Does USCCB tacitly approve of a morally offensive movie?

[Boanerges]

Brokeback Mountain]http://www.usccb.org/movies/b/brokebackmountain.shtml

The above movie review of a pro-homosexual, pro"adultery" relationship between two men is suspect at best. Although mentioning that the movie is rated “O” for morally offensive, this one line really bothers me:

…the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children – who give the film its artful substance.

Just what is the USCCB trying to tell us here? Is there a tacit approval of a movie if the story line, acting, directing, or anything else is “pleasing” despite the offensive nature? Don’t we have enough problem with deviant sex in the world without placating the deviants?

Looks like the bishops (by allowing such garbage to exist with their approval) have lost their minds!

St. Athanasius, pray for us!

Boanerges

 

[Guar_Fan]

Your quote snipped off the beginning of the paragraph, which changes the context.

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed…

 

[Boanerges]

Yes, but that doesn’t change the contradiction made by the reviewer.

First he states:

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity.

Then he makes an overarching contradictory statement:

…the universal themes of love and loss ring true.

What? Can’t use it as homosexual propaganda, making an equivalency with heterosexuality but is has the "universal theme of love and loss? Come on!

To further the confusion, the reviewer in his opening synopsis says:

It treats the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles – with discretion.

Catholic audience? What about the potential damage to those other than Catholic? Discretion? That implies they were “responsible” and “prudent” in it’s treatment of the subject.

All in all, the mention of Church teaching and the Catholic Catechism seems to only serve as an obligatory disclaimer. The general tone, however, indicates tacit approval. If not, then CLARITY is in order.

In this country there continues to be this under-the-radar approach to moral theology. Not just in this review but in all aspects of human life. Canada’s current plight of overt approval of homosexual unions and the Church’s persecution when it merely imparts Church teaching, is what happens when people are subjected to the homosexual agenda and forced to accept it as “normal”. Canada also requires schools to teach that homosexual unions are “good”. But, the indoctrination is in full swing here.

This propaganda is just what homosexuals (and Satan) want. Give it the appearance as normal and you can change people’s otherwise negative opinions. Funny, that’s how Satan works…position your lies as close to the truth as possible and people will eventually acccept them.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[a_cermak]

Boanerges:

To further the confusion, the reviewer in his opening synopsis says: Catholic audience? What about the potential damage to those other than Catholic?

The USCCB is a creature of the US Bishops. As Bishops, they are only required to shepherd Catholics. What is spiritually damaging to Catholics, may not be spiritually damaging to members of other faiths or for that matter the unchurched.

Pax,

Amy

 

[stanley123]

Boanerges:

Looks like the bishops (by allowing such garbage to exist with their approval) have lost their minds!

Looks like a sellout.

 

[Boanerges]

a_cermak:

The USCCB is a creature of the US Bishops. As Bishops, they are only required to shepherd Catholics. What is spiritually damaging to Catholics, may not be spiritually damaging to members of other faiths or for that matter the unchurched.

This is a common misunderstanding on the role of Bishops (and the Pope for that matter). We don’t live in a vacuum. Noncatholics are beholden to the Truth like Catholics since Truth transcends all religious affiliation. Mortal sin is not reserved for Catholics only. When bishops speak in union with the Pope, they speak such Truth since Jesus wills that all men be saved by coming to the Truth. So, what is required by the Church is actually good for the rest of the world. Conversely, what is sinful and scandalous is not only bad for Catholics, but also for the whole world.

So, in morality, the objective Truth is that homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered and evil. To say anything less is to teach a lie and to lead others into perdition.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Orionthehunter]

Boanerges:

Yes, but that doesn’t change the contradiction made by the reviewer.

First he states: Then he makes an overarching contradictory statement:

What? Can’t use it as homosexual propaganda, making an equivalency with heterosexuality but is has the "universal theme of love and loss? Come on!

To further the confusion, the reviewer in his opening synopsis says: Catholic audience? What about the potential damage to those other than Catholic? Discretion? That implies they were “responsible” and “prudent” in it’s treatment of the subject.

All in all, the mention of Church teaching and the Catholic Catechism seems to only serve as an obligatory disclaimer. The general tone, however, indicates tacit approval. If not, then CLARITY is in order.

