The whirlwind that is “Avatar” made it over to the Vatican earlier this month in a private screening before its release in Italy. They were not enthused with the movie, and I am not surprised with their reaction.
Their criticism ran along the lines of picking out pagan themes in the movie, specifically citing “a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.”
They further chided the movie by saying it overstepped its bounds by implying nature is “no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship.” They also dubbed ecology as the “religion of the new millennium.”
Well, thank God I came across their review in time, because I was just about to go out and sacrifice three goats in my vine-laden arbor shrine to honor Gaia (being motivated by those giant blue aliens, of course). But I had almost forgotten how silly it would have been to worship something as green and impersonal as nature, as opposed to the warmth and comfort of an incomprehensible, personified totality of existence. Close one — I mean, after all, what’s the fun in having faith in something that’s tangible and clearly exists?
Of course, this whole situation is entirely ironic coming from the Vatican, as their chief astronomer, Jose Funes, in 2008 suggested life on other planets is indeed possible, and that, in the event of meeting some aliens, the proper way to treat them would be to regard them as our brothers and sisters. (I wonder if “Jose Funes” is Italian for “Joe Biden”?)
I can imagine the multitude of eyes rolling in the Vatican after hearing word of this, but perhaps not out of contempt. Sure, we can go along with that notion, they’d say, but how do we get them to believe this stuff? And I’m sure you can imagine the awkwardness when the aliens try to break the ice by offering the church the wondrous teachings of their savior, Gldflbjk-X1.
It sounds like the church is going above and beyond the call of duty with this reaction — sour grapes, perhaps? Or maybe it’s their Glenn Beck level of rationalization of this purported new ecological religion they seem so worried about. How many people do they think could be potentially converted by the movie? And how many people do they think would clamor as to why they didn’t seize the responsibility to denounce the film if they’d chosen to keep mum?
It seems this is another familiar example of religion trying to adapt to modernity. The alien gaffe and the ecological religion claim suggest the church is trying to cope with an ever-evolving audience.
They’re not alone in this endeavor. The new, hip Christian youth movements, popularized and satirized in the movie “Saved!”, are further examples, with the most recent case in point being the “Christian Side Hug” video. (If you haven’t seen it, treat yourself.) And it’s not just Christians who are trailblazing the new millennium’s open-ended paths to righteousness. Muslims are getting treated to the Islamic comic book series “The 99,” related to the ninety-nine names of Allah, and to 4shbab, the self-described “MTV Islam.”
I could go off here about indoctrination this-and-that, but I won’t — I don’t have enough room. However, I will draw attention to two prevailing themes that will be exceedingly crucial to religion in this century: audience and message.
It seems there is an increasingly inverse relationship between the two in which controlling the message sacrifices its potential audience, and, likewise, garnering a substantial audience sacrifices the message. This is the best I can conclude from the marketing ploys described above.
Am I suggesting religion is on the out? Of course not. (I don’t have that much faith in people’s decisions.) What I am suggesting is that the longer an increasingly well-connected and well-communicated populous goes without the definitive recognition of the fantastic and the implausible, the further into the attics of their minds do such myths retreat.
Ryan Spencer is a psychology senior.
