Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[YinYangMom]

oat soda:

so unless this movie uses images of evil to bring out greater good, it could never be beautiful or have any artistic merit.

It seemed from the review that this was the case, in the reviewer’s eyes, that the movie used images surrounding immoral subject to bring about the greater good of conveying how damaging SSA is to all involved.

Not having seen the film myself, I can’t say if this was indeed the case.

 

[Orionthehunter]

TPJCatholic:

orion,

It is as simple as this: we are called to lift our spirits to God. If something has potential to pull down our spirits, then we should not partake.

And we are called to gain knowledge and perspective of the good and evil of this world (or at least I feel this call). It is only with this knowledge and perspective that we can properly gain sympathy and empathy for others. With sympathy and empathy, we gain understanding. With understanding, we can actually practice “Woman at the Well” theology and meet people where they are. And when we finally are at this point, we can find Christ in others and be Christ to others. This too is our call.

Each of the movies and books I sited below have given me an insight into people-God’s people. They didn’t lift me up emotionally but they better armed me to do God’s work. For a person w/ a brother or sister or friend struggling w/ same sex attraction (I don’t even know if I know anyone gay), this movie might give them that perspective and knowledge necessary for them to actually effectively minister to them.

Similarly, even though Million Dollar Baby was an “O” and I regret that I watched it at home as a PPV movie (didn’t read the USCCB review as I thought it was just a boxing movie), for someone who ministers to the terminally ill, Millioin Dollar Baby might have given new insight and understanding into what their sick person is feeling and thinking. While for me, the movie was offensive, for the hospice worker it might be illuminating.

 

[oat_soda]

It seemed from the review that this was the case, in the reviewer’s eyes, that the movie used images surrounding immoral subject to bring about the greater good of conveying how damaging SSA is to all involved.

i hope this was the authors intent. but when i read the review, it seems very ambiguous when it comes to objective good and evil and if this movie promotes a homosexual agenda or supports the churches teaching.

this is exactly what i didn’t like about the article, because to me, it seemed to be seperating what the church teaches vs. artistic merit, like the two could be opposed or something.

 

[Orionthehunter]

oat soda:

this in no way would seperate artistic merit from what is truly beautiful, which is something that is universal. if we assume artistic merit is a measure of beauty, or at least it should be in the catholic perspective, then we also know that God is the ultimate author of beauty.

what makes something ugly is the fact that it is disordered, or goes agains the natural law established by God, and not the goodness of God’s creation. objectively speaking, icons, the sistine chapel, gothic cathedrals, the rocky mountains, are beautiful. stuff like much modern art which reflects society, the homosexual act itself, destruction, sin, unjust war, injustice… etc., are not beautiful inherently. so unless this movie uses images of evil to bring out greater good, it could never be beautiful or have any artistic merit.

now if we define artistic merit as simply the secular notion of reflecting society, then perhaps it does have artistic merit. but, if you agree to this, then you are seperating God from reality and you are going down the wide path to destruction.

Artistic merit are items like:

1. Is the cinematography and special effects good and do they further the plot,
2. Was the acting good,
3. Was the plot, characters and subject matter well developed or is it disjointed,
4. Is the story plausible, etc.

As I have seen Pulp Fiction, Million Dollar Baby, Silence of the Lambs, Mississippi Burning, I would say they all excelled in artistic merit. However, the former two I found objectionable morally and the latter two very good even though all four dealt with subject matter that was morally offensive.

 

[YinYangMom]

Orionthehunter:

And we are called to gain knowledge and perspective of the good and evil of this world (or at least I feel this call). It is only with this knowledge and perspective that we can properly gain sympathy and empathy for others. With sympathy and empathy, we gain understanding. With understanding, we can actually practice “Woman at the Well” theology and meet people where they are. And when we finally are at this point, we can find Christ in others and be Christ to others. This too is our call.

Here, Orion, I would insert a qualifier…
I’m of the belief some are called … not all… as it is apparent through that earlier story about the two cardinals and the prostitute.

One was blessed with the vision to see God’s beauty in all people, while the other was not quite blessed that much. The one who averted his eyes, didso rightly, as for him, he was protecting his soul having recognized his weakness for the flesh. His heart was prone to lust so he was unable to look beyond the sin of the prostitute to see the person. The one who fixed his eyes on her didso rightly because he was able to reflect God’s love back to that woman, who being on her way to her incarceration probably really needed to feel God’s love in that passing moment.

Which brings to mind Fr. Corapi speaking about Theresa of Avila journeying one day and all sorts of things going wrong on the way, of her looking to the sky and saying, “If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so many enemies” or something to that effect.

