Does USCCB tacitly approve of a morally offensive movie?

[Boanerges]

Aquarius:

Like I said - everybody plays their assigned part.

To the fence-riders of our age:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Apocalypse 3:15-16 (DRV)

 

[Aquarius]

Boanerges:

To the fence-riders of our age:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Apocalypse 3:15-16 (DRV)

Fence riders are parts in the play, too.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

The underliying theme of this and the previous post are strikingly similar in that, people, wanting to avoid controversy or conflict, will take a neutral attitude. There’s this idea that good and evil co-exist and are co-equal, like yin and yang. Well, that’s a neo-pagan regurgitation of Buddism and it has encroached into Christianity. The proper belief is there there is only ONE God and he is ALL GOOD. Evil entered our world upon the the willful and sinful action of Adam and Eve. They believed a lie and rejected God. God didn’t need any pop psychology here. He called evil what it is and meted out justice and punishment. He didn’t have to hear Satan’s side of the story in order to do so. He knew it was evil and handled it accordingly.

Now, when someone attacks a saint of the Church it is objectively a sin. The Church even teaches that desecration of any holy person or sacramental is a sin. How perverted is it when we allow an “artist” to depict such desecration and call it “art” is quietly approving of evil. Satan is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning (Jesus’ words).

There’s an axiom that goes like this. All evil needs for success is for good men to do nothing. Are you just going to stand there and say nothing when such and affront to marriage and family goes unchallenged? Allowing Brokeback Mountain and the quasi-approval of the USCCB and Dominicans without challenge is allowing sin to prevail, plain and simple. Where’s your outrage and indignation when, at the same time, the divorce rate of Catholics is just like the rest of the pagan world? What about the similar numbers of unwed mothers and couples living together and not married? What about the 80% of Catholics that contracept? Or those who abort their children? What about the priest scandal? Do you see ANY corelation between all this and Brokeback Mountain? Are you not your brother’s keeper? Isn’t one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy to admonish sinners? Or are you going to rationalize all that as just alternative lifestyles? Bottom line, where’s your courage?

Judging from the intense presence of evil in our world and our Church, it appears there are many who lack the courage to stand up and say publicly what they believe. They want only to appease evil so they can live in relative “peace”, when they’re actually in shackles and slavery. Nefarious ones have NO problem stating publicly what they believe and yet go unchallenged.

If Catholics would just follow what the Church teaches and live and profess that publicly, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

AMDG
Boanerges

my first point in response to this - do you object with the same intensity to, for example, any mainstream teen movie that depicts fornication? to me, such a seemingly harmless little funny film does more damage than a film like Brokeback, simply because it doesn’t tell a real story. It doesn’t show consequences of choices in the same way that I’m told Brkbk Mntn does.

There’s nothing to fear in a piece of art that tells a real story.
Tell me (you haven’t yet), have you read the link I posted about the Vatican’s 45 Films of Note? What do you think about some of the films there - films that the Vatican, guided by the Holy Spirit, encourages us to watch? Nosferatu, the original dracula film, for example.
A society without films and art about the human condition is an impoverished one. Yes, a particular piece of art might be confronting, but viewed in faith and courage (not fear) it can only do good to the human soul.
Brokeback Mountain says to us Christians that we’re not following Christ closely enough - that there are people who absolutely believe that their happiness could lie in a homosexual relationship. A film about such a relationship, one that is a hit, shouldn’t make us despair but should make us get out there and love as Christ did.
No, I don’t think outrage is an appropriate response. Rage leads to wrong choices. “Holy anger” is perhaps best employed only by those who can handle it.

