Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[buffalo]

Even the bishops’ conference loves the gay cowboy movie

Why am I not surprised that the movie reviewer for the US bishops’ conference loves the new gay-cowboy film Brokeback Mountain. (Of course Hollywood loves it and you should expect it to receive every possible award between now and the Oscars.)

While giving the standard nod to Church teaching, interpreting as closely as possible to aver that the while the Church says homosexual activity is bad, she’s just peachy keen about homosexual orientation and relationships.

As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic. … While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. Is that all that the official reviewer for the US bishops can say about a movie that attempts to normalize homosexuality as just another lifestyle? From the beginning you detect an enthusiasm for the movie that seems a bit untoward.

more…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Buffalo,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I haven’t seen the movie and will not, but I found the USCCB review puzzling and a shame.

Just a few excerpts:

Later, some outdoor wrestling is observed by their boss, the unsympathetic rancher Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid), who watches them with a knowing eye.

Unsympathetic? Is this refering to the kind of character the boss is, as in we the viewers would feel unsympathetic towards him because he is a scoundrel. . . OR is this a description of how *the boss feels *towards his two employees? And if it is a description of how the boss feels. . .would the right word be unsympathetic? That seems to imply, to my mind at least, a lack of sympathy, and feels somewhat perjorative. Perhaps the boss is a man of moral principle. (Of course, I have no idea, having not seen the movie, but I am just pointing out one of the reviewers phrases that struck me as odd.)

On the trip, Jack proposes that they chuck their families and buy a ranch, but Ennis – who as a child witnessed the aftermath of a hate-crime murder of two rancher neighbors who had lived together – can’t bring himself to do it.

Sooo. . .Ennis doesn’t want to abandon their families because he and his cohort might get killed. I see. Abandon our families? No problem! Aw shucks, but this isn’t a gay-friendly culture out here so forget it.

While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.

Love? Loss? Loss of what? LOVE of what?

I’m not buying it.

The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships

This is ridiculous. *Tacit approval? *The reviewer should be a tad more honest. This movie is propaganda, and is being embraced and celebrated for that reason.

Sad.
VC

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Verbum Caro
This movie is propaganda, and is being embraced and celebrated for that reason.

Amen to that!
And you can be assured that all who have the chutzpuh to object to the theme of this movie will immediately be labled “homophobic”, a “hater” and/or a “bigot”.

 

[manualman]

I haven’t seen the movie. Don’t suppose I will.

Given Hollywood’s values and lack of morals, I would not be surprised in the least if this movie were entirely a pro-gay propaganda film.

But I think we should all acknowledge that even those with SSA’s are human beings. Their lives ARE filled with suffering, joy, trials, temptations, consequences, thrills, sorrows, etc. In short, they are human beings too! It is reasonable to say that a movie COULD be made that is just an honest look at what life is like for men like that.

My major beef with the review is that the reviewer seems ignorant of the fact that MANY catholics want to know BEFORE-HAND if the movie is a piece of underhanded propaganda (Cider House Rules, Million Dollar Baby) or an actual artistic expression of the trials of life of a kind that most of us can’t imagine. For crying out loud, that’s the whole point of having a catholic review. If the reviewer doesn’t even KNOW I want his opinion on that distinction, then he needs a new job.

Hello!?! Tell me if this thing is a genuine movie or just a gay commercial!

 

[TPJCatholic]

The USccB rated it as:

L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.
That seems very clear to me…no matter what the reviewer says.

 

[contemplative]

Tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence. L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.

This part of the review is good enough for me.

I have trouble here.

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

Discretion? What in the heck is meant by that?

It should be rated O - Morally offensive

 

[buffalo]

TPJCatholic:

The USccB rated it as:

L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.
That seems very clear to me…no matter what the reviewer says.

I remember an O (morally offensive) rating - it meant no Catholic should see it.

 

[Riley259]

Verbum Caro:

Buffalo,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I haven’t seen the movie and will not, but I found the USCCB review puzzling and a shame.

Just a few excerpts:

Unsympathetic? Is this refering to the kind of character the boss is, as in we the viewers would feel unsympathetic towards him because he is a scoundrel. . . OR is this a description of how *the boss feels *towards his two employees? And if it is a description of how the boss feels. . .would the right word be unsympathetic? That seems to imply, to my mind at least, a lack of sympathy, and feels somewhat perjorative. Perhaps the boss is a man of moral principle. (Of course, I have no idea, having not seen the movie, but I am just pointing out one of the reviewers phrases that struck me as odd.)
Sooo. . .Ennis doesn’t want to abandon their families because he and his cohort might get killed. I see. Abandon our families? No problem! Aw shucks, but this isn’t a gay-friendly culture out here so forget it.

Love? Loss? Loss of what? LOVE of what?

I’m not buying it.

This is ridiculous. *Tacit approval? *The reviewer should be a tad more honest. This movie is propaganda, and is being embraced and celebrated for that reason.

Sad.
VC

The movie is based on a short story by Anne Proux from her 1997 book. I read this story years ago (before I reverted back to the Church) and found it pretty provocative even for fiction. The sexual scenes described in the story are not discrete as you might expect. My understanding is that the movie has some pretty explicit scenes as well. This is a classic case of bias by liberal, secular Hollywood critics: this movie (which shows explicit homosexual relationships) will probably get nominated for every award but last year’s Passion of the Christ barely got acknowledged even though it was clearly one of the year’s best. I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone.