In this country there continues to be this under-the-radar approach to moral theology. Not just in this review but in all aspects of human life. Canada’s current plight of overt approval of homosexual unions and the Church’s persecution when it merely imparts Church teaching, is what happens when people are subjected to the homosexual agenda and forced to accept it as “normal”. Canada also requires schools to teach that homosexual unions are “good”. But, the indoctrination is in full swing here.

This propaganda is just what homosexuals (and Satan) want. Give it the appearance as normal and you can change people’s otherwise negative opinions. Funny, that’s how Satan works…position your lies as close to the truth as possible and people will eventually acccept them.

AMDG
Boanerges

Before I go into the substance of my comments, I want to make it clear that I unequivocally assent to the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are grave matter and have no intention of seeing this movie becuase of its subject matter.

The purpose of the reviews is to provide Catholics with knowledge about the subject matter (homosexual acts, adultery and fornification), themes, and plot and how it relates to Catholic Teaching. This review was very clear that the subject matter conflicts with Catholic Teaching.

There are movies that have as their subject matter murder, heterosexual adultery, stealing, fornification, violence against human dignity and a host of other matters contrary to Catholic Teaching. And properly, the reviews by the USCCB point these out.

For some reason, this movie has incited extra-ordinary reaction becuase of its subject matter. What concerns me is that some people mistakenly have elevated homosexual acts to some type of “super-sin” deserving of extra-ordinary condemnation, even greater than genocide, euthanasia or murder.

I’ve read this review many times and I see no “tacit approval” of homosexual acts, adultery, or fornification but clear articulation that these are contrary to Catholic Teaching.

Because in Brokeback Mountain the main characters and their families suffer for their sin, the movie actually is more redeeming than movies that use insiduous plots and story lines to suck the viewer into considering immoral behavior as moral (“Million Dollar Baby” and euthanasia, Cheech and Chong movies endorsement of drug use, or movies that present that adultry and fornification are ok like in the recent Kevin Costner/Jennifer Annistan movie comes to mind).

Furthermore, the line about how the “the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children – who give the film its artful substance” should not engender such a reaction.

First, the “universal theme of love and loss rings true”. There are many movies and stories that are about inappropriate pursuit of love (filial and erotic) grounded in the wounded nature of humans and our concubescience to pervert goods made by God. While the fact that the protaganists pursue homosexual erotic love is offensive (and described as offensive in the review), the universal theme is one that afflicts so many and the loss of this love is tramatic for everyone. Whether it be one engaged in homosexual fornification/adultery or heterosexual fornification/adultery, the loss of that “love” (I put it quote as I don’t believe it is truly love but mistaken perceptions of love) feels the same to those experiencing the loss.

Second, the movie’s story properly presents that adultery and fornification are acts that affect not only the primary actors but their “wives, girlfriends, parents, and children.” This by-product of sin and its presentation is actually very consistent with Catholic Teaching. We are all unified as members of the Body of Christ. Our sins not only affect ourselves, our family but the whole of the human race.

 

[Ham1]

Orionthehunter:

…Whole Post…

Great post!

 

[Boanerges]

The purpose of the reviews is to provide Catholics with knowledge about the subject matter (homosexual acts, adultery and fornification), themes, and plot and how it relates to Catholic Teaching. This review was very clear that the subject matter conflicts with Catholic Teaching.

Great! I’m all for this. Problem is, the review has a detached tone and rings of intellectual and analitical sterility rather than wholesale condemnation of such behavior. This approach does not live up to the Universal Church’s responsibility to ALL people. This approach separates Catholic Teaching from the rest of the world. Granted nonCatholics are not held to Church teaching like Catholics, but these are universal truths that are not unique to Church Teaching and must be presented as such. A nonCatholic reading the review may get the impression that this only applies to Catholics. Are we not our brother’s keeper? Assisted by Catholic teaching, shouldn’t the movie be condemned for all instead of just Catholics?

For some reason, this movie has incited extra-ordinary reaction becuase of its subject matter. What concerns me is that some people mistakenly have elevated homosexual acts to some type of “super-sin” deserving of extra-ordinary condemnation, even greater than genocide, euthanasia or murder.

