that people of other faiths and even those with no faith, cannot fruitfully explore this primordial story and help Christians understand more deeply the truth that underlies it.

2. Strict Literalism is not Catholic: I’ll admit I was a little disappointed to see several elements in the movie that were not the same as the biblical story. But Darren Aronofsky has made it clear that he was not setting out to make a movie that strictly corresponds to the biblical story. And considering his Jewish background, this was not a surprising approach, as Fr. Barron so aptly pointed out in his excellent review of the movie.

Jewish tradition is not as married to literal readings of Scripture as some Christian denominations. And the Catholic approach to reading Scripture is actually closer to our Jewish brothers and sisters than to some of our Protestant brethren who insist on strict, literal interpretations of Scripture all of the time. If you don’t believe me, read this.

By straying from some of the details, Aronofsky manages to communicate what is perhaps a more central theme in Scripture, the justice and mercy of God. Some reviewers were perturbed that Noah becomes homicidal at one point in the movie. He is convinced that it is God’s will that the human race come to an end, therefore he decides to ensure that this happens.

First of all, it is important to note that Noah is seeking what he believes to be God’s will, not his own. Secondly, is this such a strange conclusion? Genesis 6:6 tells us that the “Lord regretted making human beings on the earth.” Sin leads to death, in this world and in the next. In justice, we deserve to die.

Sound harsh? What is the meaning of Easter if this is not true? Jesus has saved us from the death we deserve because of our sins. My point is that, without giving too much away, Noah hones in on the truth of the justice of God, only to realize that God’s mercy is what saves us, all very Christian ideas.

3. The Gnosticism Question: Before I saw the movie, I read Dr. Brian Mattson’s review of the film which criticizes what he sees as Gnostic influences. I think he makes good points. But I disagree with his interpretation of the luminous bodies of Adam and Eve and the prominent role of the snakeskin in the movie as signs of Gnostic influences. I also found another interesting interpretation of the “zohar” from a Jewish blogger that was different from Dr. Mattson’s take.

Firstly, I believe the luminescent bodies were an artistic as well as a practical choice to avoid the obvious problems that arise with complete nudity in a PG-13 movie. As for the snakeskin, my interpretation was that the snake shed its natural goodness as a created being in order to tempt Eve.

The skin of the snake represented the goodness of creation, of man, that God originally intended. I thought maybe I was being too obvious and was missing out on the Gnostic symbolism. However, other reviewers as well as the co-writer of the film, Ari Handel, gave a similar interpretation. And Handel wrote it, so I tend to trust his take on it.

Anyway, whatever your point of view, these are all good things to discuss after watching this movie…

4. Starting the Conversation: Many people have picked up some agendas in the movie. There is an emphasis on ecological concerns, which is not a bad thing as Sr. Rose, Deacon Steven Greydanus and Fr. Robert Barron all point out. Respect for our natural world is part of Catholic social teaching.

There also is also an obvious bent toward animal rights language in the film. Some have dismissed it as vegan propaganda. But again, in perspective, concern for animals is a great theme to discuss. The ideas that Aronofsky proposes are rooted, to some extent, in Scripture and in Midrash.

There is increasing concern for animals in our world. Some of this is out of balance with concern for human life and is based on an inability to see humanity as the pinnacle of creation, (the central criticism in Deacon Steven’s review of this film). But the humane treatment of animals is important and thankfully it is a thing of concern in our world – and should be a thing of concern for Christians as well (as Sr. Helena points out in her review).

5. Art, Art, Art: I think films, especially Christian films, should strive to be works of art: subtle, intelligent, beautiful and thought-provoking. I think Noah is all these things.

The film is obviously painstakingly researched. This review from The Telegraph mentions that Aronofsky used Midrashim, the Book of Enoch and Jubilee, and even 15th-century Chester Mystery Plays (which were dismissed as “popery” at the time), as well as paintings like Albrecht Dürer’s Dream Vision. The costumes in the movie are works of art in themselves, (if you see the film notice the textile work, especially the blanket that Noah’s sons throw on him near the end of the film).

