Does USCCB tacitly approve of a morally offensive movie?

[Balance]

Boanerges:

But you digress…

I’m assuming you mean, “why would you weatch something that depicts an “evil”? even in a subtle or small way? that’s like saying eating brownie with a bit of poo in it is OK.”? right? so I’m saying that you probably eat horrible things every day - more germs under yr fingernails… etc - and don’t realsie it, or if you do, don’t worry about it because it won’t kill you - in the bigger picture, it doesn’t matter. Like a film with swearing, or sex scenes, if the big picture shows the stroy surrounding those scenes and paints a true picture o=f consequences etc, that’s OK.

 

[Confiteor]

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.

If this were true, I would argue that the bishops need not provide reviews at all–there are plenty of movie critics to do that. WE shouldn’t waste Church resources on this. However, the fact that they do assign ratings based on what audience, if any, is appropriate for the film indicates they are assessing the morality and other elements of the story that reflect on its message. As I recall, the controversy with this film was that it did not originally receive the morally objectionable rating. A bad call, initially, that was later corrected when people complained.

 

[Boanerges]

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.

There’s more to living out our faith than faith and morals. Our lives must reflect the perfection of Christ. (as best we possibly can) The problem with the USCCB, and others like them, is in their attempt to seem avante-guarde and sophisticated, they actually lack modesty and prudence (both of which are Virtues in the Church). After all, we don’t want to seem prudish to the rest of the world. God forbid! Rather, we’re willing to ignore very obvious sinful behavior and, as you would have it, run toward it so we can be seen as “rational Catholics”. Let’s see, Ted Kennedy come to mind as a “rational” Catholic".

One thing about mortal sin is that you don’t have see it, be around it or even experience it to know its wrong. It’s time that the USCCB realize that we have a super-majority of Catholics (and nonCatholics as well) that are severely undercatechized and all too worldly.

Nope, we need to run away and fast in order to preserve (what’s left of) our purity of mind, body and soul.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

There’s more to living out our faith than faith and morals. Our lives must reflect the perfection of Christ. (as best we possibly can) The problem with the USCCB, and others like them, is in their attempt to seem avante-guarde and sophisticated, they actually lack modesty and prudence (both of which are Virtues in the Church). After all, we don’t want to seem prudish to the rest of the world. God forbid! Rather, we’re willing to ignore very obvious sinful behavior and, as you would have it, run toward it so we can be seen as “rational Catholics”. Let’s see, Ted Kennedy come to mind as a “rational” Catholic".

One thing about mortal sin is that you don’t have see it, be around it or even experience it to know its wrong. It’s time that the USCCB realize that we have a super-majority of Catholics (and nonCatholics as well) that are severely undercatechized and all too worldly.

Nope, we need to run away and fast in order to preserve (what’s left of) our purity of mind, body and soul.

AMDG
Boanerges
[/quote]

with all due respect, you misunderstand me. let me try to be clearer. I’m not saying we have to embrace mortal sin, or cinematic depictions of it, in order to be rational or mature Catholics. What I am saying is that, if a film (or any piece of art) shows things that might seem to be evil, or sinful, or disordered, but does so in a way that shows the consequences of those things, and in a way that won’t lead the *average * person (not a scrupulous person) into sin, and in a way that ultimately points to the reality of God, of truth and love, of right and wrong, then that is OK. More than that it’s OK, it’s vital - because as humans, we need stories that speak of the human condition, the human struggle. If there are no such stories, we are impoverished.

Now, how does this relate to the film in question, Brokeback Mountain? It seems to me (I haven’t seen it, and I’m not planning on seeing it) that the film, as the Bishops’ site says, has some interesting, valid and even valuable things to say. While that may or may not be the case - you or any other individual might not agree (but are you qualified to comment on film in general? if you’re not, is your opinion more valid than someone who has studied film as an art form and as a medium?) - but the film reviews on the USCCB’s site fulfill their aims.
decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2572

Have a look at this link to see some films that the Vatican recommends watching. Films that contain depictions of mortal sin. Is the Vatican trying to be avantgarde here? I think not. Actually,

 

[Balance]

Don’t forget that the Bible has gruseome stories of all kinds of sin. Don’t forget that all around the world every Easter, faithful Catholics stand up and act out one of the worst things a Christian could ever do - denying Christ, in the role of Peter, and shouting “crucify him” and “we have no king but Ceasar” - in Passion plays. Why is this OK? because the big picture, the rest of the story, is, as we know, one that is at the heart of our faith; it is “a good story”.