 

[Balance]

“we’re not following Christ” - I mean that we’re not showing people how a relationship with God leads to happiness, not, for example, in a homosexual r’ship for people with a same-sex attraction.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Now, when someone attacks a saint of the Church it is objectively a sin. The Church even teaches that desecration of any holy person or sacramental is a sin. How perverted is it when we allow an “artist” to depict such desecration and call it “art” is quietly approving of evil. Satan is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning (Jesus’ words). AMDG
Boanerges

I’m not sure the Church does teach this - desecration of God is a sin - blasphemy apllies to God, not to “any holy person”. Any degradation of the human person is objectively a sin, but not on the same level as outright blasphemy.

Again, back to the Vatican’s list of 45 films - what’s going on there if what you’re saying is true? these are films that portray profanity, violence, sin. yet the Church says, “these films will do you good - IF your faith is in God, if you approach them with courage not fear.”

See, a film like Brokeback Mountain might lead a person to sin - it wouldn’t lead me to sin because I understand film as an artform, I understand what the Church teaches about homosexuality, about love, about relationships, and so I could watch it objectively. I probably won’t, and this is where the USCCB’s reviews are brilliant because they let me know just what the film might contain. So I read it and go, “sounds like a good story, and a well told one - acting, direction, writing and so on - but I don’t particularly want to watch it because I have a limited “movie-watching budget” and there’s other films I want to see more - other stories that would do me more good than this one.”

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

There’s an axiom that goes like this. All evil needs for success is for good men to do nothing. Are you just going to stand there and say nothing when such and affront to marriage and family goes unchallenged? Boanerges

Yes, because it’s not my fight. There are affronts to marriage and family going on in my own town, in my university newspaper, in my house… and IN MY OWN PARISH. The way my fellow parishioners don’t go out of their way to meet each other or share life together or love each other on a Sunday at Mass or after is an affront to marriage and family… and that’s where my heart lies, that’s where I’m working to make a difference.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Judging from the intense presence of evil in our world and our Church, it appears there are many who lack the courage to stand up and say publicly what they believe. They want only to appease evil so they can live in relative “peace”, when they’re actually in shackles and slavery. Nefarious ones have NO problem stating publicly what they believe and yet go unchallenged.

If Catholics would just follow what the Church teaches and live and profess that publicly, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

AMDG
Boanerges

I help run a sexuality program in some local schools - and before you say “THAT must be a terrible program” (grin) let me tell you it’s basically a summary of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body - and if that’s not standing up for what I believe I don’t know what is. To stand in front of a class of sixteen-year-olds and talk about chastity and NFP and sex and Chruch teaching and why I’m celibate is pretty scary at times. And here’s the thing - a film like Brokeback Mountain can be a useful reference point - it stimulates discussion and gets them thinking.

But I see no contradiction between that and saying that confronting and challenging art has a place - that art that depicts sin or evil should be censored.
Yes, Christians should voice opposition to a piece of art if they like - art invites debate, it always does. A Christian shoul dalway s feel free to stand up and say “I find this offensive” but only in a way that invites discussion. There is never a place for suggesting that an artist can’t defend their work, or that they have nothing valid to say just because their work causes offence to Christians.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Balance:

I’m not sure the Church does teach this - desecration of God is a sin - blasphemy apllies to God, not to “any holy person”. Any degradation of the human person is objectively a sin, but not on the same level as outright blasphemy.

Again, back to the Vatican’s list of 45 films - what’s going on there if what you’re saying is true? these are films that portray profanity, violence, sin. yet the Church says, “these films will do you good - IF your faith is in God, if you approach them with courage not fear.”

See, a film like Brokeback Mountain might lead a person to sin - it wouldn’t lead me to sin because I understand film as an artform, I understand what the Church teaches about homosexuality, about love, about relationships, and so I could watch it objectively.

From the compact Oxford English Dictionary:
blasphemy

					   /**blas**fhttp://www.askoxford.com/images/phonetics/schwa.gifmi/

• noun (pl. blasphemies) irreverent talk about God or sacred things.

And from Dictionary.com:
blas·phe·my cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.giffhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-mhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. **blas·phe·mies **

1. 
   *]
   1. 
      *] A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
      *] The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
      
      *] An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
      
      the main point being that blasphemy does extend beyond God.
      