You must have missed part of my other post. This movie and two others just released are part of an agenda to FORCE (by law or by acceptance) this culture on people as normal, or, as an equal alternative to the traditional family. One need only look north of the US border to see that this is a matter of law now. No, it’s no super-sin. Rather, it’s an in-your-face destruction of the traditional family. Given the power of film to form people’s minds, it would behoove the USCCB to make that particular point. But they don’t. Why?

After watching the USCCB’s fall conference last year, It doesn’t appear that the USCCB is terribly concerned about this particular assault on the family. Given this deafening silence (save for a few bold bishops), my confidence in them as true moral leaders for the US has eroded. Their movie reviews are just one more sign.

A little food for thought…

St. Athanasius, pray for us.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[a_cermak]

How is homosexual marriage any different than marriage following divorce, according to Catholic teaching? Yet Canada accepted remarriage following divorce for generations and Catholics were able to distinguish between that which was allowed civilly and that which was allowed morally. I see homosexual marriage as no different.

Pax,
Amy

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Boanerges: Great! I’m all for this. Problem is, the review has a detached tone and rings of intellectual and analitical sterility rather than wholesale condemnation of such behavior. This approach does not live up to the Universal Church’s responsibility to ALL people. This approach separates Catholic Teaching from the rest of the world. Granted nonCatholics are not held to Church teaching like Catholics, but these are universal truths that are not unique to Church Teaching and must be presented as such. A nonCatholic reading the review may get the impression that this only applies to Catholics. Are we not our brother’s keeper? Assisted by Catholic teaching, shouldn’t the movie be condemned for all instead of just Catholics?

The reviews are posted on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. While the site is accessible by ALL and ALL are encouraged to read it, realistically, the preponderence of people turning to the USCCB for movie reviews are Catholics. My use of Catholics was acknowledging this reality but was not intended that it should not be a resource for all.

Furthermore, I guess it is a matter of style. I prefer a review that isn’t shrill but rather is clinical in providing information. For this reason, I like to read the USCCB reviews as they have a reasonable style of presentation w/o hyperbole.

From Boanerges: You must have missed part of my other post. This movie and two others just released are part of an agenda to FORCE (by law or by acceptance) this culture on people as normal, or, as an equal alternative to the traditional family. One need only look north of the US border to see that this is a matter of law now. No, it’s no super-sin. Rather, it’s an in-your-face destruction of the traditional family. Given the power of film to form people’s minds, it would behoove the USCCB to make that particular point. But they don’t. Why?

You obviously must believe that movie reviews are places for the Bishops to exert macro-statements about the state of the culture. If this was to be adopted, they would have do so w/ the great preponderance of movies. Personally, I doubt most people wanting a review of a particular movie want to have it dominated by expressions about broad cultural issues. When I access the site, I want a concise and succinct presentation of the issues particular to that movie. I’ll look elsewhere for broad pronouncements on the culture.

From Boanerges: After watching the USCCB’s fall conference last year, It doesn’t appear that the USCCB is terribly concerned about this particular assault on the family. Given this deafening silence (save for a few bold bishops), my confidence in them as true moral leaders for the US has eroded. Their movie reviews are just one more sign.

I saw it differently. The Conference was primarily devoted to lay ministers and how to better form and train the laity to participate in the work of the Church, on education/catechesis/seminaries, and on liturgical issues. Personally, again, I am glad that the Bishop’s are spending their time on those issues that their efforts can have more effect than “protest/condemnation” statements about the culture. If the Church is doing its work on the issues they spent their time on, the environment and opportunity for the Holy Spirit to effect change in the culture will be enhanced.

Finally, your characterization of our Bishops as not moral leaders indicates a lack of confidence in the Promise of Christ that He is with the Church always and will protect it from evil. I myself rest confidently in the Providence of the Holy Spirit to lead, direct and protect our Bishops in their role as Shepherd.

 

[1ke]

I’m really tired of people ragging on the bishops like every thing written on this planet is personally read by and approved by them. They are busy people.

And so “the Bishops” are not “tacitly” approving anything just because it appears on the USCCB website or any other publication, website, etc.