The message seems to be some are chosen to do some dirty jobs, while others are better off keeping clean.

 

[mlchance]

YinYangMom:

Just for clarification…I’m not ‘embracing’ the USCCB review.

Why would anyone embrace a review? It’s just a review. It wasn’t written by the bishops. It isn’t a papal encyclical. It isn’t an infallible statement from the Magesterium.

It’s a movie review.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Here, Orion, I would insert a qualifier…
I’m of the belief some are called … not all… as it is apparent through that earlier story about the two cardinals and the prostitute.

One was blessed with the vision to see God’s beauty in all people, while the other was not quite blessed that much. The one who averted his eyes, didso rightly, as for him, he was protecting his soul having recognized his weakness for the flesh. His heart was prone to lust so he was unable to look beyond the sin of the prostitute to see the person. The one who fixed his eyes on her didso rightly because he was able to reflect God’s love back to that woman, who being on her way to her incarceration probably really needed to feel God’s love in that passing moment.

Which brings to mind Fr. Corapi speaking about Theresa of Avila journeying one day and all sorts of things going wrong on the way, of her looking to the sky and saying, “If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so many enemies” or something to that effect.

The message seems to be some are chosen to do some dirty jobs, while others are better off keeping clean.

One problem with this scenario - you are viewing a movie, ingesting deviance. On the street when you come face to face with the prostitute is very different, you are showing Christ to her.

 

[buffalo]

mlchance:

Why would anyone embrace a review? It’s just a review. It wasn’t written by the bishops. It isn’t a papal encyclical. It isn’t an infallible statement from the Magesterium.

It’s a movie review.

– Mark L. Chance.

I can get movie “reviews” in many different places. I look to the Bishops site for moral guidance. The difference is not trivial.

 

[oat_soda]

Artistic merit are items like:

1. Is the cinematography and special effects good and do they further the plot,
2. Was the acting good,
3. Was the plot, characters and subject matter well developed or is it disjointed,
4. Is the story plausible, etc.

even so, i don’t think the catholic church is in any position to judge this stuff anymore then we are, or anyother secular movie critics. they should be there to tell us how much a movie is or is not truely catholic in its ethos or spirit. what you listed are more to do with the quality of the movie and not artistic merit.

if a movie is propaganda to further the homosexual agenda, it couldn’t have artistic merit in my opinion because it is being deceitful and is telling lies. if anything, it is the work of the devil.

 

[TPJCatholic]

orion,

I do not need to see an abortion done in order to know abortion is wrong. Similarily, I do not need to see evil on the screen or in writing in order to know the evils they are espousing. Additionally, when we pay for a movie ticket for such movies we are giving approval to the evil.

 

[mlchance]

buffalo:

I can get movie “reviews” in many different places. I look to the Bishops site for moral guidance. The difference is not trivial.

The bishops aren’t the ones writing the reviews, nor did a single bishop recommend you see the movie under question. In fact, the review at least very heavily implies that you ought not to see it. Nothing in the review contradicts Catholic teaching. The review even goes out of its way to point out the movie does not conform to Catholic teaching and includes many immoral elements.

If anything in this thread is morally suspect, it is the thread title (since it misleadingly implies that the U.S. bishops recommend the movie) as well as the sometimes imperious manner in which people presume to correct the bishops without the required respect for their office.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

That is grossly inaccurate of what she was saying.

How so?

 

[TPJCatholic]

mlchance,

Well said…especially:

*as well as the sometimes imperious manner in which people presume to correct the bishops without the required respect for their office.
*

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

One problem with this scenario - you are viewing a movie, ingesting deviance. On the street when you come face to face with the prostitute is very different, you are showing Christ to her.

If I were to see this movie I would be looking to further my understanding of the plight these people are going through, to gain insight on ways to reach out to them, to help them find strength, hope and courage in Our Lord. As I don’t travel in that circle, my only glimpse into what they could possibly be going through is through the arts. I have plenty of homosexual acquaintainces but we don’t socialize with each other so my time with them is rather pleasant and general. These books/films help me better understand them so that I can be ready, so to speak, should the occasion present itself for them to ask for my help. It increases compassion in my heart and my life. It does, in no way, tempt me away from Christ. But perhaps, that’s just me.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

If I were to see this movie I would be looking to further my understanding of the plight these people are going through, to gain insight on ways to reach out to them, to help them find strength, hope and courage in Our Lord. As I don’t travel in that circle, my only glimpse into what they could possibly be going through is through the arts. I have plenty of homosexual acquantainces but we don’t socialize with each other so my time with them is rather pleasant and general. These books/films help me better understand them so that I can be ready, so to speak, should the occasion present itself for them to ask for my help. It increases compassion in my heart and my life. It does, in no way, tempt me away from Christ. But perhaps, that’s just me.