      On the broader point of depicting immorality in art, though, I wonder how you can disagree that a film is teaching by its portrayal of issues while at the same time commenting on a urine-soaked crucifix "I’d say, “hmm, what’s are they saying? It’s obviously some sort of statement - is it relevant or valid?”
      
      All art sends messages. Sure there may be nihilistic schools, but even these might try to show that by producing meaningless art, another message. It’s not (necessarily) the inclusion of immoral acts in a film that make it offensive, but it’s the manner in which they are portrayed, the context that sends the message about the acts. If it is clear that they are immoral and the result of fallenness, they may be worth showing. If the message is that they are good acts worthy of emulation, their inclusion is unacceptable.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

If Catholics would just follow what the Church teaches and live and profess that publicly, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

AMDG
Boanerges

No, see, we WOULD be having this conversation because there will always be filmmakers and other artists who will challenge God, will challenge the Church and will challenge virtue. But if Catholics were just following what the Church teaches and living and professing that publicly, there would be a wondeful engagement between artists and Christians, a sharing of ideas, a growing understanding, and ultimately, God willing, those artists would see that God and the Church are up to the challenge and have a challenge to give in return - to the artists, to think about their beliefs.

That, instead of the impasse that we see now - no communication, naked hatred from Christians and artists alike, littlemindedness on both sides.

Some more reading for you, when you’re read the article on the Vatican’s “Top 45” - John Paul II’s “Letter to Artists” which you should be able to find on vatican.va

Peace.

 

[Balance]

Andreas Hofer:

On the broader point of depicting immorality in art, though, I wonder how you can disagree that a film is teaching by its portrayal of issues while at the same time commenting on a urine-soaked crucifix "I’d say, “hmm, what’s are they saying? It’s obviously some sort of statement - is it relevant or valid?”

.

Always an interesting discussion style, to open with a dictionary definition. - the idea being, presumably, that a secular dictionary has the last word? Maybe not - Benedict XIV makes the point in his encyclical that the way the world sees the word “love” is different to the way the Church sees it.

But anyway, that’s another discussion. Just be aware that a dictionary is not neccessarily the final arbiter of truth!

There’s a diffence between “teaching” and “provoking thought”. Very few artists set out to “teach” - or if they do, their work ends up inferior. Most want to stimulate thought. So “teaching” was the word I was objecting to - this idea that Brokeback Mountain is a piece of propaganda for “the homosexual lobby” (whatever that is) and that it’s teaching something. It seems to me it’s simply telling a story - a story that is however, topical and one that, yes, the filmmakers knew, presumably, would cause controversy - and they were/are happy to cause that controversy. But here’s the thing - the controversy should be the BEGINNING of a discussion between the Church and the artists (the artists standing in for “society”) not the END of one.

 

[Balance]

Andreas Hofer:

All art sends messages. Sure there may be nihilistic schools, but even these might try to show that by producing meaningless art, another message. It’s not (necessarily) the inclusion of immoral acts in a film that make it offensive, but it’s the manner in which they are portrayed, the context that sends the message about the acts. If it is clear that they are immoral and the result of fallenness, they may be worth showing. If the message is that they are good acts worthy of emulation, their inclusion is unacceptable.

I agree. So that’s the discussion we should be having - “Is Brokeback Mountain morally offensive?” not “It is offensive, what should we do about it, and hey Bishops your reviews are evil”

 

[Balance]

Aquarius:

It’s interesting how the artists twist the audience around their finger. The artist wants a reaction, makes a silly piece, then sits back and watches everyone play their assigned parts.

.

I think this is a bit cynical, and innacurate. Yes, some artists simply want to provoke a reaction - most want to explore an idea or provoke thought. The artists who last are the latter - provocationists tend to fade out of view into obscurity.