They created a movie review process as a way to help inform Catholics. They were not obligated to do so. I’m sure that the creation of this movie review idea was in response to someone saying “why don’t the Bishops do something about all these movies that are offensive…” or some such thing that starts with the phrase “why don’t the Bishops do something about…”.

So, they create a movie rating system and employ some people to do movie reviews. And, people are still not happy because sometimes the reviewers may write things that people don’t like.

Give the Bishops a break. They are busy trying to do their jobs.

 

[BillP]

Boanerges:

This movie and two others just released are part of an agenda to FORCE (by law or by acceptance) this culture on people as normal, or, as an equal alternative to the traditional family.

I’m confused. what do you mean when you say this movie trying to “to FORCE (by law or by acceptance) this culture on people as normal, or, as an equal alternative to the traditional family.”

How can you force an alternative? Is the movie (or some law) trying to force people to become homosexual?

What do you mean “an equal alternative to the traditional family”? I mean really, how many people do you think are really going to regard homosexual marriage as an “equal alternative”? None of the hetrosexual people that I know are going to even consider having sex with someone of the same sex much less marrying them.

What are you worried about? How is homosexual marriage “an in-your-face destruction of the traditional family”? Are you trying to say that homosexual marriage is such an enticing alternative to hetrosexual marriage that normal, hetrosexuals will be irresistably tempted by the prospect? As baffling and frustrating as I sometimes find my wife, I assure you I have no desire to trade her in on a man.

 

[Orionthehunter]

1ke:

I’m really tired of people ragging on the bishops like every thing written on this planet is personally read by and approved by them. They are busy people.

And so “the Bishops” are not “tacitly” approving anything just because it appears on the USCCB website or any other publication, website, etc.

They created a movie review process as a way to help inform Catholics. They were not obligated to do so. I’m sure that the creation of this movie review idea was in response to someone saying “why don’t the Bishops do something about all these movies that are offensive…” or some such thing that starts with the phrase “why don’t the Bishops do something about…”.

So, they create a movie rating system and employ some people to do movie reviews. And, people are still not happy because sometimes the reviewers may write things that people don’t like.

Give the Bishops a break. They are busy trying to do their jobs.

Great point. Especially since the reviews don’t have an Imprimatur: an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Catholics. It is of the greatest importance, of course, in works directly addressing Catholic theology and doctrine, and was introduced as a measure to reduce exposure, particularly of the laity, to heresy.

And to further augment your point, do we really want the Bishop’s spending their time doing reviews of movies rather than addressing matters of greater importance? Rome would have to appoint several Bishop’s with the express responsibility to review 100’s of movies a month and then write reviews prior to granting an Imprimatur.

 

[Boanerges]

To all,

I’m certainly glad to see such participation on this serious topic. I thank you all.

As we all know, movies try to imitate life (depending on interpretation, of course). Conversely, and unfortunately, life also tries to to imitate the movies. Face it we’re a media-saturated and it infests our very lives.

Case in point: Being in law enforcement for 28 years, people’s approach to the police has been influenced heavily by the media. During my initial interview at a previous agency, a peculiar question was posed to me that went like this (remember, this was 1978). “How do you see law enforcement? Do you see it like the TV program Starsky and Hutch, or like Barney Miller?”

Needless to say I was starled at such a question, but given the choices, it was easy to see how they wanted it answered. It also exposed a problem for those in and out of the service. We form ourselves to what we are exposed to in the media, right or wrong.

As a young kid, Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger, Matt Dillon, The Rifleman, etc. were heros. Of the many ways it influenced me, two were quite obvious. For the good, there is an objective right and wrong and we always should strive to do right. For the bad, There was a glorification of killing that could not be reconciled.

So, back to topic. Hollywood understands the immense power of their craft and, since the 1960’s, began using it as a negative influence for the proper place for God, family and country. The anti-establishment of the 60’s and the general loosening morals were reflected in its offerings. Good, wholesome movies began to dwindle and has been in steady decline since. Now it’s almost nil. Did that affect the minds of the people? You bet. It affected everyone. Even the Church. Look at what happened to Pope Paul VI after he wrote Humanae Vitae in 1968. Many turned on him like vipers. And that was just from INSIDE the Church!