In the end, I think if it takes an atheist with no investment in catering to certain points of view to show us the beauty of this Bible story, and to tell it with originality and imagination, then maybe we need more atheists telling us our own stories!

There is a lot to talk about in this film. The extreme reactions to it point neither to its brilliance or its worthlessness. Instead these reactions point to the fact that this is a work of art, a work that is meant to elicit reactions, good and bad. That’s one reason why I think this is a film worth seeing and discussing.

Sr. Marie Paul, FSP points out that this film is for mature Christians. I agree. Like her, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that films like this will lead mature Christians to good conversations about the faith and will lead others closer to God.

Happy Watching!


About Author

Sr. Theresa Aletheia Noble is a sister with the Daughters of St. Paul, a religious congregation that evangelizes through the media. A former atheist, she reverted to Catholicism several years ago and the rest is history. Sr. Theresa Aletheia currently lives in Miami where she prays, evangelizes, bakes bread and blogs.

  • Perhaps it is the fact that the writer-director, Darren Aronofsky, is a self-professed atheist who did not set out to tell the Bible story exactly as it was recorded. Or perhaps it is because the character of Noah in the movie is, at times, disturbingly violent and angry. Or maybe the telling of this story doesn’t merge well with our fairy-tale, plasticized versions of the Noah of childhood

    OK, I can see what she means by the first two sentences but her third sentence generates so much smoke from her torching of her straw man that I can not see what she is getting at (perhaps a not so subtle insult directed at we backwoods bohunks who believe that Noe was a just and faithful man).

    Genesis 6:8; Noe found Grace before the Lord.”

    “Some reviewers were perturbed that Noah becomes homicidal at one point in the movie. He is convinced that it is God’s will that the human race come to an end, therefore he decides to ensure that this happens.”

    That is a wildly impossible Biblical exegesis but it is a possible gnostic eisegesis.

    “In the end, I think if it takes an atheist with no investment in catering to certain points of view to show us the beauty of this Bible story, and to tell it with originality and imagination, then maybe we need more atheists telling us our own stories!”

    To me, that makes as much sense as saying that the Germans needed Goebbels to them them the truth about the Jews.

    O, can’t “….catering to certain points of view…” simply mean telling the truth about the Bible?

    • Soliloquized

      Great points.

  • goral

    What is it about this film that illicits such rave reviews from the nuns and some women while hardly a man, less a priest, has anything positive to say.
    Is it that women are just more artistic in their views than men?

    This is very curious.

    • Soliloquized

      I humbly suggest that Russel Crowe has sex appeal. In the case of Nuns, I’m not suggesting more than a natural attraction to him, but he is a wonderful actor, presents as a very strong and assertive man, how I wish he would have avoided this endeavor. Not in a strong role, but a credible one, he appeared in “A Beautiful Mind”. In a strong role, he was the captain in “Master and Commander”. Many other roles as well.

      I’m morally opposed to rewriting the story of Noah to suit climate change and population control advocates. I won’t be seeing this movie. The director had the opportunity to keep some/much of the Biblical context. I’m afraid that he is trying a bait-and-switch approach to lure Christians to see the movie with God in mind, but come away with the advocacy in mind.


      Best Regards.

      • goral

        Great suggestion, Soliloquized. That certainly would explain the gender split in the responses. I know myself, that I will overlook things that are otherwise important to me, if the object of my blindness is easy on the eyes. There are still counter arguments, for argument sake. Would Clint Eastwood, (in his younger days), Mel Gibson or other so called conservative celebrities, bring out the same response; How about Charlton Heston with his longun? He would have done a great job. Anyone who can walk through water can certainly stay afloat.
        WWJD? if He starred in Noah? Knowing what we’ve read about his appearance, probably a box office bust. That certainly would be ironic. Nuns sink film with Jesus in it.

      • Sr. Theresa Noble

        I’m a bit shocked that you would suggest that religious sisters like Sr. Rose Pacatte, Sr. Marie Paul and Sr. Helena, all trained in film and media studies, are responding to the film due to sex appeal. I won’t say much more than that. Except to point out that there are positive review from well-respected men in the Catholic world, (e.g. Fr. Robert Barron and Steven Greydanus).