 

[Confiteor]

Someone posted this link to the Vatican films list, but the review of Brokeback Mountain gives me enough info to determine not to spend my time and money on this movie. I’ve also talked with other people who were quite open to homosexuality and they did not see this as a good movie or the homosexual relationship as much of a “love” story. As to the bishops’ reviews, I think they could discontinue this service (which we pay for) without it hurting a bit. If they are going to post reviews, they should base them on how the Church, her teachings and morality in general are portrayed. Leave the artistic stuff to other reviewers.

decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2645

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

I help run a sexuality program in some local schools - and before you say “THAT must be a terrible program” (grin) let me tell you it’s basically a summary of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body - and if that’s not standing up for what I believe I don’t know what is. To stand in front of a class of sixteen-year-olds and talk about chastity and NFP and sex and Chruch teaching and why I’m celibate is pretty scary at times. And here’s the thing - a film like Brokeback Mountain can be a useful reference point - it stimulates discussion and gets them thinking.

Hence the problem. There is somewhat of a personal detachment from those you teach. You can walk away. Those of us with vested interest look upon this with a more personal view.

Now, here’s my point of view. I am a father of eleven children, age 19 years to newborn. I taught 10th grade CCD for several years and taught Confirmation classes. I still teach at this Church in many aspects, including RCIA and Confirmation retreats. My wife also teaches abstinence and NFP classes. We attend a smaller parish (350 families) in a diocese had just come out of a 40 year error-filled, heresy-filled period. The damage is enormous. The catechetics has been cotton candy at best, instead of meat and potatoes. (An overreaction of the Baltimore Catechism) But, what had been taught and what the Church’s Magisterium taught rarely agreed. Last but not least, the misapplication of Vatican II under the auspices of the “spirit of Vatican II”. I stand up in front of these 10th graders and teach morality to a generation clueless to it. With our diocese’s recent history, it is a tremendous uphill battle. There are many casualties. Many attend CCD under duress. Many don’t attend Mass. Most are from broken homes where sex was a recreational sport.

But, here’s the best part. These kids got annoyed and even angry when I trotted out the moral teaching of the Church. Why? Not that they disagreed. Rather, they later admit they’ve been lied to by parents, the media and the world. Some of my best questions came from these angry kids. Why? They want Truth. They want something they can hold on to and take with them into life in which to gauge their lives by. Giving them anything but the Truth only created a more hostile environment. I can’t count how many CCD teachers walked out of their classes and never taught again because they gave them what the world gave them. They want AUTHENTICITY and TRUTH. The Doctors of the Church knew what sin was and treated it as such. They used harsh words at times because of the damage it had wrought among the faithful.

Want proof? Here’s one of many examples. My high school aged daughter told me of a classmate of hers that had experienced the unthinkable. Her mother was divorced and hooked up with a militant lesbian (both whom I know and have worked with). She began having an “affair” with the woman. One night, she related to my daughter, she could hear loudly their sexual activities in the room next to hers. She became physically ill. I don’t believe her daughter was thinking of it as “art” at the time! This is one of many “experiences” people. let alone children, should not be exposed to. The damage is real, lives destroyed and all we’re concerned about is “seeing both sides”? Come on!

So, I ask again. Where’s the USCCB on these most important issues that destroy our children? Where were they when the studies they funded showed the priest scandal was overwhelmingly a homosexual problem? The bishops were told that 80 percent of the abuse cases were homosexual. The rest combined were heterosexual and pedastery. Why won’t they address the issue STRONGLY? No, they cowered, letting the Vatican do their dirty work instead. Save for a few good bishops, the rest live in fear of the homosexual agenda. Is their a link between their weak handling of the “problem” and the reviews of Brokeback Mountain? Hmmm…gotta wonder.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Boanerges]

Confiteor:

Someone posted this link to the Vatican films list, but the review of Brokeback Mountain gives me enough info to determine not to spend my time and money on this movie. I’ve also talked with other people who were quite open to homosexuality and they did not see this as a good movie or the homosexual relationship as much of a “love” story. As to the bishops’ reviews, I think they could discontinue this service (which we pay for) without it hurting a bit. If they are going to post reviews, they should base them on how the Church, her teachings and morality in general are portrayed. Leave the artistic stuff to other reviewers.

decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2645

Amen, brother!

