Does USCCB tacitly approve of a morally offensive movie?

[Boanerges]

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp

are you avoiding the question?

So wha’t your issue here? First, this is an article with an opinion of one man. There’s no guarantee of infallibilty in his words. Second, he’s taking an “either-or”. If you think I’m a “rigorist” think again. There’s a difference between watching a movie and giving glowing praises about it. Watching can be a form or penance, if necessary. But you also don’t endorse a movie that depicts marriage as a drudge and homosexual sex and liberating!!! On equal footing for heresy, Dan Brown’s book the DaVinci Code, has sold 40 million copies, many to Catholics. I personally have had some “catholics” come to me and say they believe the premise of the novel. Is the DaVinci Code injurious to faith? Absolutely, if that is the result.So, if homosexual sex is portrayed as it is in the Brokeback Mountain, and Catholics (especially homosexual Catholics) “believe” it, again, damage is done to their faith.

So this article is one man’s opinion and just that…opinion. Let me know if his writings are ever considered by the Church as infallible.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

So wha’t your issue here? First, this is an article with an opinion of one man. There’s no guarantee of infallibilty in his words. Second, he’s taking an “either-or”. If you think I’m a “rigorist” think again. There’s a difference between watching a movie and giving glowing praises about it. Watching can be a form or penance, if necessary. But you also don’t endorse a movie that depicts marriage as a drudge and homosexual sex and liberating!!! On equal footing for heresy, Dan Brown’s book the DaVinci Code, has sold 40 million copies, many to Catholics. I personally have had some “catholics” come to me and say they believe the premise of the novel. Is the DaVinci Code injurious to faith? Absolutely, if that is the result.So, if homosexual sex is portrayed as it is in the Brokeback Mountain, and Catholics (especially homosexual Catholics) “believe” it, again, damage is done to their faith.

So this article is one man’s opinion and just that…opinion. Let me know if his writings are ever considered by the Church as infallible.

AMDG
Boanerges

and the other link, about the vaticans 45 films? it doesnt suggest thsat watching their scenes of violence, sex and proifanity should be seen as penance but as edification.

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

so you’re saying becuase you’ve got nine kids you’re more qulifies to talk about this? nup. i could say that becuase of my experiences with those 8000 kids I’ve got more than you.
we’re not talking about an equal footing. is soemone with 15 kids more qualified to talk about this than you? of course not.

Ah, you forget the teaching experiences with them AND the CCD classes, RCIA, Confirmation, jail ministry, and on and on.

But, you digress. Where’s you’re affirmative experinces?

AMDG

Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

Ah, you forget the teaching experiences with them AND the CCD classes, RCIA, Confirmation, jail ministry, and on and on.

But, you digress. Where’s you’re affirmative experinces?

AMDG

Boanerges

my what?

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

and the other link, about the vaticans 45 films? it doesnt suggest thsat watching their scenes of violence, sex and proifanity should be seen as penance but as edification.

Greydanus’ review of Brokeback Mountain doesn’t seem to put it on par with the USCCB’s. But I have to like his final comment:

In the end, in its easygoing, nonpolemical way, Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than an indictment not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself, and thereby of human nature as male and female. It’s a jaundiced portrait of maleness in crisis — a crisis extending not only to the sexual identities of the two central characters, but also to the validity of manhood as exemplified by every other male character in the film. It may be the most profoundly anti-western western ever made, not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.

How does that compare with the Vatican 45? Problem is it doesn’t. That would be germane to what wer’e talking about here.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

my what?

I gues my typos are not self-explanatory. Where’s your affirmative experiences?

You’re avoiding the issue. People often do when they have no answer.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Balance]

Boanerges:

I gues my typos are not self-explanatory. Where’s your affirmative experiences?

You’re avoiding the issue. People often do when they have no answer.

AMDG
Boanerges

chuckle i’m not avoiding anything. I dont understand what you mean by affirmative experiences.

 

[Boanerges]

Balance:

I agree - up to a point. there’s less value in thinking something because you opught too than thinking something because you’ve looked at it from both sides, argued for and against it, chewed it over, asked questions of it, always in prayer and with reference to scripture and tradition, and then decided.

here’s the thing. why is the church in the state it is today? because Catholics don’t know their faith. they havent done the above. and so we have a church largely (but less and less by the day) consisting of people who live, to look at, good moral lives, but don’t do much more than that. to put it a little negatively, they toe the line because there’s a vague sense that they really should.
and so the world sees a church that makes these extraordinary claims but is actually very very ordinary.

if more Catholics actually entered into a dialogue with their Church and their God and asked questions of their own personal faith, many would come to realsie waht the Catholic faith actually profess, and they’d reject it and leave.
But it’s easier to just have a list of rules to follow, and trudge along.

to progress on the Christian journey, one has to continually ask questions, seeking the answers in prayer and in a deeper reading of scripture and doctrine and holy writings. when you stop moving forward you stagnate.
but it’s easier for teachers and parents to hand out rules than to enter into conversation.
easier to say “Ban Brokeback Mountain” than to say “so why do you think active homosexuality is a healthy and dignified lifestyle?”
easier to say “don’t” fornicate than to say “do” live with heart and passion. Because that leads into a discussion: what is “heart and passion?” and that migh t just take too much effort to run with.
I’m not saying here that you go for the option that takes less effort - you sound like you put a lot of time and effort into teaching and instruction - I’m just decrying a particular mindset which I see again and again.