        • Soliloquized

          We are of the flesh, despite our best intentions. I did qualify my statement to mean a natural attraction to the assertive characteristics of his screen persona.

          I also provided a link to the Sister’s articles elsewhere, I was hoping others would read one she wrote about a young woman that decided to pay for her college by becoming an actress in sex movies. The Sister dwelled upon a hypothetical young man that the young woman confided-in that supposedly violated that confidence and informed others at the college about her new trade. She felt that the hypothetical young man was wrong and some attention should be focused on that angle.

          I’m sure with the viewing proclivities of youth that it was only a matter of time before someone discovered her. The Sister also mentioned the discussion in mainstream media over the the advantages and disadvantages of the young woman’s new trade. Frankly, I didn’t agree with the Sister’s focus on the topic, it seemed to be making the issue relative, as she, in my opinion, did on the Noah review as well.

          Best Regards.

          • Sr. Theresa Noble

            I don’t think qualifying your accusation that religious sisters liked the movie simply because of Russell Crowe’s sex appeal really excuses that kind of comment.

            I am not sure what details you are referring to in my article about the problem of pornography but if you would like to discuss your issues with that article, please feel free to comment on it and we can discuss. I am happy to hear what concerned you. But I am not sure how this relates to my review of NOAH….

            I think it is important to raise issues with any article with charity regardless of who you think wrote it or what their point of view is. We are brothers and sisters in the same Church after all. God bless.

          • Soliloquized

            It doesn’t relate to your review of Noah, it relates to you.

            I’m Catholic, as is my wife, we were devastated by the actions of Father Corapi. A cursory search of priests and celibacy quickly shows the failures of the flesh. I simply suggested that a natural attraction may motivate women, including nuns, to find an appeal that men may miss. I carefully qualified the nature of that appeal. Sanctimony isn’t going to change reality. I’m at a loss to understand the umbrage.

            Of the other topic: “As word spread, this young woman was left with the choice to retreat or proudly stand by her chosen line of work. She chose the latter.”


            Then to quote her: ” I know that I have … completed an honest day’s work. It is my artistic outlet: my love, my happiness, my home.”

            I agree with that article, but I think it is potentially harmful to others contemplating such activities. Primum non nocere.

            At my current employer, the providers of the Emergency Assistance Program, designed for those that have addiction or psychological problems, spoke at my shop concerning drug abuse. As a sideline, they discussed two frequently used illicit drugs, but in the context of how long they remain in the body for detection by drug tests. One, for well over a month, the other they said would clear within a week. To this day I can’t see the benefit of people trying to discourage illicit drug use discussing how you could get away with using one of the illicit substances, namely by saying if you used them early in a vacation, they should be undetectable by the time you return to work.

            I think the advice on when it’s safe to use illicit drugs would have been better left unsaid. So to, the positive wording of the young woman’s unfortunate choice. Sin has a way of consuming the sinner, her aspirations to be a lawyer (if memory serves correctly) will certainly be dashed by her choice.

            I was trying to suggest a lapse in judgement in the review of Noah and the article on the young women, using one to shore-up the other.

            Ultimately, for the movie, de gustibus non est disputandum. Yet I’m am acutely aware of rampant, dehumanizing environmentalism, an I will have no part, nor shall I contribute to efforts to depict Biblical events sans God. IMHO

            May God give you and those that fill your life a meaningful Easter weekend.

        • goral

          Please allow me, Sr. Theresa, to join the exchange as I’m the one who drew the comment regarding the obvious gender split in opinions on the film Noah. I’m obligated to go down with Jesus and Soliloquized if we’re going to get sunk. Some of my marginal statements are obviously tongue in cheek. I still hold his explanation as very plausible. There are different things that tickle us in our psyche, these things are gender, culture and even profession specific. Some of them we can’t even explain. I’m sure your article is most interesting and helpful to many. I’m not one of them. Since you approached the review from the positive angle, you should expect a challenge from the other side as I’m sure you do. Orthodoxy is strong on this website and you would agree that this film is anything but orthodox.

          • Soliloquized

            Very well said. May your Easter weekend be meaningful for you, family, and friends.

