Historians should be unbiased - a catholic sponsered historian is really a contradiction in terms - as demonstrated by his twisting of events.

Caldini attacks Islam as a "threat" which will really help international relations.

A peace teaty was signed with the Ottoman Empire in 1587, the year before the first Armada attack, so reference to the conflict with Islam is a little misleading.

My understanding is that at one time Venice had grown so frustrated with the demands of the Catholic church that they were positive about the Ottoman empire.

Elizabeth was under threat from Catholic plots throughout her life from both outside and within her own country, so yes, they should be demonised.

Any unbiased student of history will be aware that all churches
have their skeletons, some bigger than others, - if I was either catholic or protestant I would want to distance myself from the appalling things which have been done in the name of these churches over the past 2,000 years.

Andy Ralphs, New Plymouth, New Zealand

You are all crazy! You quarrel about events of 5 centuries ago!
I would like you all to notice a few things.
That was a war between England and Spain, not between Catholics and Protestants. This is just a movie.
Vatican is not Italy, so don't say Rome, say the Vatican, even if I am a beliver and a Catholic I find annoying that Italy is always identified with the Pope.
All religions had made mistakes.

Giulia, Pavia, Italy

The film is not a history lesson. It is but an ephemeral piece of entertainment using an historical background to elevate what is nothing more than a delicious bodice-ripper!

Brooks, Munchen, Germany

Professor Cardini should realise that it's the winners that write history and suprise ,suprise it is also open to interpretation beyond a few dry facts and dates.
When a nation defeats an attempt to invade it's boarders and subjugate its people there does tend to be a little rancour, even down the ages and "Hollywood" does simplify .It draws characters that represent more than the bones that stood them upright.
What probably irritates the professor and would not be a large part of the film are the events that led the protagonists on the path to conflict .The sickening corruption of the Catholic Church,Martin Luther and a little matter of the Reformation were still to have their political effects resolved (and still today it seems).
As to England's pursuit of it's own interests,why ,shame on us. Elizebeth must have done something right though,wind the clock forward a couple of hundred years . The play of history runs for more than three acts.
What price an inquesition?

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

I saw the movie last Friday, and I have to say that the movie is 100% Hollywood, however I guess it gives to us a very basic truth what happened those days. It is true that Philip II was a obsessive catolic and this behave spreed into his realm and it is true that Queen Elizabeth I has to fight against the Roman Catholic church and its leaders (Pope and others). The movie shows the real thoughts of the time, of course, with Hollywood's views to make profit. Otherwise I saw on movie a very important issue that the people have not spoken,that the Elizabeth I was a very religious person (showing in the movie when she goes several times to pray). She was a Queen in difficult times that NEVER refuse the believes of Christianity, fighting against the Roman Catholic Church and Inquisition which survive in Spain and Portugal until 17th century. I guess she was a great Queen that fight for England and not for Vatican.

Jose, London, UK

People in Spain and England today worry that some of their Muslim citizens are not loyal to their adopted homelands. Some strange version of their religious affiliation to the ummah makes them blow up trains, in Madrid and London. In 1570 Pope Pius V issued the notorious bull "Regnans In Excelsis", declaring "Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime" to be a heretic. It released her Catholic subjects from any allegiance to her, and automatically excommunicated any that obeyed her orders. It directly inspired the attempted terrorism of the Gunpowder Plot. It is also strikingly similar to the call al-Queda and other extreme Islamist groups make to Spanish and British Muslims, absolving them of any loyalty to the Spanish and British states.

Isn't it time that the Pope set aside this Papal Bull - in reality an incitement to Catholic jihad - in the interests of harmony between Protestants, Catholics and Muslims.

georges, London, UK

It also downplays the role of the Dutch republic in defeating the Spanish armada. The English always claim credit for defeating the Spanish while the Dutch took the most of the burden.

Johan de Witt, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Please,stop identifying the Vatican with Italy. The title should be corrected as “Vatican condemns…. and so on….”.

Thanks.

