Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

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.

The Church encourages us to embrace the sinner, to show compassion, to treat them with respect and dignity.

I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to feel compassion for the flagrant homosexuals - the in-your-face kind - yet, the Church does not make a distinction between them and those like the ones in this film or the one in Boys Don’t Cry. The first step is in not giving into that basic instinct to be repulsed by people with this attraction. Given that our society has promoted such disgust, anger and rejection for so long, it’s hard to overcome that. And now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

The Church directs us to treat all homosexuals with dignity for their humanity and yet doesn’t really offer much in the way of ‘how to’ go about doing that. Compassion comes easier for me toward those who are struggling with SSA than those who openly embrace it, but the fact remains until I learn more about where all this comes from I can’t begin to understand and thus recognize the proper opening when one arises. Each person has their own history which brought them to that choice…to just respond to every one the exact same way is callous and ineffective. Through compassion and understanding we can gain trust and confidence by which we then are able to convey a loving invitation to people to enter into the Truth.

This film being as it’s about cowboys and that culture still is not that appealing to me as the likelihood of my crossing paths of gay cowboys where I live is minimal, at best. But I am interesting in the wives’ stories…their perspective. The USCCB review says it dealt with that very well, so I might watch it for that purpose. Might.

I recall the movie “13”…award winner…rough…didn’t plan to see it, wasn’t interested. Daughter certainly was (she was 14). I discouraged it and shared my reasonings with her - basically that we are blessed to not have to face issues like that in our life, why seek it out? To which she responded, “Mom, I already know 3 slashers at school and two gays. It’s all around me.” Well that was a rude awakening, to say the least. And so, one of our mother/daughter alone evenings we rented it. It was an excellent film. Sure opened my eyes to the plight these teens are going through. Together we discussed which parts were realistic and which were ‘Hollywood’ and how best to use what we learned from the realistic parts to be able to help those kids at her school. My daughter has a big heart and a very strong faith in God. She knows she is meant to share Him with everyone she meets and prays everyday to be a good representative.

I, in no way, recommend ‘13’ to anyone else, but if anyone were to ask me whether or not they should see it I’d share an honest summary of what they’d see in it so they could decide for themselves.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Brad: Where did it say we shouldn’t see it?

It didn’t. It has been decades since the Church was in the practice of banning books or movies etc. They decided that a more effective means was to educate Catholics on the issues of the film, provide prudential guidance via the rating system and then allow the informed Catholic to exercise their prudential judgment.

You might advocate banning books and movies but that is an issue for another day and thread.

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

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.

I don’t recall any other reviews of the USCCB using ‘mortal sin’ ‘grave’ ‘sin’. They’re reviewing the films, not passing moral judgement upon them.

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.

No, not paramount over anything. Just paramount. I took it to mean paramount over the whole underlying subject of homosexuality. I could be wrong. I’d have to see the film to truly understand what the reviewer meant by that.

Where did it say we shouldn’t see it?

With the original “L” rating (limited adults) and now the “O” rating (offensive).

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

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.

Artistic merit is whether or not the art brings you closer to God:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6716

"It has been said that art concerns only itself; it is neither moral, nor immoral, but amoral. Error, lack of reflection! the intrinsic end of art is to produce an impression, to move. A work which does not bear within itself a lively source of emotion is not a work of art. But if emotion be neither true nor false, it is good or bad. It influences the profound disposition of the soul to love that which is honest, elevated; it leads to forgetfulness of self, to disinterestedness, to sacrifice — then it is good, beneficent, ennobling. If it incite to egoism, to self-worship, or if it flatter voluptousness — then it is malicious, deadly. Every forceful work of art incites to good or to evil, and so has its repercussion upon the dispositions of the soul and society."

Our artistic talents are given to us by God and are to be used to point back to Him or else they are “deadly”. Spiritual death has no merit.

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

Artistic merit is whether or not the art brings you closer to God:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6716

"It has been said that art concerns only itself; it is neither moral, nor immoral, but amoral. Error, lack of reflection! the intrinsic end of art is to produce an impression, to move. A work which does not bear within itself a lively source of emotion is not a work of art. But if emotion be neither true nor false, it is good or bad. It influences the profound disposition of the soul to love that which is honest, elevated; it leads to forgetfulness of self, to disinterestedness, to sacrifice — then it is good, beneficent, ennobling. If it incite to egoism, to self-worship, or if it flatter voluptousness — then it is malicious, deadly. Every forceful work of art incites to good or to evil, and so has its repercussion upon the dispositions of the soul and society."

Our artistic talents are given to us by God and are to be used to point back to Him or else they are “deadly”. Spiritual death has no merit.

Well then the author of that essay should send it to whoever heads the USCCB review board. Perhaps that definition hasn’t reached the reviewers yet.

 

[Brad]

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.

Ad hominems aside, the USCCB does not get off the hook as easily as you would like. Here is the ending of the review:

**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.
Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana’s screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx’s story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.
The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.
Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.
Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.
While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. **

This ending builds a series of “positives” which would encourage any little informed but rationale reader to see the movie.