 

[TPJCatholic]

buffalo,

The classifications are as follows:

• A-I – general patronage;
• A-II – adults and adolescents;
• A-III – adults;
• L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.
• A-IV – adults, with reservations (an A-IV classification designates problematic films that, while not morally offensive in themselves, require caution and some analysis and explanation as a safeguard against wrong interpretations and false conclusions);
• O – morally offensive.

I am not sure why it would not be clasified as “O,” yet I have not seen the film and have no intentions on seeing the film. However, the rating of “L” would also make me not bother with the movie.

 

[cathgal]

I also expected to be rated as O - morally offensive. Well, I wouldn’t consider their reviews serious anymore.

As for Oscar, I don’t respect it. It’s given by a bunch of stupid, bias group of people…that’s all there is.

 

[oat_soda]

it’s totally disgusting. can our bishops do a worse job? they can’t even figure out that a movie about homo cowboys is completely contrary to natural law and our catholic faith? can they not grasp the fundamental sanctity of marriage and the family vs. the horrendous sin of the sodomite? poor cowboys -such a manly noble profession disgraced with homosexuality.

if this isn’t evidence that the catholic bishops conference of this country is totally compromised by secularism, i don’t know what would be.

our church is in sad sad shape and i look forward to a renewal and cleansing.

look at how more critical they are of gibson’s “the passion of the Christ”. while they may have some valid points, my feeling is that they like the homo movie more then a movie about Jesus.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Let’s try to show some charity here. Does anyone know if the movie reviews are okay’d by the Bishops? If not, then it is just one person’s point of view and we should not be condemning the entire conference for the poor review of one person.

It is the season of Advent–charity is required when we do not have full knowledge.

 

[oat_soda]

It is the season of Advent–charity is required when we do not have full knowledge.

so what are we to do? turn a blind eye? blame it on someone else? this is total inncompetence on the hands of the usccb. they are responsible for what is publically annouced by their organization. IT REPRESENTS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HERE IN THIS COUNTRY!!!

the reason why we are in such a crisis is because of apathy and good intentions. this unexcusable and has nothing to do with posts being uncharitable.

 

[TPJCatholic]

oat soda,

It is not completely bad…it was given and “L” rating and that should alarm any Catholic. It could very well be that the Bishops are not even involved with the reviews and need to become involved.

If I see a movie with an “L” rating, that sets off alarms in my mind. I agree that an “O” rating would likely be more appropriate…but have you seen the movie? Can you say with absolute authority that the movie glorifies homosexcual activity? Can you say that without seeing the movie? I have not seen it, I just do not know and I will not see it.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Sometimes you just wantto cry at the low quailty of people who are our bishops.No wonder they have such little credibility, with the faithful.

 

[Brad]

The USCCB should not be in the business of movie reviews. They should be in the business of promoting the Gospel.

"While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.

The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence"

Oh, is this all? Maybe I should take the family or maybe just I should go so I can think about what it would be like to leave my family for another guy.

Are you kidding me?

 

[TPJCatholic]

I don’t see how it helps to attack out own Bishops. A house divided…

 

[fix]

TPJCatholic:

I don’t see how it helps to attack out own Bishops. A house divided…

I do not think it is so much about a divided house, it may be that truth divides?

 

[cathgal]

TPJCatholic:

oat soda,

It is not completely bad…it was given and “L” rating and that should alarm any Catholic. It could very well be that the Bishops are not even involved with the reviews and need to become involved.

If I see a movie with an “L” rating, that sets off alarms in my mind. I agree that an “O” rating would likely be more appropriate…but have you seen the movie? Can you say with absolute authority that the movie glorifies homosexcual activity? Can you say that without seeing the movie? I have not seen it, I just do not know and I will not see it.

The reviews is represented by ‘United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ NOT by some INDIVIDUAL. If the bishops don’t mean that, then they should state it differently. No excuse. A reader doesn’t need to analyze if a review was done by a single person or group of bishops.

Have you read any other reviews that you expect to be ‘L’ rather than morally offensive. Sometime I don’t think USCCB give a consistent review for all movies.
Here’s one example. Land of the Dead.
“Pervasive bloody violence and gore, including graphic dismemberment and cannibalism, some sexual content with brief partial nudity, some drug content, a same-sex kiss, recurring rough and crude language, as well as some profanity. **O – morally offensive” **

But they don’t think 2 homos kissing and implied sodomizing, some brief nudity, “sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence” is MORALLY OFFENSIVE ??? Are they buying into the secular culture too?!

Heck w/ their review, I watched Land of the Dead anyway!

 

[TPJCatholic]

Fix,

You might be correct, yet I have seen an awful lot of Bishop bashing on these threads in recent times…and I just don’t know how that helps anything.

Vatican II teaches that the lay Catholics are to be an integral part of the faith…so it is just as much OUR fault as it is the Bishops fault, yet I suppose it is easier for people to find a lofty target (Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope), then it is to see fault within themselves.