Luigi Curatola, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy

all i see from the words that i read relating to catholicism is hate. from what i can gather the message of catholicism is love, to live for others. unselfishness. is catholicism criticised because these ideals are hard to achieve? every point it makes is true. abortion? wrong. divorce? wrong. these two controversial topics gain acceptance because they are the selfish option.

james mackin, dublin, ireland

I thought it would be interesting to see how the film came out from a vote by the 'ayes' and the 'nay's". I couldn't go through the whole list but I did a small sample and found that those 'Pro the film' outnumber those 'Against' by about 2 to 1. So we win again!
What a ridiculous subject for discussion in the 21st century!
But not ALL funny. On the serious side; The idea of 'Christians' uniting against Islam comes from the dark ages while the fact that the subject was raised should be a 'heads up' to us all , It gives you an idea of what irresponsible thinking is going on in powerful places. For me, anyway, it spells out that, as a last resort, we will protect our 'Western' religion with weapons. God save us from these religions. (I say that as an atheist - escaped from Catholocism - but you know what I mean)
JC

john Cullen, Cork, Ireland

Mmmm, poor Brits, having to rewrite chunks of history to gain some semblance of credibility - they really messed a lot of things up!

Greg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Pot calling kettle black. When the Vatican admits that it does not exactly have a squeaky clean record of history and oppression then I will listen to their opinion. Until then who cares what they say. Can't wait to see the film.

Tom H-B, Belgravia, London

Professor Cardini seems to be over-reacting a bit, but at the same time, he is right that the film offers a distorted and somewhat melodramatic view. Phillip II seems to be modelled after Shakespeare's Richard III, complete with bandy legs, and his motivation is presented as religious fanaticism (when the desire to increase his empire and take back England, a country he had once been King of by marriage, must have been just as strong). The Catholics in the film have a strange penchant for constantly dyeing cloth red (llok! red! like blood! Because they're eeeeeviiil!) while Elizabeth wears shining white clothes with angelic wing-like things.

However, Professor Cardini is possibly over-reacting a little. Worse crimes against history have been committed on film (e.g. U571). This one is just a bit melodramatic and generally OTT.

Juliette, Birmingham,

whether you agree with the catholic historian, one thing that needs to be remembered is that for 1200 years, while the catholic church ruled over emperors, kings and queens as the true govt, there was no freedom of speech, of religion, industrial advance or human rights--and genuine, Bible -based Christianity was persecuted as heresy. The Reformation not only revived the true apostolic faith of 30-300 A.D. but was also a social phenomena that birthed democratic reform, populist republicanism, true civil/human rights, and the scientific and industrial revolutions, almost all thru Germany, Switzerland, England and the USA. So let us not forget what Catholicism WAS--and where the world has come from.

Larry Vignone, Baltimore, MD

Raedwald, Castle Douglas, Scotland

Where on earth did you get the idea that Elizabeth I executed 'upwards of 11000' Catholics during her reign? You claim that this is the current consensus among academic historians. Rubbish. You are astronomically incorrect - Elizabeth executed only a few hundred Catholics during her 43 year reign and the charge they faced was never 'heresy' - it was almost always 'treason'. What are the historians in Castle Douglas smoking? Please check your facts before you post, someone might make the catastrophic mistake of believing you.

Jamie A, Belfast,

What is particularly amusing is that English Protestants are defending a Muslim's or Hindu's (director Shakhur Kapur) version of Western history as being as pure as Elizabeth's virginity. Their hatred towards the Spanish in general and Catholics specifically is so deep-rooted, they're willing to bet intellectual integrity on a two-hour movie made merely for money's sake. The cardinal won't make a cent for his comments; his words are pearls thrown to swine.

MKM, Hawaii, USA

Just the other day I read a news story from the Vatican about the letters of Anne Boleyn, which are held by the Vatican, and were procured by a spy at the court of Henry VIII. So there were indeed Vatican spies in England, by the Vatican's own admission, and there was indeed an urgent desire between the Pope in Italy and the Spanish King to remove .
Elizabeth and forcibly return England to the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the majority of Englishman were glad to be rid of it. There was no dispute about the papal and kingly intent at the time and there ought to be none now. It is a matter of history and record. The Vatican commentator should really dust off a history book that doesn't have an Imprimatur on it and read about what really happened. Oh, and the Vatican should return those letters, which properly belong to the English people.

M. Hoeber, Miami, Florida USA

I cannot resist adding to my previous post.
Is Antonio Allegra aware that the Pope (Sixtus 5?) promised Philip ll one million ducats(a hell of a lot of money) towards the cost of the proposed 1587 invasion of England(which became 1588 due to unforeseen events, like Drake) for the specific purpose of removing Elizabeth and restoring the Roman Church's domination over England?
In the end he weaseled out, I believe, on the grounds that the invasion didn't happen.
Raedwald, of Scotland, was that 11,000 religious executions a mis-type, or are you using something illegal?