 

[Balance]

Confiteor:

If they are going to post reviews, they should base them on how the Church, her teachings and morality in general are portrayed. Leave the artistic stuff to other reviewers.

decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/2645

This sort of comment is, I think, basically what I’ve been objecting to all along. It implies an ignorance (please, no offence intended) of how the church has always embraced art and considered it a way of meeting God and of understanding what it is to be human, what it is to be Christian.
Consider John Paul II, a playwright, actor and poet. Consider John of the Cross, a doctor of the Church, and a poet. Therese of Lisiuex, another Doctor, and a playwright and actor. Think of all the paintings and statues and stained glass windows throughout the Catholic world. I hear that Benedict XIV used Dante’s poetry as inspiration, in part, for his first encyclical.
“Leave the artistic stuff to other [presumably you mean secular] reviewers”??? so bishops have no business concerning themselves with “artistic stuff?” I absolutely and vehemently disagree.
I find the Bishops’ reviews very valuable. I hear of a film, say Brokeback Mountain, and hear of its reputed quality and some of it’s subject matter and think, “well, those themes/ideas aren’t ones I particularly want to see, because I know what I believe about them - I wonder if there is any merit in the film apart from that? If there might, in fact, be a reason for watching it?” and so I read the review and say, “well, nup, not for me.”
BUT I feel no outrage - because outrage is a waste of energy. I’d rather just get on with loving the people around me, some of them gay, and keep on trying to show Christ to them.
I guess I don’t really believe there’s a “gay agenda” or if there is, it’s only one of many “agendas” (agendum?) and there’s no way we can “fight them all”.
Is this a lack of courage, a lack of love and reverence for holy things? NO. It’s simply saying there will always be films made that show aspects of human existence that aren’t as dignified as they could be (that’s another way of saying “that show evil and mortal sin” - a better way of saying that, I think) and censorship of such films isn’t the answer.
I feel some Catholics would love a return to the days of burning “heretics” at the stake, I seriously do, and when I meet and talk with such people - people who consider themselves Orthodox and Holy, it sends a shiver down my spine. Now, that’s maybe a bit extreme - or those people are only an extreme few - but even a lesser degree of that extreme is still chilling.
We need to enter into a conversation with people who don’t know Christ, not talk at them.

READ Benedict’s encyclical. he says there are times to speak truth and times simply to love, without words.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Hence the problem. There is somewhat of a personal detachment from those you teach. You can walk away. Those of us with vested interest look upon this with a more personal view.Boanerges

Please don’t make assumptions about me - a personal detachment? No. I loved those kids and wanted them to see what we were saying to them, wanted them to see the beauty of sex and chastity and marriage and love.
I can walk away? No, because I’m involved with the youth ministry in my parish and constantly see the struggles the young people have with relationships and issues of sex and sexuality. I have a “vested interest” as you do.

Would I recommentd they watch Brokeback mounntain? of course not. We have, in fact, talked about films in the youth group, because someone said “you should only watch films that glorify God”. Yes, I agree, but what does that actually mean? The Vatican’s top 45 (you still haven’t let me know what you think of that list) presumably glorify God, or the Vatican, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t have issued the list. And yet the films on that list contain, to one degree or another, violence, sex, nudity, profanity (and vampires!). so if a film has sex in it, for example, that doesn’t mean it can’t glorify God. It’s all in HOW it depicts that sex - how it shows consequences and results and feelings etc.