This is precious. You take to the extremes on the issue as your reason for your technique. You insinuate that my method is “don’t do this, don’t do that” and then shut them down. Well, that’s not the case. I state the Church’s teaching and then use a quasi-Thomistic approach. The objection first then the Chruch’s response and then why. The WHY is the biggest question out of my students and the least answered by most teachers. It sounds like you let them run far afield with little if any control. How are they supposed to learn in that environment? Without systematic teaching how can you evaluate their progess? How do you know they’re “getting it”.

When “why” is answered with conviction (and that’s extremely important) they see faith exuding out of your very being and that is both attractive and contagious.

AMDG
Boanerges

 

[Walt_Oliver]

You guys are off topic. The exchanges I see here are better done via PM or email.

Walt

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Balance:

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.

I actually never open an academic paper with a dictionary definition. Since, however, the definition of a word was one point of contention, I turned to the most easily accessible sources to settle the dispute. If secular sources aren’t good enough (and you do have a point there), would the Old Catholic Encyclopedia suffice?

"While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Suarez as “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.”
newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

As I said, although I’m aware that a dictionary is not the “final arbiter of truth,” I think it can do a pretty good job when the truth in question is a definition.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Balance:

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”

I was under the impression (this is an open admission that I have not seen the film) that the movie portrays the homosexual relationship as a positive good even in spite of its having destroyed a marriage. Perhaps this is not the case.

However, I question what sort of “thinking” the film encourages. There is really no room for “considering” whether homosexual sex may or may not be immoral. It is immoral. There is no need to “think about” whether homosexual attraction is a healthy affection. It is intrinsically disordered. There is no need to “reevaluate” whether the the perceived goods of a homosexual relationship can outweigh the real spiritual detriment of the grave sin involved. That’s a no-brainer. Do I really need a film to show me that, just as in the case of any other sin, there is a perceived good involved which can make the sin of homosexual activity attractive? Such an exercise in common knowledge (verging on truism) would be utterly boring!

So what worthwhile topic open to disagreement (for a faithful Catholic) does this film that I have not seen invite me to consider? I’m truly curious about that.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Balance:

here’s the thing. why is the church in the state it is today? because Catholics don’t know their faith.

I think you point to a key issue in today’s Church. Yet it must also be evaluated in light of the increasing difficulty in discerning authentic Catholicism in a Church rife with dissent. When researching most any hot-button issue there will almost always be a Fr. Richard McBrien (or some other notable theologian whose name often precedes the initials S.J) who manages to speak with convincing authority that despite the current catechism and every other authoritative document ever released by the Catholic Church a) contraception is A-OK, b) it is a grave injustice for the Church not to ordain women, c) the pope is NOT infallible, d) homosexual activity represents right-ordered affection, etc. ad nauseum. Even without the big name dissenters there’s often the “Well, my priest said this and he’s a Catholic priest” or even “Well my friend’s uncle doesn’t believe that and he’s still Catholic.”

This is the environment into which we are sending young minds with the advice to examine all the arguments and make up their own minds. But if the clarity of Church teaching is being clouded by dissent-in-good-standing, even someone who wishes to follow the Church could have a hard time doing so without a really good head on his shoulders. My generation and those younger (I’m 22) were raised in a culture that rejects the very idea of knowable absolute truth and puts emotionalism on par with or above rational argument. We simply don’t have the thought skills to recognize that most of the dissent that gets passed off as theology has the intellectual rigor of a dirty joke. It’s a sad state of affairs but I see it in graduate theology students as well as in Joe Six Pack. We’re raised as organisms consisting of a reproductive system and a “heart” (as in center of emotions). Until our children are raised to rise above imbecility they will not be well-enough equipped to make good decisions about religious truths. That includes making good decisions about the merits of a film dealing with hot-button religious truth.

 

[Liberalsaved]

It isn’t pro-adultery. Period. Stop spinning.

 

[Boanerges]

Please read the following link about the Canadian Catholic Bishops new 12th grade textbook on morality. This hits the nub of the whole problem both here and in Canada and why we’re now facing these issues in the Church and society. CCCB

 

[Balance]

Andreas Hofer:

So what worthwhile topic open to disagreement (for a faithful Catholic) does this film that I have not seen invite me to consider? I’m truly curious about that.

I;m in the same boat - to me, it sounds like a “good film” in the artistic sense, and maybe in the sense of telling a true human story, but for me, it’s not going to tell me anything, or invite me to think about anything, that I haven’t chewed over before. So for you or I, perhaps there’s no value in seeing it. But for someone who doesn’t have the same faith or knowledge, it may move themn to think anew about, for example, the destructiveness of adultery, or of dishonesty with yourslef and those you love.