          • Sr. Theresa Noble

            Goral and Soloquized, I do not think it will be fruitful to continue this interchange but I wish you both the best. May you have a blessed Easter.

    • Well, it was atheist Jews who created and produced this movie and not a few women have been seduced into shilling for it and advising others to pay to go see it (as though it makes sense for Christian Catholics to reward wealthy atheistic men for attacking truth) and, seeing as how the movie, at least tangentially, has to do with the Bible, maybe the answer to your question is to be found in an Epistle by Saint Paul

      1 Know also this, that, *in the last days, shall come dangerous times:

      2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked,

      3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness,

      4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God:

      5 Having an appearance indeed of piety, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid:

      6 For of this sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women loaded with sins, who are led away with divers desires:

      7 Always learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.

      • Jane

        You have GOT to be kidding! And in what world does this qualify as a Christian response? If you’re calling this woman of God who has given her life for the Lord a “silly woman loaded with sins” and “led away with divers desires” you can expect a much more uncomfortable Day of Judgment than any atheist Hollywood director!!!!

        • Jane. Had you read what I was responding to, you’d not be able to make that accusation. He was writing about not just this particular nun but also some women.

          Had I intended to describe this Nun in that way, I’d have made it clear.

          O, but as for the Nun, she did claim that it is reasonable to think that Noe, he who found Grace before the Lord, was a homicidal maniac.

          • Jane

            I did read it and the way that you are not-so-carefully wording your response to make sure that this writer and many other women are implicated in your slander just reinforces my point.
            And no, Sr. Theresa did not claim that Noah was a homicidal maniac. She never used the word maniac. Homicidal is an accurate description of someone having an inclination to commit homicide, which the character did.
            I have decided that you and many of the other posters here must be anti-Catholics disquising themselves as Catholics and quoting saints to make your background believable. Who else would be so intent on giving such an angry, malicious image of the faith?

      • Jane

        Elizabeth Scalia at the Patheos blogs says it well in her post about the Noah-related lashing out between Christians:
        “Here’s a newsflash, fellow Christians: the evil one feeds on the bitter fallout of this foolishness. Concerns about “disinformation stealing souls” does not give anyone the right to be a nasty sonofabitch to someone over a movie, or a book. Such wrath has precisely the opposite effect it intends; it serves no evangelical purpose. Seething rage over a movie, contra or pro, doesn’t save anyone’s soul; very likely, it instead imperils souls, by making Christianity look like a pharisaical miasma of temporally-fixated hysteria and high drama.”

        • goral

          Jane, you are supporting my point. Once again, Ms. Scalia and you stand ready to fight for good reviews of the film. Why? Why not just admit that it’s a bad film with some good theater thrown in to hook those who need to be entertained.?

          • goral

            Speaking of reinforcing points, here it is again guys against gals. Soliloquized was right on the mark.
            Here is a quote from Sr. Helena’s review of – God is not Dead: (note the loooong parenthesis)

            “Professor Radisson is played to the hilt by Kevin Sorbo. (And he looks fantastic.
            He must have the same health regimen as David Bowie. I had no idea what
            a great actor this guy was. He has a commanding, sonorous voice and he
            plays hockey. What more could you ask for?) GND also stars Dean Cain, so
            we have Hercules and Superman in the same movie.”

            That’s coming from a film critic who thinks Noah is the best movie ever made. Perhaps it should have been titled Gone With the Water, and bump Gone With the Wind from its lofty position.

            Looks like we’re not getting sunk, yet, however, there is an accusation of slander, really? I did read Elizabeth’s ranting column and now Jane goes on a rant, hurling accusations of aliens disguised as Catholics making “malicious” comments”.
            To both of them I make this observation,
            “Methinks the lady doth protest too much”

          • Soliloquized

            Great find, really makes the point.

          • Soliloquized

            Goral, I’ve not been a commenter at Catholic Lane for very long, some of the names mentioned are not familiar to me. In your response to Jane, if you click on her name, to the right of yours in the above paragraph, it says “Elizabeth Scalia at the Pat…”.