So yes, I look on this with a deeply personal view. I take it deeply personally when someone says that art is useless, and I
disagree that any film should be censored by the Church.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Want proof? Here’s one of many examples. My high school aged daughter told me of a classmate of hers that had experienced the unthinkable. Her mother was divorced and hooked up with a militant lesbian (both whom I know and have worked with). She began having an “affair” with the woman. One night, she related to my daughter, she could hear loudly their sexual activities in the room next to hers. She became physically ill. I don’t believe her daughter was thinking of it as “art” at the time! This is one of many “experiences” people. let alone children, should not be exposed to. The damage is real, lives destroyed and all we’re concerned about is “seeing both sides”? Come on!
AMDG
Boanerges

this is a totally different thing. if you’re saying that a film such as Brokeback Mountain leads to this girl’s mother having sex with another woman in the room next to hers, well that’s a very long bow to draw! read some history - humans have been having homosexual sex for millennia. does a film like Brokeback mountain lead to an “increased acceptance of/tolerance for” homosexual sex? no, I don’t think so. I doubt it’s going to change anyone’s mind on the subject.
I’ve said it before - the reason our neighbours have casual sex, swear, drink too much, do drugs, spend more than they earn, abuse their kids, get carried away with road rage, be rude, rape, murder, steal, is not because of some great conspiracy by the homosexual lobby, or the looney left, or the far right, or the liberals, or conservatives, or big business, or whatever: it’s because you and I don’t love them as we should.

It’s because you and I, and other Catholics like us, don’t love them as we should.

We have the Truth?? yes.

do we live it?

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

So, I ask again. Where’s the USCCB on these most important issues that destroy our children? Where were they when the studies they funded showed the priest scandal was overwhelmingly a homosexual problem? The bishops were told that 80 percent of the abuse cases were homosexual. The rest combined were heterosexual and pedastery. Why won’t they address the issue STRONGLY? No, they cowered, letting the Vatican do their dirty work instead. Save for a few good bishops, the rest live in fear of the homosexual agenda. Is their a link between their weak handling of the “problem” and the reviews of Brokeback Mountain? Hmmm…gotta wonder.

AMDG
Boanerges

interesting then that they changed the rating to a lower one - in spite of their “fear of the homosexual lobby”? doesn’t sound like cowardice.

“they cowered” - this displays a certain lack of respect for your Bishops - who were ordained by God, remember, and appointed by John Paul II, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
While I don’t like clericalism and fawning over priests and bishops, and believe we can, in good faith, disagree with them on certain matters, language like you use there helps no one.

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

. Where’s the USCCB on these most important issues that destroy our children?
AMDG
Boanerges

What also destroys children is rigorousness, smallmindedness and taking away, or stunting, their own choices and there desire to think for themself.
Young people are screaming out for truth and for challenge - on that I agree with you. They hunger for something real, something they can sink their teeth into and committ to. But they don’t want to be told what that is - they want to be told where it is and how to find their own way to it. they need to be taught how to think.
because it has to be their choice.
we could fill our churches every Sunday quite easily - how? By scaring people into it. it worked one time didn’t it and it could work again. But what’s the point? that response is certainly not faith and it’s certainly not love.

A friend of mine was telling me that the reason he stayed celibate in his teens and early 20s was because of some sex ed at school that talked about STDs and he was so scared and disgusted that he abstained from sex. Good end, terrible means.
Chastity is about love, celibacy is about love, not fear. Our sexuality is such a huge part of us that if we make choices out of anything but love, even choices with good results, we are half a person - we’re not living as God wants us to. and a young person who doesn’t choose for themself, who hasn’t had th etools provided to THINK for themself, might be happily chaste - or they might, as many, many young Catholics do, end up finding it too hard and, in their late 20s or early 30s, simply give up. I’ve seen that happen in so many of my friends - “it’s just too hard” and then when you talk to them you find out that they never really understood why they were clibate in the first place - it was just something they’d always done.