MikeM, St. Albans, England

No one is silly enough to criticize the acting abilities of one of the truly great actresses of our time. What they are criticizing is the falsehood and historical distortions of the 2 films. As a Catholic, I was deeply offended by the one-sided and inaccurate betrayal of Catholics under Elizabeth in the first film, and the complete neglect of the destruction of the Catholic Church in England by Elizabeth and her cronies (to say nothing of the complete appropriation of churches and moasteries by the Anglican Church as well as the martydom of Catholics by her and Cromwell.) One has to only visit a few Anglican churhces in the UK to see how many of them have been taken from the Catholics and still bear some Catholic trappings. This is poor filmmaking and propaganda. Lush costumes and all-star performances do not change the fact that it is based on a distorted view of facts and history. I watch almost anything with Geoffrey Rush and Cate Blanchette, but this is beyond the pale.

Joe Coffman, Tujunga, CA

Again the Catholic Church wants to line up films behind its own self serving dogma. King Philip was exactly as portrayed in this movie.
To attack a Cate Blanchett movie as "perverse" shows the most venal, low minded and craven kind of onslaught. The RC Church needs to address its own faults. Miss Blanchett is one of the great actresses of our time and people should be encouraged to view her work not vice versa.
There is little in the history of the Roman church to recommend it as virtuous.

George Mazzei, St Petersburg, FL, USA

I watched the film yesterday (Friday), it is superb. It portrays a period in history which makes uncomfortable viewing today, but hopefully we now have a better, more compassionate and loving concept of universal fellowship than was possible in the sixteenth century.

We cannot chamnge the past, but never let it spoil the present.

Kevin Crinks, Wigan, UK

It is time all Christians got together and actually followed what Jesus Christ taught instead of squabbling amongst themselves. Why does an eminent professor bother to react against a film based on dubious dramatised history? The Catholic Church or any of the others aren't likely to be affected if they concentrate on disseminating the true Christian message to the modern world instead of trying to rebut these deliberately exaggerated box-office interpretations.
Anyway, Mary I and Philip II were married so perhaps he ought to have been King of England and Spain instead of the Virgin Queen; but after nearly half a millenium who cares, (other than Professor Cardini).

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, UK

Yes it is a film... but an historical one. This is absolutely not fiction if the main characters are historical figures.

It is imperative for a clear understanding of historical events that the movie comes as close as possible to the facts, otherwise people will get a distorted, caricatured, biased version of history. This is called propaganda.

There are no goodies or baddies in History just different groups of people fighting over resources and ideologies and some greedy rulers.

Some events such as the 1588 armada are overestimated in importance: it was not decisive and did not put an end to that war. But as a counter-example, the naval battle of Trafalgar was VERY important: it was the battle that made the Royal Navy the uncontested power of the seas in the 19th Century and beginnings of the 20th.

Manuel, Montreal, Canada

Many factors led to the destruction of the great armada:
Spanish ship design, seamanship, naval strategy, dreadful leadership, a corrupt society and really bad luck. The only function of the armada was to pick up the Duke of Parma's army, cross the channel, and conquer England. Elizabeth's navy based on a merit system did hold the armada at bay and a fortuitous storm scattered the Spanish fleet. The real killer was the voyage home. Spain remained a powerful country. England emerged as a naval power--the real issue is what if the armada had succeeded?
Rome would have reintroduced the Inquisition to England--and the "Vatican backed history professor" might now be wanting to know just how much torture you can take. If you think this far fetched, just look at the reign of the last catholic monarch in England--Bloody Mary! Is that why bloody is a curse word in England?In any case, it is just a movie and not a bad one at that.

joel, dallas, texas

The last time the Vatican criticised something, it was the Harry Potter novels. Now, one of the Pope's shouting brigade screams about a movie on Elizabeth I. Of course, the lackey doing this shouting and screaming where he speaks about how the church went to aid other Christians has conveniently forgotten about the sustained campaign that the Catholics conducted against Orthodox Christians and those within their own flock who demanded reform and accountability from the "infallible" popes.

What a joke! Its a pity the Times doesn;t have a Humour Section - Cardini's diatribe would fit in perfectly on a joke page. If the pope's criticism of the Harry Potter novels were sent there as well, there could even be a series on Vatican Humour under Benedict.

Mehul Kamdar, Des Plaines, IL, USA

It's a film, not a documentary, for God's sake! Films have to have a goodie and a baddie. If they try to be politically correct, they tie themselves in terrible knots. (See "Kingdom of Heaven" or the "Alamo" if you don't know what I mean). The director seems to be making a point about freedom of religion/thought and is probably taking some liberties with history in the process.