            Is there any chance Jane and Elizabeth Scalia are one in the same, or is it more likely she’s an ardent supporter of Elizabeth Scalia?

          • goral

            I’ve been in/on this Lane longer than a Florida driver coming up to New England for the Spring. This time I had the blinker on for a stretch and didn’t notice that Elizabeth pulled into my lane, as Jane, without a blinker. I’m cool with that because I do it a lot. Thanks for the fun and informative exchanges. I appreciate all the commentators and literary contributors. I learn something from all of them. Oh, the Editors are my favorite. So, to all of them and you, I wish a most blessed and joyous Easter. Laudate Dominum for his Precious Blood.

          • Soliloquized

            If you read my original premise, which I have nulled, I was incorrect in my reasoning, it was an odd coincidence that led me to my conclusion. Most other places I comment, the commenter’s history is available by clicking on their avatar, or at least you’re taken to a page that says the profile is private. With Jane’s (and yours) nothing is produced clicking on the avatar, but clicking on the name associated with the avatar seemed to give some info. Subsequently I discovered that the info in nothing more than the first few words of the associated comment.

            Nevertheless, writing styles and acerbity still leave me wondering. See MS Scalia’s blog on the Mozilla CEO, if you see the correct one, you’ll understand. My wife and I, both Catholic, are perplexed by the aggressiveness of these nuns and the accusations, by Jane, that anyone on this thread that doesn’t agree with the review of Noah must be non-Catholics masquerading as Catholics.

            Indeed, praise the Lord for His sacrifice.

            Best to you and yours this Easter weekend and throughout the year.

          • goral

            Hmmm…… this is getting curiouser and curiouser. We’re going to be told on Mon. that the disciples stole the body to create the hoax of the Resurrection. We’re being told by the fed. propaganda machine that Harry Reid wants to save the desert turtle. There is more here, a lot more. Just follow the turtle. It walks slow(ly) but gets to where it want to go.
            I suspect your second hunch is as good as your first (sex appeal), perhaps leading somewhere as revealing.
            Let’s name the turtle – Null.


        • She rants at Christians for ranting at a movie; and then she closes the comment box. I guess we know who thinks she speaks for Christian Catholics.

          As to Noah being no big deal, here is the counsel of another woman, Saint Teresa of Avila:

          Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: ‘This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.

          • Soliloquized

            Wow, Saint Teresa is right, it’s a form of incrementalism.

      • Soliloquized

        Though circumspect about the way that you said it, I agree much in principle about not supporting the endeavors of atheists in the production of Biblical Stories.

        Best wishes for the Easter Weekend.

  • Harry Flynn

    Sorry, Sister, I disagree with your review. If it is for “mature Christians” only, then no Christian should see it. Even L’Osservatore Romano offered a scathing review.
    How much longer are we going to cave to the culture, inch by inch?

    • Jane

      Harry – Catholics don’t cave to the culture, but they do engage it. Is a rant of this movie required to qualify as not caving? The Passion of the Christ was for mature Christians only also, for similar reasons. I saw this movie, by the way, and had a similar response to it as Sr. Theresa. Noah was portrayed as a Godly man. His anger and even his plans for violence were based on the belief that this was God’s will, similar to Abraham.
      Also – L’Osservatore Romano did not review the film. Avvenire did, which is a newspaper owned by the Italian bishops’ conference, not the Vatican.

  • Movie lies

    “By straying from some of the details, Aronofsky manages to communicate what is perhaps a more central theme in Scripture, the justice and mercy of God. Some reviewers were perturbed that Noah becomes homicidal at one point in the movie. He is convinced that it is God’s will that the human race come to an end, therefore he decides to ensure that this happens.”


    He did not. ” stray from some of the details.” He completely ignored the Biblical truth about Noe and imputed to that perfect man malign motivation.

    Yes, it is strange; strange to the point of either mendacity (my pick) or psychosis. Here is the truth about Noe. He is a faithful just and perfect man who believes what our Lord tells him and our Lord, repeatedly, tells him that he, the Lord, will destroy man and yet you think this hateful eisegesis (that Noe decided to take matters into his own hands) is defensible.

    Fine but such antiChristian hate has aught to do with the Bible and truth.