I’m astounded by all the hot air blown around about this film. The conspiracy theories, the denigration of people with same-sex attraction, the “holier than thou” attitudes, the naked hatred expressed towards the filmmakers… appalling, and not true of the Church I am a part of and love. When will we get off our high horse and start actually following Christ’s command to love? When will we give up our selfishness and our pride, our “thankyou Lord that I am not like that sinner over there”, our desire to tell people that they are wrong and we are right? when will we in fact, humbly say, Lord, use me, in spite of my own filthy sinfulness and incredible weakness, to reach out and love those who don’t know You instead of, Lord, I’ve got it all together, I’m gunna go on a crusade for you - when?

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

Don’t forget that the Bible has gruseome stories of all kinds of sin. Don’t forget that all around the world every Easter, faithful Catholics stand up and act out one of the worst things a Christian could ever do - denying Christ, in the role of Peter, and shouting “crucify him” and “we have no king but Ceasar” - in Passion plays. Why is this OK? because the big picture, the rest of the story, is, as we know, one that is at the heart of our faith; it is “a good story”.

I’m astounded by all the hot air blown around about this film. The conspiracy theories, the denigration of people with same-sex attraction, the “holier than thou” attitudes, the naked hatred expressed towards the filmmakers… appalling, and not true of the Church I am a part of and love. When will we get off our high horse and start actually following Christ’s command to love? When will we give up our selfishness and our pride, our “thankyou Lord that I am not like that sinner over there”, our desire to tell people that they are wrong and we are right? when will we in fact, humbly say, Lord, use me, in spite of my own filthy sinfulness and incredible weakness, to reach out and love those who don’t know You instead of, Lord, I’ve got it all together, I’m gunna go on a crusade for you - when?

“Hot air”? “Holier than thou?!” “Naked hatred?!” I see people who are sanctimonious pagans! You’ve just rationalized sin like Luther did! Read this link. Perhaps you may change your mind. Ain’t no ambiguity here, bub! catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

I am thoroughly convinced that moral morons do exist in our Church!

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

“Hot air”? “Holier than thou?!” “Naked hatred?!” I see people who are sanctimonious pagans! You’ve just rationalized sin like Luther did! Read this link. Perhaps you may change your mind. Ain’t no ambiguity here, bub! catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

I am thoroughly convinced that moral morons do exist in our Church!

AMDG
Boanerges
[/quote]

So I’ve had a look at that link and agree with it - did you have a look at the one I posted? What do you reckon about those films? Films that as Catholics, we are encouraged to see - or not see, if we think that, from reading about them first, we think they might be too much for us.

I’m not rationalising sin. It’s no sin to depict sin on screen or in a book, or sculpture or any piece of art - if it’s done thoughtfully and with the right desire. Again, I haven’t seen Brokeback so I can’t comment on how any depictions of sin are presented in it - but it sounds, from the USCCB’s review, that it may be OK. I’m arguing here about the wider picture, not just this one film; arguing against this rigorousness in many Catholics that says that any depiction of sin in film or art is inappropriate.

Read your Vatican II documents - esp. Inter Mirifica - on the means of social communication. “The description or the representation or moral evil can, with … suitable dramatisation, lead to a deeper knowledge and analysis of man and to a manifestation of the true and the good in all their splendour. …the moral law must be rigourously observed, esp. when dealing with … matters that lead all too esily to base desires in man wounded by original sin.”
What do you reckon?

So the argument is not that this film, or any film, depicts grave sin, but how it does so… which is what I’ve been arguing all along.

I’m sorry if I hurt you by my comments about “hot air” and so on - I forgive you for calling me a moral moron.

Peace be with your heart.

 

[Boanerges]

***(“the moral law must be rigourously observed, esp. when dealing with … matters that lead all too esily to base desires in man wounded by original sin…I’m arguing here about the wider picture, not just this one film; arguing against this rigorousness in many Catholics that says that any depiction of sin in film or art is inappropriate.”) ***

You debased your own point. Problem is you’re making the assumption that all who read the review or watch the movie will be on the same page as Inter Mirifica. Their NOT and that’s a morally fatal mistake. Don’t believe me? Here’s a review from a Dominican cleric that confirms it: domlife.org/moviereviews/BrokebackMt.htm

Secondly, had Lifesite News not complained about the original rating of the USCCB (L), they wouldn’t have changed it to its lowest rating (O).