Having said all that, I must admit it's it's nice to see us English portrayed as goodies for once. Mel Gibson must be tearing his hair out.

Mike, London, UK

And do you know something about the English Armada of 1589?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Armada

It is incredible how the English rewrite History or tell only half of it! The Spanish-English War of 1585-1604 had no real impact in terms of geopolitics of that Era - except for English Propaganda that still persists today over this naval battle.

It was the Dutch at the naval battle of Downs (1639) and the French at the battle of Rocroi (1643) that marked the real beginning of the end of the Spanish Empire in Europe with the support of the Swedes thereafter.

And about religion, I think this should be a personal matter whether believing or not in a particular vision of the world. There is no way to go back! I think that Kings as Queens of that Era were Tyrannical and that religion was an excuse for the presence of a political poiice - Inquisition in Spain or "Kind of Stasi" in England.

Manuel, Montreal, Canada

So lemme see....a "Vatican-backed" "history" professor writing in the house organ of the (Roman Catholic) Italian Bishops' Conference has come to the (absolutely unbiased, of course) conclusion that the film "Elizabeth: the Golden Age" is a “distorted anti-papal travesty.”

Wotta surprise!

And SO newsworthy!

Lemme tell you what's surprising to me. Sargon, Rhamesses, Ashoka, Alexander, Akbar, Friedierich, Catherine, one of the Herods and even Alfred of Wessex have all been found by the writers of our history books to merit the epithet "the Great," yet Elizabeth I of England has not.

Now that is, indeed, a travesty!

Laurence Tenney, San Francisco,

Just want to precise a little mistake in the title of the article: It's not Rome (the Italian Capital) to condemn the Movie, but the Vatican, that, unfortunelly, is in the Middle of Rome. The Italian authorities and the italian people have praised the Movie! Thanks!

Salvatore, Napoli, Italy

How tragic that only a few months ago the Pope himself said
that ONLY Catholicism was the true Christian religion & now
someone else under 'his auspices' says he is bothered
about patching up 'misunderstandings 'when the Pope himself said (headlines in the Times maybe early April?
this year - 2007) that Catholicism is the ONLY true Christian
faith.

Perhaps they would like to get their PR straight. Very sad for those who believe in love.

Pax Vobiscum. Kim, New Mexico, USA

Kim Cash, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Cardini is a fool but the equally sectarian comments of the some of the English readers are just as ridiculous. Elizabeth and the Pope at the time were both power-hungry rulers who used religion to advance their political agendas, and caused untold oppression and suffering. The idea that we should refight the hundred years war so that Europe can unite behind the winner and take on Islam, would be laughable if it wasn't so scary that the Vatican actually thinks that way. ALL religion belongs in the dustbin of history.

Ray, Morristown, NJ, USA

Antonio Allegra writes:
'Philip was the great king of the main superpower of his era, and his reasons to (try to) conquer England were political and not only religious; Elizabeth was a exterminer of Irish Catholics (and a fierce supporter of the subordination of faith to crown)

Philip II attacked England because he wanted to defeat Protestantism. He had no intention of ruling England. He presided over the most catastrophic naval defeat Spain (or any other country) has ever suffered. His military failures, including his failure to defeat the Dutch rebels, happened because he did not fight political wars - he fought religious wars. I would suggest, therefore, that 'Great King' is a little generous. Elizabeth was not an 'exterminator of Irish Catholics' (see mine and Jamie A's comments below). She never once suggested that faith should be subordinate to crown and i should like to see you produce ANY evidence to the contrary. Your history, like the Professors', is ludicrous.

Gabriel Casey, Belfast,

I believe the Vatican has Anne Boleyn's desk. Could we (the English) have it back please? Very underrated woman is Anne Boleyn - intellectual, brave and a considerable strategist.
I am glad her daughter inherited these qualities, and added a few of her own, like restraint and cunning and,so unfashionable in leaders these days, a love of her country.

Carol, London,

The current consensus among academic historians is that in the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558) the number of persons executed/martyred for their Protestantism was 303. The reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) saw upwards of 11000 executions of Roman Catholics for purely religious reasons. The balance is easily made: had she reigned for as long as her half-sister, Mary would have executed "only" 2727 Protestants .... Which, then, more justly merits the epithet "Bloody"?