The review hardly goes out of it’s way to demonstrate Catholic teachings. It seems the problematic parts are given a wink and a nod because it is a Catholic website. I could write a 15-page review regarding the morally problematic sections of this movie per Catholic teaching.

Secondy, the USCCB has power because they are at least figuratively the US Bishops. This review is on their published material. The USCCB has enough power to mandate that a controversial sex-education lesson plan be immediatelly taught to all Catholic schoolchildren in every diocese(this also was mandated by a layperson but could only be mandated because she was working for the USCCB). They cannot have power only when it is convenient. They either have it or they do not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Artistic merit is whether or not the art brings you closer to God:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6716

"It has been said that art concerns only itself; it is neither moral, nor immoral, but amoral. Error, lack of reflection! the intrinsic end of art is to produce an impression, to move. A work which does not bear within itself a lively source of emotion is not a work of art. But if emotion be neither true nor false, it is good or bad. It influences the profound disposition of the soul to love that which is honest, elevated; it leads to forgetfulness of self, to disinterestedness, to sacrifice — then it is good, beneficent, ennobling. If it incite to egoism, to self-worship, or if it flatter voluptousness — then it is malicious, deadly. Every forceful work of art incites to good or to evil, and so has its repercussion upon the dispositions of the soul and society."

Our artistic talents are given to us by God and are to be used to point back to Him or else they are “deadly”. Spiritual death has no merit.

If you regularly read, the context of the reviews on the USCCB site, you’d find you are comparing apples to oranges. The USCCB covers this standard of “artistic merit” in their discussion of the “moral suitability”. The context of “artistic merit” used in their reviews is with regards to the art of filmmaking (plot development, competence of the acting, etc.)

Furthermore, IMHO the USCCB shows great respect for the prudential judgment of Catholic’s with well-formed consciences to determine the repercussions of the art on their soul. For a discussion of this, I refer you to my earlier post of how Million Dollar Baby was offensive and without merit to me but to one trying to understand what a terminally ill person thinks and feels, it might be still offensive but have merit. To apply a narrow standard for all Catholics would essentially prohibit any Catholic from viewing or reading anything not consistent with Catholic Teaching including the great philosophers (Plato et. al.).

 

[Brad]

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 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.

How do you know this is a true portrayal? This is a fiction movie. Again, I suggest you would be buying into the propaganda to legitimze same-sex sexual relationships as equal with heterosexual sexual relationships.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Ad hominems aside, the USCCB does not get off the hook as easily as you would like. Here is the ending of the review:

**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.
Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana’s screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx’s story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.
The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.
Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.
Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there’s no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.
While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. **

This ending builds a series of “positives” which would encourage any little informed but rationale reader to see the movie.

The review hardly goes out of it’s way to demonstrate Catholic teachings. It seems the problematic parts are given a wink and a nod because it is a Catholic website. I could write a 15-page review regarding the morally problematic sections of this movie per Catholic teaching.

Secondy, the USCCB has power because they are at least figuratively the US Bishops. This review is on their published material. The USCCB has enough power to mandate that a controversial sex-education lesson plan be immediatelly taught to all Catholic schoolchildren in every diocese(this also was mandated by a layperson but could only be mandated because she was working for the USCCB). They cannot have power only when it is convenient. They either have it or they do not.

I guess then we are too stupid after reading this that in their original rating that it was:

L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.

or the current rating of:

O – morally offensive.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

It didn’t. It has been decades since the Church was in the practice of banning books or movies etc. They decided that a more effective means was to educate Catholics on the issues of the film, provide prudential guidance via the rating system and then allow the informed Catholic to exercise their prudential judgment.

You might advocate banning books and movies but that is an issue for another day and thread.

Did I say ban? I was talking about teaching. Do you know that is a primary role of a Bishop? Teach so that we may educate our intellect and guide our will towards Christ.

Should a Bishop or priest never say we should not go to strip clubs? Should they say we should not beat our wives? Should they say we should not fight a war? Oh, wait. Scratch that last one - they do say that.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

How do you know this is a true portrayal? This is a fiction movie. Again, I suggest you would be buying into the propaganda to legitimze same-sex sexual relationships as equal with heterosexual sexual relationships.

She will know after she reads this.

I’ve read “The Prince” by Machiavelli several times. While I find his philosophy reprehensible, this guy was one smart dude who can articulate as good as anyone. I assume you think that I’m buying into his warped philosophy as well? I’m starting to get a sense that maybe the issue is one of “anti-intellecualism” whereby us stupid lay people should never read anything except Scripture, the Catechism and writings by legitimate Catholic authors lest we buy into non-Catholic ideas.

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

I don’t recall any other reviews of the USCCB using ‘mortal sin’ ‘grave’ ‘sin’. They’re reviewing the films, not passing moral judgement upon them.

Exactly the problem. Without shepherds guiding our moral judgement, where are we? Should they be in the car wash business as well?

YinYangMom:

No, not paramount over anything. Just paramount. I took it to mean paramount over the whole underlying subject of homosexuality. I could be wrong. I’d have to see the film to truly understand what the reviewer meant by that.