    “But Noe found grace before the Lord.
    These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in
    his generations, he walked with God… He said to Noe: The end of all
    flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through
    them, and I will destroy them with the earth…Behold I will bring
    the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh,
    wherein is the breath of life, under heaven. All things that are in
    the earth shall be consumed.
    And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt enter into
    the ark, thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and the wives of thy sons
    with thee…And Noe did all things which God commanded him…And the
    Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee
    I have seen just before me in this generation…For yet a while, and
    after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty
    nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the
    face of the earth. [5]
    And Noe did all things which the Lord had commanded him.

    • Soliloquized

      ….nothing wrong with hoping that some audience members will read the original text and have an eye-opening experience, as they realize the movie has completely subverted the meaning of the story ……The major complaint about “Noah” is that it appropriates the story and presses it into service for the official religion of the United States government, the Church of Global Warming…..As for the storyline (the real one), what we know from Genesis is that God considered Noah a “righteous man.” For that reason Noah and his family (and the animals) would be spared so they could repopulate the Earth after the flood. God’s reason for wiping out what He had created was because “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time”……I’m weighing in here as something of an outside referee, because I don’t belong to any organized church… mentioned by Dr. Mattson (who is quite peeved at religious leaders for failing to notice the substitution of Gnostic mysticism for Christian teaching) the actual reasons God sent the Flood are offloaded onto Noah in the final scene… and he’s presented as an outright psychopath for taking them seriously….. This is subversion, not embellishment,….The damage from this kind of subversion seems likely to outweigh the benefits, especially if “Noah” turns a big profit….and studios decide the next big cinematic craze should be rewriting Bible stories to transmit politically approved messages. ……what do you suppose the reaction would be if an enterprising band of Christian filmmakers decided to remake an environmentalist story (oh, say, “The Lorax”) and subvert it to make the Biblical point about God giving mankind dominion over the flora and fauna?

      The above are selected sections of a long review. Please visit the link for the whole thing. My objection is the distortion of the Story of Noah to suit rampant extreme environmentalism and depopulation schemes, but as Bornacatholic and the review linked in this comment portend, the movie may be harmful for more ecclesiastical reasons.

      In this regard, I think your quote by Saint Teresa of Avila is most applicable.

      Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: ‘This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.

  • For Holy Saturday Morning Service, Holy Mother Church used to have this solemn service that dealt with, among other truths, The Prophecies, the second of which is “The Deluge,” And in that solemn service it speaks about Noe as “the human race is preserved by one family, which represents the disciples of Christ…”

    But, we are being told by so many Christian Catholic movie reviewers that the lies about Noe are perfectly understandable and acceptable owing to art and so we now think that that one family which represents the disciples of Christ was headed by a homicidal maniac who loved Gaia.

    Yeah, this is all no big deal. Slaying truth and lying about the Bible is no big deal because Russell Crowe is hot.

  • Jane

    Dear Blessed Mother, on this most holy of days, please intercede for these men who see defense of what they perceive to be the truth as the ultimate virtue, while sneering at the very idea of the virtue your Son called the greatest of all. May the women in their lives find respect from other places until their loved ones are able to perceive women with the respect they deserve, especially those who have graciously sacrificed the pleasures of this world for vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

    • LOLl This has to be the best sexist prayer I have ever read on an Easter.

      Kudos, sister 🙂

    • Soliloquized

      Women, never met one that didn’t think she was right on all issues, you appear not to be the exception.

      My views stand as they are, I shan’t capitulate to any earthly being based simply on the perceived propriety of the situation.

      My views are espoused throughout this thread, no need to reiterate.

      I’m not sure whence the harm arises to let people read various views on merits or detriments of this movie?


    • goral

      Here is a near perfect example of why most smart parishes stopped the practice of the priest asking the people, at the moment of “prayers of the faithful” to add, audibly, their personal intentions.
      There were embarrassing moments for all as backhanded and resent-filled supplications were being included with prayers for the local bishop.
      I agree with Sr. Theresa that we may have reached the end of the thread in these comments. Our opinions remain, minus the “sneering” at the Son.