As far as the moral morons of the Church, they’re a fact and are all too commonplace. People can be so open-minded that their brains fall out. Moral formation is severely lacking in the Church these days and as such, the sensus fidelium cannot poised to make good, moral assessments.

I get the impression that you like stradling the middle on issues like this and are afraid to call a spade, a spade. This is such an easy call…I’m siding with the Doctors of the Church!

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Confiteor]

Boanerges:

Here’s a review from a Dominican cleric that confirms it: domlife.org/moviereviews/BrokebackMt.htm

Secondly, had Lifesite News not complained about the original rating of the USCCB (L), they wouldn’t have changed it to its lowest rating (O).

Eew to this review…and thumbs down to this movie. It isn’t the fact that there are sins depicted in movies, it is the message that results from how they are depicted. No one would advocate never viewing a movie in which evil is a part of the story line, but let’s not glorify the evil! In the case of Brokeback Mountain, the message is homosexuals and homosexuality = good and heterosexual men = bad, very bad.

 

[Aquarius]

I give Catholics enough credit for common sense that they could see a movie and make up their own minds. Why do so many think they lack that ability?

 

[Aquarius]

Confiteor:

Eew to this review…and thumbs down to this movie. It isn’t the fact that there are sins depicted in movies, it is the message that results from how they are depicted. No one would advocate never viewing a movie in which evil is a part of the story line, but let’s not glorify the evil! In the case of Brokeback Mountain, the message is homosexuals and homosexuality = good and heterosexual men = bad, very bad.

Did you see the movie?

 

[GloriaPatri4]

USCCB Changes Rating on Brokeback Mountain to Morally Offensive

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121607.html

From article
While the glowing review remains, the USCCB office’s rating for the film has been altered to the most severe rating - “O” for morally offensive from “L” which denotes that it is appropriate for a limited adult audience. Moreover, the author of the review of the film published on the USCCB’s news service Catholic News Service, Harry Forbes, has removed his name from the article, which is now listed as published “By Catholic News Service”.

See the new version here: [catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv682.htm](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/<a%20href=http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv682.htm>http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv682.htm)
And the old version from Google’s cache here: [64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CBNmIUiHLl4J:http://www…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/<a%20href=http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...tholicnews.com/data/movies/05mv682.htm+&hl=en>http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CBNmIUiHLl4J:http://www…)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

a_cermak:

What is spiritually damaging to Catholics, may not be spiritually damaging to members of other faiths or for that matter the unchurched.

Pax,

Amy

In some sense this is true, as Catholics are held to a higher standard in certain cases (like marriage - Protestants marrying in a Protestant church marry sacramentally, a Catholic doing so does it invalidly). But there is never dispensation from natural law. It is the bare minimum moral standard. If a film teaches that homosexual activity is morally licit it is spiritually damaging to every individual, regardless of creed.

 

[Balance]

see, that’s the thing. this film isn’t teaching anything - it’s telling a story. there’s a difference. that’s the whole point of the Bishops’ site reviewing films - the films aren’t moral treatises, they’re films.

 

[Balance]

***(“the moral law must be rigourously observed, esp. when dealing with … matters that lead all too esily to base desires in man wounded by original sin…I’m arguing here about the wider picture, not just this one film; arguing against this rigorousness in many Catholics that says that any depiction of sin in film or art is inappropriate.”) ***

You debased your own point. Problem is you’re making the assumption that all who read the review or watch the movie will be on the same page as Inter Mirifica. Their NOT and that’s a morally fatal mistake. Don’t believe me? Here’s a review from a Dominican cleric that confirms it: domlife.org/moviereviews/BrokebackMt.htm

Secondly, had Lifesite News not complained about the original rating of the USCCB (L), they wouldn’t have changed it to its lowest rating (O).

As far as the moral morons of the Church, they’re a fact and are all too commonplace. People can be so open-minded that their brains fall out. Moral formation is severely lacking in the Church these days and as such, the sensus fidelium cannot poised to make good, moral assessments.