Raedwald, Castle Douglas, Scotland, UK

Cardini is a highly respected historian, well known also among internation scholars. If you read italian, it is better to check his original at www.avvenire.it (no direct link, but easily accesible at 30 october edition, then "agora").
It is not an article on the general meaning of religion or its pros and cons. It is just a note on a disturbing and old styled anti-Catholic bias soooo evident in the movie (I saw it in Rome). Just an evident point: Philip was, of course, *also* the great king of the main superpower of his era, and his reasons to (try to) conquer England were political and not only religious; Elizabeth was, of course, *also* a exterminer of Irish Catholics (and a fierce supporter of the subordination of faith to crown), and her reasons to do so were also religious and not only political.
And better not to represent the defeat of the Invencible Army as a victory of free thought...
And I have the right to feel indigned if a blockbuster is historically so ludicrous.

Antonio Allegra, Perugia, Italy

As I remember Elizabeth was the monarch who didn't want a window on men's souls. By the standards of the day she was a pussycat. Roman Catholics on the other hand tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament, the home of free speech, only two years after Elizabeth's death.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

How can a secular, de-Christianised Europe be a bad thing? How is 'Western' associated with Catholicism or even Christianity (how little they deserve their capital letters) anyway? Why not drop this 'us against them, east vs. west' ideology and try something different, what have we to lose?

Simon Waddell, Edinburgh, Scotland

It was more than a storm that defeated the Armada LOL!

GREAT to see catholics squirming. Revolting anti-female cult that it is.

Alison, London,

How can it divide the West if no one has seen it? It is getting unvarying bad reviews here.

Catherine, Chicago,

p.s.
Although, perhaps, not a better speller.
Marta Klein
Los Angeles

Marta Klein, Los Angeles, California, USA

Vincent Coles writes:

'Professor Cardini's analysis is disturbingly accurate...it fits the facts'

Interesting perspective Vincent. Taking my earlier post into consideration, exactly what do you imagine these 'facts' to be?

Gabriel Casey, Belfast,

I agree with MikeM, St. Albans, England. And would like to add: was that storm an act of God.

Alan Walton, Leicester, England

Poor Marta Klein, languishing in the backwaters of the USA. It appears that news doesn't penetrate the shores of the Land of the Free. Someone tell her that the world has moved on and the film under discussion is new.

Bea Kay, Melbourne, Australia

How lucky are we to have such beautiful history to view in our life time! I have seen the move "Elizabetth" at least 25 times. I cannot get enough call me sick. But, I love the history that you folks have about " Queen Elizabeth". I can't wait to see the new film "The Golden Age". Thank you for the great films you have made on this out standing woman!

LaRain Romero-Herrera
Billings, MT
USA

Lorraine M. Herrera, Billings, MT

Mike, the point is not what caused the armada to fail. The point is that the movie uses it as a victory against Catholics, when in fact it was a victory against a rather unstable Spanish King whose armada (need I remind anyone) was actually made up of any ship that had a sail, much like the British response. It was a war, which like most in history is based upon an unstable person in power. The movie does all of Christendom an injustice if it attributes any sort of theological influence to such battles.

Daniel, Boulder, Co

MKM, Kauai, USA - You are aware that the Magna Carta is an English document arn't you? Or was that just a poorly conceived and shallow attack on the English?

Dan, Tavi,

Unless the worthy Professor is suggesting that contemporary documents relating to the Armada (including those of Philip 11, the admiral Medina Sidonia, and the Duke of Parma, as well as English leaders) have been perversely falsified, I suggest he does some more reading himself.
The primary role of the Armada was not invasion, but to meet up with and escort/protect Parma's supposed land-based invasion army across the channel, a matter of delicate coordination at any time even if Parma had actually got his army ready to come.
When the English flushed the Armada out of its last decent deep anchorage in Calais Roads using fireships, the game was up, it had to put back out to sea, keeping clear of the shallows; it was then chased way up the east coast of England. I call that a victory, until told otherwise.
The Armada was already running for home when the storms later did so much damage.

MikeM, St. Albans, England

This film is nearly ten years old (released in 1998)...
why, suddenly, this belated flap out of Rome?
I wonder, now, if the Vatican isn't still receiving its news via galloping bishops. It seems the only explanation. Perhaps, the bearer of this particularly bad news (the film Elizabeth) met with misfortune years ago along some dusty, deserted road. Did anyone dispatch a search party for the obviously missing courier and his trusty steed? Then, more's the shame!
What thieving highwayman snickers still, that Elizabeth's political sympathies have just now been exposed & that they lie not with the papacy!
Marta Klein
Los Angeles USA

Marta Klein, Los Angeles, California, USA

''risks dividing the West just when it should be rediscovering its “common Christian roots” in the face of Islam.'' Where was the good professor when Herr Ratzinger proclaimed the catholism as the only valid faith?talk about divisiveness!

gabe, dublin, Ireland

Elizabeth's reign was the turning point for the Anglo-Saxon/Protestant/Enlightment/Whatever defeat of the Papal suffocation of Europe for a millenium - nice to know it still smarts. If possible could you put some picture of the Prof foaming at the mouth.