But Hollywood typically distorts the truth of their plight. How does this help you? When I need medical advice I don;t go to the movies for it. I go to the doctor. The Church already shows us how to deal with them.

 

[buffalo]

mlchance:

The bishops aren’t the ones writing the reviews, nor did a single bishop recommend you see the movie under question. In fact, the review at least very heavily implies that you ought not to see it. Nothing in the review contradicts Catholic teaching. The review even goes out of its way to point out the movie does not conform to Catholic teaching and includes many immoral elements.

If anything in this thread is morally suspect, it is the thread title (since it misleadingly implies that the U.S. bishops recommend the movie) as well as the sometimes imperious manner in which people presume to correct the bishops without the required respect for their office.

– Mark L. Chance.

Standard disclaimer: The views of this critic do not reflect the Bishops and/or the Catholic Church. It is here merely for entertainment purposes. Please disregard the ratings because they are not supported by the Bishops.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

One problem with this scenario - you are viewing a movie, ingesting deviance. On the street when you come face to face with the prostitute is very different, you are showing Christ to her.

With this train of thought, one shouldn’t read Machiavelli or any non-Catholic conforming philosopher including Aristotle, Plato or Socrates. We should never read some of the Greek classics which are essentially deviance. Hmmm. My reading of alot of aspects of David’s life is pretty evil. If you are at spiritual or moral place now such that you need to avoid these things (like the Bishop in Ying’s story), I support you and urge you to “turn your eyes”. But I’m not you and you aren’t me. (I’m sure both of are glad of that )

 

[Orionthehunter]

mlchance:

The bishops aren’t the ones writing the reviews, nor did a single bishop recommend you see the movie under question. In fact, the review at least very heavily implies that you ought not to see it. Nothing in the review contradicts Catholic teaching. The review even goes out of its way to point out the movie does not conform to Catholic teaching and includes many immoral elements.

If anything in this thread is morally suspect, it is the thread title (since it misleadingly implies that the U.S. bishops recommend the movie) as well as the sometimes imperious manner in which people presume to correct the bishops without the required respect for their office.

– Mark L. Chance.

This is the primary issue that I’ve tried to address. Thanks for repeating it. Especially since the orginal accusation is grounded in a misrepresentation of the Bishop’s intention.

Regarding the disclaimer, I do think it has some merit. There are numerous threads which Buffalo has participated that reference Priests or lay ministers who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret Church teaching or rubrics. We know and acknowledge that they don’t speak for the Bishops they serve. I think it is safe to assume that on occassion one might talk to a diocesan Chancellor (lay person) or get a letter from a diocesan letter from a staff member or even read a review of a movie that doesn’t exactly represent the views of the Bishop’s.

In all cases, to make a logic leap that the errant person speaks for the Bishop or the entire Church is without merit.

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

First of all, the reviewer himself is not a bishop and he’s not teaching on faith and morals. He’s a lay person reviewing a film in light of Catholic teaching.

If the review is published by the USCCB then it is the USCCB giving the review unless a disclaimer is printed. Also, he’s not doing a good job of relating Catholic teaching. Adultery is a “hot-button issue”? I thought it was a very grave mortal sin. The language throughout the review gives credibility to the “homosexual lifestyle” as if it could be feasible. I scannd for the word “sin” and couldn’t find it. This is a secular review with acknowledgment that some Christians would some portions a bit offensive.

YinYangMom:

Second, where did you get from the USCCB review this film puts a positive light on adultery and leaving your family? The review seemed rather clear that the movie focuses more on the damage such an affliction brings to all involved than celebrate it.

This is anything but clear. In fact, it says somewhat the opposite:

"The adulterous nature of their affair is another hot-button issue. But the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families is not whitewashed. (The women are played with tremendous sympathy, not as shrill harridans.) It’s the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship – which, by the way, ends in tragedy – that seems paramount. "

It says here that the emotinal honesty of the story and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship that is paramount over the pain caused the families.

YinYangMom:

Third, as before, nothing in the USCCB suggested this film should be embraced by all people. No where did it counter your basic premise that the film is objectionable by Catholic standards, in fact, it agreed on those points precisely.

Where did it say we shouldn’t see it?

 

[Brad]

My apologies for the quote mishap.