I get the impression that you like stradling the middle on issues like this and are afraid to call a spade, a spade. This is such an easy call…I’m siding with the Doctors of the Church!

AMDG
Boanerges

well, my log-in name is Balance - that might give you an idea I ten d to see both sides of any story. I don’t see that as unCatholic or unorthodox or as anything but what God asks me to be. If you see that as being a moral moron that’s your thing.
And I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade. That might not have come out in this discussion but it’s true.
Rigourousness is rigourousness - there’s a spade for you.
Suffocating conservatism is suffocating conservatism and relativistic liberalism is relativistic liberalism - there’s a couple more spades. An unwillingness to be open to the ideals and aims of art is narrowmindedness and little-mindedness - there’s another.

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

well, my log-in name is Balance - that might give you an idea I ten d to see both sides of any story. I don’t see that as unCatholic or unorthodox or as anything but what God asks me to be. If you see that as being a moral moron that’s your thing.
And I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade. That might not have come out in this discussion but it’s true.
Rigourousness is rigourousness - there’s a spade for you.
Suffocating conservatism is suffocating conservatism and relativistic liberalism is relativistic liberalism - there’s a couple more spades. An unwillingness to be open to the ideals and aims of art is narrowmindedness and little-mindedness - there’s another.

Well try not to take it personal. Its not meant to be. What’s offensive is when homosexuals, or any other group that openly rejects God, go on the attack and force this hooey on the rest of the world. “Ideals and aims of art”? What about the crucifix in a jar of urine? Or, a large statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary with a large latex condom stretched over it? That one was an add in the Jesuit magazine “America”…paid for by an artist with, you guessed it,an agenda!

So, the next time someone insults a close family member of yours or keys your nice car, try and see both sides. The sin was still committed.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Well try not to take it personal. Its not meant to be. What’s offensive is when homosexuals, or any other group that openly rejects God, go on the attack and force this hooey on the rest of the world. “Ideals and aims of art”? What about the crucifix in a jar of urine? Or, a large statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary with a large latex condom stretched over it? That one was an add in the Jesuit magazine “America”…paid for by an artist with, you guessed it,an agenda!

So, the next time someone insults a close family member of yours or keys your nice car, try and see both sides. The sin was still committed.

AMDG
Boanerges

If someone insulted my family or keyed my car i wouldn’t start abusing them or telling them they’ve sinned. Yes, I would see both sides of it. Where are they coming from? what brokenness in them led to them doing that? how could I love them, and help them to see that it wasn’t a good thing to do? That, instead of “you’re a sinner and I wish I could legitimately wring your neck for the glory of God” which is how many Catholics come across when it comes to talking about sin and sinners.
The crucifix in urine - instead of going “oh, that’s so offensive, that evil artist for doing that” I’d say, "hmm, what’s are they saying? It’s obviously some sort of statement - is it relevant or valid? can it say something to me, a follower of that same Christ crucified? THEN decide on how offensive it actually is, and what my action will be. THAT’S a much better, much “holier” response than immediately getting hot under the collar - again, what many Catholics do. Operating out of feelings of hatred and offense and provocation is not a reasonable or healthy way to work.

 

[Aquarius]

Boanerges:

Well try not to take it personal. Its not meant to be. What’s offensive is when homosexuals, or any other group that openly rejects God, go on the attack and force this hooey on the rest of the world. “Ideals and aims of art”? What about the crucifix in a jar of urine? Or, a large statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary with a large latex condom stretched over it? That one was an add in the Jesuit magazine “America”…paid for by an artist with, you guessed it,an agenda!

So, the next time someone insults a close family member of yours or keys your nice car, try and see both sides. The sin was still committed.

AMDG
Boanerges

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.

All the people playing their parts love it. The civil livberties people get to huff and puff, and the religious people get a severe case of the vapors. They all get to do what they like to do. Then everyone goes home, sharpens their lines, and eagerly awaits the next show.

 

[Boanerges]

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.

All the people playing their parts love it. The civil livberties people get to huff and puff, and the religious people get a severe case of the vapors. They all get to do what they like to do. Then everyone goes home, sharpens their lines, and eagerly awaits the next show.

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

 

[Aquarius]

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

Like I said - everybody plays their assigned part.