Benjamin , Gloucester,

Just further proof that the Roman Catholic Church is still mired in the Middle Ages and in all the centuries that have passed, it has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. It is incredible in this day and age that these religious eminences can get their knickers in such a twist over a popular movie. I do not recall them being so indignant over the scandals of child abuse in the Church, not so easy to deal with I suppose as condemning a film.

John Nicholson, Mount Pearl, Newfoundland, Canada

Anyone know where I can buy a nice inflammable Ratzinger mask before November the 5th?

James, Monteria, Colombia

Forgive me... but wasn't the Golden Age basically an age of anti-Catholicism? Therefore, the anti-Catholic strain in the film is basically great historiography!

Mel, Belfast,

"Without End as anti-Catholic, said part of the explanation may be a resentful awareness that Catholicism was the “authentic fulcrum” of Christianity without which there was no defence against secularism and Islam."

Now who is being religiously contentious?

Lynne, Belfast,

The filmmakers perhaps should explain to me why in this allegedly golden Elizabethan age, members of the Gillibrand family had their tax doubled each time they refused to give up Catholicism, several languished in gaol and others fled to the Continent.

Chris Gillibrand, Brussels, Belgium

Richard Land states that 'a belief is not a truth. It is if it can be proven true. Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is a conviction that what has yet to happen will on the proven basis of what already has. The command of Jesus Christ is clear, "Love your enemiesa, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44). With the secularisation of what was left of Christianity in the 4th century under Constantine left the simplicity and beauty of this teaching was lost, and except for a largely unknow minority remains so.
The historian Paul Johnson is well worth a read if we would learn of Elizabeth's achievements.



.


Tom McCarthy

Tom McCarthy , NEWPORT, South Wales UK

Professor Cardini's analysis is disturbingly accurate. It might not suit those accustomed to Tudor propaganda, but it fits the facts. Elizabeth I sowed the seeds of division among Christians in England which have led to the depressing secularity and materialism of modern Britain. It is time we consigned the propaganda to the dustbin and acknowledged the late Tudor monarchy for the disaster it was: greedy, unscrupulous, sacrilegious and tyrannical.

Vincent Coles, Forfar,

Having seen the film, "Elizabeth," and having read history for many decades now, I have to agree with Professor Cardini. The film, one of the best of the year, is a triumph of acting for Cate Blanchett and is worthy of Oscar nominations in several categories, including editing. If it had accurately depicted history accurately, it would have been an outstanding film. Its unabashedly anti-Catholic subscript and numerous inaccuracies reduce the film to Hollywood's usual levels and do a profound disservice to both Catholicism and a gullible public which would be far better served by truth. The film's lackluster box office performance is unfortunately not because of its overtly anti-Catholic slant and its several astonishing distortions of history. Hollywood reduces a complex and historically important period in English history to the level of a soap opera with excellent costumes, overplaying interpersonal court intrigues while playing fast and easy with the actual facts, as usual.

Maryanne Leonard, Westlake Village, CA, USA

I agree with Douglas Newell. The film may not be an entirely fair and objective representation of history, but everything that we do know about Elizabeth's political policies, and everything that we can read in her own writings demonstrates that she prioritised social unity and peace over religious matters. The same simply cannot be said for Philip II - his express purpose in attacking England was to depose a 'Protestant' Monarch and re-convert England to Catholicism. The inquisition's actions were driven primarily by religious fanaticism, whereas Elizabeth's reluctant persecution of Catholics was motivated by political pragmatism.
Cardini is wrong about other stuff too - like suggesting that the 39 articles represent an attempt at a Protestant annihilation of Catholic practices in the English church (nonsense - these articles were criticised more by Protestants during Elizabeth's reign than they were by Catholics). He also wilfully misunderstands the Irish and Scottish wars.

Gabriel Casey, Belfast,

England is truly a singular country. Is not only anti-european but is also anti-catholic. That's why we have such a cultural and spiritual vaccum out there and other cultures and religious have their way so easely. Their is no belief, no identity, is free for all. Let's hope the politicians of this country will be able to do to Islam what they did to the Catholic Church 500 years ago. Time will tell...