I think the paragraph is pretty clear. It states a negative and then justifies it using “paramount” with a few positives.

YinYangMom:

With the original “L” rating (limited adults) and now the “O” rating (offensive).

Perhaps we are making progress. Thanks be to God.

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

Well then the author of that essay should send it to whoever heads the USCCB review board. Perhaps that definition hasn’t reached the reviewers yet.

I think you are right! Of course, it is freely available on the web on a very excellent Catholic site. So many options…

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Did I say ban? I was talking about teaching. Do you know that is a primary role of a Bishop? Teach so that we may educate our intellect and guide our will towards Christ.

Should a Bishop or priest never say we should not go to strip clubs? Should they say we should not beat our wives? Should they say we should not fight a war? Oh, wait. Scratch that last one - they do say that.

You asked this question: “Where did it say we shouldn’t see it?”

Since you didn’t think the rating of L or O was sufficient, the only remaining alternative was to use the old system that said that a Catholic was prohibited to see it under penalty of sin. Your post #230 seems to suggest that this is what you want.

Of couse, we shouldn’t go to strip clubs or beat our wives. I responded to this charge lest anyone think my silence means I endorse beating wives or strip clubs. But I do like that this is your response. It is an indication of the strenght of your position.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

You asked this question: “Where did it say we shouldn’t see it?”

Since you didn’t think the rating of L or O was insufficient, the only remaining alternative was to use the old system that said that a Catholic was prohibited to see it under penalty of sin.

Of couse, we shouldn’t go to strip clubs or beat our wives. I responded to this charge lest anyone think my silence means I endorse beating wives or strip clubs. But I do like that this is your response. It is an indication of the strenght of your position.

Wouldn’t it be a sin to see it?

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

If you regularly read, the context of the reviews on the USCCB site, you’d find you are comparing apples to oranges. The USCCB covers this standard of “artistic merit” in their discussion of the “moral suitability”. The context of “artistic merit” used in their reviews is with regards to the art of filmmaking (plot development, competence of the acting, etc.)

I am comparing apples to oranges. That IS the problem. One group seems to have the incorrect definition of the same term - one that has been noticeably shifted since probably the “enlightenment”. But then again, the notion of whether Christ rose from the dead has shifted quite a bit too but there is only one true answer.

Orionthehunter:

Furthermore, IMHO the USCCB shows great respect for the prudential judgment of Catholic’s with well-formed consciences to determine the repercussions of the art on their soul. For a discussion of this, I refer you to my earlier post of how Million Dollar Baby was offensive and without merit to me but to one trying to understand what a terminally ill person thinks and feels, it might be still offensive but have merit. To apply a narrow standard for all Catholics would essentially prohibit any Catholic from viewing or reading anything not consistent with Catholic Teaching including the great philosophers (Plato et. al.).

As humans, we are impacted by the emotional draw of a film. Simply watching these movies for a secular notion of artistic merit and then casting our own moral judgement, but never modifying our viewing habits accordingly - will eventually wear down the soul.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Wouldn’t it be a sin to see it?

Are you really advocating that the USCCB should be designating films in such a way that some movies would be sins if viewed?

P.S. Please don’t introduce porn into this discussion. That is its own genre.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

I guess then we are too stupid after reading this that in their original rating that it was:

L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.

or the current rating of:

O – morally offensive.

O is appropriate but the content of the review should be modified accordingly. Believe me, some would see it because it was O.

I didn’t realize it was O prior to that post. But my analysis of the review itself still stands that it is positive overall.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

Are you really advocating that the USCCB should be designating films in such a way that some movies would be sins if viewed?

P.S. Please don’t introduce porn into this discussion. That is its own genre.

I repeat the question - Would it be a sin to see this movie?

Yes or No

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

How do you know this is a true portrayal? This is a fiction movie. Again, I suggest you would be buying into the propaganda to legitimze same-sex sexual relationships as equal with heterosexual sexual relationships.

Ok…gotta ask…how many gay people do you have in your life?
How many films with gay undercurrents or focus have you watched?

I have more gay people in my life I ever wanted, if even I’d ever wanted any.

I gotta figure God keeps sending them in my direction for a reason, so in the meantime I’m learning as much as I can so I can do Jesus proud.

In any case, my exposure thus far to ‘real’ life stories enables me to relate to ‘fictional’ stories on certain levels, and the ones I’ve seen so far, have been close to the mark, so my gay friends assure me. They, like Catholics who can respectfully point out false portrayals of Catholics in film, point out where Hollywood misrepresents them in film.

And no, I do not buy into any of this propaganda about gay rights to marriage and/or children, why would I?

You know, I am in no way suggesting all people be like me or view the arts like I do. Why do you assume my appreciation for films of this nature is purely because of my personal curiousity or my own attempt to join the propaganda bandwagaon? I’ve already explained extensively what value I derive from such work and how I seek God when doing so. You act as though it’s impossible to get anything good out of these works and you’re just wrong about that. Certainly you wouldn’t get anything good out of it, but then, you’re not me. I wouldn’t expect you to relate to the film on any level.