Here’s an example form real life. The 1984 movie Country sympathetically depicting the plight of farmers in the heartland, created an attitude among some struggling farmers that it’s the governement’s fault. So, a particular farmer decided to quit paying his bills and put all his money into guns and an undergound bunker. He faced off with deputies who were serving him papers. Later it turned into a gun battle with law enforcement and he died. Of course, the movie Country was their battle cry. He was not alone in in his sentiments. This was all over the place here in Nebraska.

My point is that there are many people that are influenced and even emboldened by what Hollywood offers. It can, and often does, take on a life of its own. Brokeback Mountain and others like it, is nothing more that a propaganda film to chip away at (what’s left of) the moral fabric of secular society. We’re going the way of Canada.

In Canada, homosexual marriage is a matter of law. First, activists presented a “positive” image of homosexuals until they had a large enough base to form public opinion. Then they were able to get homosexuals placed in their constitution as a protected class. This done, they formed “courts” to address “hate speech”. Anyone caught teaching “anti-homosexual speech” from the bible or, giving public addresses like homilies in Church were taken to court and assessed fines and/or jail. Now it must be accepted and taught in ALL schools, including private schools. There is no room for a person’s conscience in Canada. Either conform or be prosecuted (read: persecuted). Please go to Lifesite for all the sordid details over the last year or so.

In the 1950’s the Church we held in great esteem because of Archbishop Fulton Sheen. In the 1950’s, his program was at the top and he even won an Emmy. Why? He taught Church teaching to the rest of the world! He didn’t qualify it as Church Teaching, he just taught Truth, which is Jesus. Isn’t that what ALL bishops are called to do (and not just to Catholics, either)? What about those who are chosen by the USCCB to review movies? Don’t they have a responsibility? Nowadays, you mention the Church and many people think of pedophile priests, closed churches, the Vatican is out of touch, Amchurch, etc. Why? They’re always in the secular media attacking the Church.

So, if a simple movie review is nothing to worry about, remember this: No matter how minute, any amount of poop in a brownie recipe is still too much.

AMDG

Boanerges

 

[Balance]

There are more germs under your fingernails than on a toilet seat - there’s probably goint to be traces of poop in that recipe and guess what? It’s not gunna kill ya.

 

[Confiteor]

Orionthehunter:

Great point. Especially since the reviews don’t have an Imprimatur: an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Catholics. It is of the greatest importance, of course, in works directly addressing Catholic theology and doctrine, and was introduced as a measure to reduce exposure, particularly of the laity, to heresy.

And to further augment your point, do we really want the Bishop’s spending their time doing reviews of movies rather than addressing matters of greater importance? Rome would have to appoint several Bishop’s with the express responsibility to review 100’s of movies a month and then write reviews prior to granting an Imprimatur.

Of course people have reason to believe that the bishops approve of movie reviews posted on their site. They don’t need to be in the business of movie reviews, but since they are, they should do some quality control on what is posted on an official USCCB site.

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

There are more germs under your fingernails than on a toilet seat - there’s probably goint to be traces of poop in that recipe and guess what? It’s not gunna kill ya.

But you digress…

 

[Boanerges]

Confiteor:

Of course people have reason to believe that the bishops approve of movie reviews posted on their site. They don’t need to be in the business of movie reviews, but since they are, they should do some quality control on what is posted on an official USCCB site.

Amen! More than Catholics see these reviews. Which is why there’s the presumption of authority behind them

 

[Balance]

They are film reviews - reviews of pieces of art. Not reviews of a thesis or commentary or bible study or statement on faith and morals. The reviews on the Bishops’ site are meant to evaluate each film as a film, not as a treatise. So they aren’t going to say, eg “this film is a piece of propaganda” (as some would have it be) because that’s not a statement on it as art. To say “this film has depictions of homosexual acts” but not explicitly say, “and of course, as Catholics, we believe such acts are intrinsically disordered” is not a grave omission. The Bishops assume that you and I, as rational Catholics, know what we believe about homsexual acts and can therefore decide whether we’ll see a film that depicts them. The Bishops rate the way the film deals with these issues - to say that it “tells a story of loss and love” therefore is not something toget up-in-arms about.