Fabio C, London, UK

Professor Cardini's god obviously let the Spanish Amada lose to Queen's navy. I guess storm thingy is one of acts of god... If there is such god, I wonder which side the god was on.... Maybe, the god's act (storm) mistakenly hit the Spanish, instead of the Queen's navy....

sung, surrey, UK

A Professor of history ought to know better.

The defeat of the Armada was not due to a storm. The English won because their ships were smaller, faster and had fast-reloading ship-guns. They turned a large part of the Armada fleet into swiss cheese without losing a ship. The storm which demolished what remained of the Spanish fleet only happened as the Spanish were fleeing in shock and confusion.

The 'Anglican Church' was 'subjected to the crown' by the Act of Supremacy 1534, under Henry VIII - not by the 39 articles under Elizabeth I

Neither Elizabeth nor anyone in her government imagined the wars in Scotland or Ireland as an 'extermination' of Catholics - as far as they were concerned they were fighting political rebels. The Catholicism of these rebels was effectively incidental.

Cardini obviously wishes it was still 1588 - back then the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism mattered to many people. It doesn't anymore - that's why he is huffing and puffing.

Jamie A, Belfast,

As with all prosletysing religions, catholicism did/still does believe in its promulgation throughout the world. History reveals the most brutal methods employed by the Church, in its destruction of any other culture or religion which it came into contact with. It's just had to pull its horns in a bit since the good old days.

Catholicism does not stand alone in this behavior. Other Christian sects have no better a record. What we see in Islam and its sects is the same. Any religion which believes that it is better for someone to die for their lack of belief is problematical for all of the rest of humanity.

Bill Q, Derby,

I am constantly amazed by people who 'believe' . They are so narrow minded. Most history has been subverted anyway. A belief is NOT a truth. What is important, is the state of the world today. All the evidence points to the fact that we are all here by a string of evolutionary accidents and that, eventually we all die. Why modern, intelligent people can't accept the truth about our species, be realists and humanitarian ... and pull together to make the world a better place, I do not know.

Richard Land, Clanfield, Hampshire UK

Let the West unite in the name of fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why should we take anyone seriously who says they are a serious scholar but believes in the literal truth of the biggest nonsense tale ever cobbled together?

Rob, Durham,

Devoting a little time to reading the four gospels will clearly demonstrate to any of your readers that the Catholic or Anglican church doctrines bear no resemblance to the faith proclaimed by Christ. Any bickering between the two is just like a terrorist arguing with a thief about who's the most righteous. No wonder Christianity has such a poor acceptance when everyone thinks that these organisations in someway represent the real thing. Christ warned about wolves in sheep's clothing.....

Brian Pennington, Launceston, Tasmania

Remind me again, why is he banging on about defending against Islam? Defending what exactly?

sophy, birmingham, west mids - uk

Bob Dylan got it right when he warned against people with "God on their side" Whatever happened to tolerance? I am always suspicious of people who claim God has spoken to them - in my opinion they should be in a psychiatric ward. What sort of egotist thinks he or she is so special that God talks to them Tony Blair, George Bush, the Pope........ I rest my case!

carole chapman, corridonia, italy

"Directed by Shakhur Kapur"

Theres your answer.

Pete, Cov,

As a true blue Englishman, I must remember to buy some fireworks for November the 5th, and celebrate the buring of catholics on Bonfire Night...

As I live in France, it could be fun trying to explain that one away to my neighbours when they come to check out the hullabaloo...

Maybe I should invite them all....

Hugh HUBBLE, Evian , France

I would just like to point out to all the Americans who have commented on how England likes to rewrite history that the U.S has managed to change almost every historical event of the last 100 years to make it seem they are the 'good guys' . U571 being a prime example and almost any American film made about the second world war, especially Saving Private Ryan. Stop being hippocritical. Also Elizabeth was no tyrant, but in fact was the most begin ruler in Europe at the time who defended her realm against catholic zealots who attempted to destroy Britain. Queen Mary however butchered thousands of protestants and earned herself the name Bloody Mary. Get your facts right please.

Rob, singapore,

Speaking from a position of research only, not yet having seen this film's depiction of the era, it is still valid to defend one of the greatest monarchs this country ever saw.
She reigned during a time when we did not have the wonders of global knowledge through air travel, satellites, and the internet, so Elizabeth's focus was purely the well-being of her own people.
During her time she turned around the country from the economic disaster of her father's legacy creating a stable, housed, well-fed population who believed in her, albeit that she was a woman in a hitherto man's world.
She was always going to upset some factions of the small world that existed then, remaining strong against those who would scheme to use her power, Walsingham, Burghley et al, and the Catholic/Protestant see-saw was only one faction of those machinations that have coloured our history since.

Melissa Mailer-Yates, Hereford, UK

They should be aware that it's all just silly fiction. And so is the film.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Organised religion has had more than enough time to unite the peoples of the earth, and has failed miserably....unless you count Catholicism in Poland, which was a real aid to overcoming the Communist regime there!

I'm not an atheist, but "religion" is creating more problems than it is solving. Matters of faith are private, I don't feel the need to ram my own convictions down the throats of others...and I am totally fed-up with zealots, be them Catholic, Muslim or whatever, telling the rest of us how to live or how we should be depicting historical tales.

John Robinson, Thetford, UK

I say. It is just a movie after all. Get a life.

Karl Bouldin, San Jose, USA/California

Let's get it straight - there are no gods in the real world.

Catholicism and the Vatican is and always has been about power over people.
The same is true of Islam.
They are equally evil in their unhumanitarian worlds.

Ian, Solihull,

Elizabeth ruled with a secret police to assist her. She was, quite clearly, a tyrant as all monarchs, including Spanish Phil, were. It's in the job description. But, to give her her due, in her time catholics and protestants were allowed to follow their religions more or less unmolested. If Charles I had followed her example we might well still have Stuarts on the throne. But where was the Vatican when gays were the bad guys in the historical travesty of Braveheart?

It's a film; entertainment pure and simple. If it was taught at university then he'd have more grounds to be a grouch. He might feel he has the promise of a life after death, but my suggestion is still that he should get a life now.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

Cool name, though... "Franco Cardini".

Paolo Bagarino, Roma, Italia

Yes, while Englishmen would be drawn and quartered for littering on a daily basis, less than 3000 people were *burned at the stake* during the 250 year or so run of the Spanish Inquisition. This film sounds more like a product of the black legend than rooted in historical fact. The English were never ones for loving truth with few notable exceptions (i.e., St. Thomas More --- a Catholic). One wonders if the English ever heard of the Magna Carta ... a document conceived well before *democracy was taking root* in England. The English are experts at whitewashing history.

MKM, Kauai, USA

The fact that both religious and political liberty has flourished, relatively speaking, in the English speaking world where protestantism has able to flourish leads me to believe that the Professor's unsympathetic perceptions of the events depicted in the movie is just sour grapes that England broke free.

In any case, the 'battle' for the soul of humanity will not be won based on dueling versions of history, but rather on which doctrines most accurately reflect God's love and truth. These doctrines will be refined through collaboration among Christians of many traditions, including Anglican and Roman Catholic.

George Richardson, Vancouver, British Columbia

Having read a bit of history myself, while the film may have emphasised certain points to enhance story-telling - i.e. to create good guys and bad guys - the fact was that Phillip was trying to invade England (and then Scotland and wales) to impose the Catholic faith on a mainly Protestant populace. Modern democracy was being being born in England while in Catholic Europe the Inqusition was burning heretics.

Elizabeth's Catholic predecessor was such a fair-minded ruler her cruelty inspired the old nursery rhyme - Mary, Mary quite Contrary.

And Cardini's claim that Catholicism is the final defence against Secularism and Islam is downright ignorant of the role of the various "protestant" Churches in the world.

Give the man a Valium.

Douglas Newell, Saltcoats, Scotland, UK

The good Professor is right. Elizabeth was a tyrant and vicious persecutor who, together with Cecil, created a totalitarian England run by spies and sychophants intent only on hunting down and murdering Catholics - both lay and ordained. The long term result of England leaving the faith built on the rock of Peter by Christ has been its slow and inevitable decline into secularism, paganism, and soon to follow - Islam!

Michael Bernard, Sydney, Australia

Has Professor Cardini ever bothered studying Spanish and English history of the period? He's taking as many liberties with history as does the movie. Perhaps his Vatican blinders are attached too tightly. I agree with the professor that the West should be paying attention to its “common Christian roots” in the face of radical Islam, but his own historical inaccuracies obscure his larger point.

EAG, Maritimes, Canada

I must agree with Professor Cardini. Such a distorted snapshot of history serves only those who wish to divide us. A balanced and fair rendition would have been a greater service to unity. Let us remember that the film industry is not a public service as much as it is a profit making machine. Facts always get in the way of profit.

Phil Povey, San Francisco, USA, CA