Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

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.

Nope. Intellectualism is good. Using the intellect properly, though, is far more importan than just head knowledge.

But your assessment is still incorrect (not to mention seemingly critical of what knowledge I might have). I was suggesting the “buy-in” simply because Yingyang claimed she could use the film to properly guage what homosexuals go through. Reading Machiavelli might get you to understand Machiavelli but if he were writing fiction novels about kings in an effort to undermine their credibility, you would tend to believe his biased perspective could not tell you much about the reality of kings.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

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

Yes or No

Like most questions, the simple answer is usually wrong. It would go to intent. If one went to the movie to embrace homosexuality, that would be a sin (assuming the theological tests of knowledge etc. were met. As I have not seen this movie, I’d rather comment on “Million Dollar Baby” (rated O by the USCCB) which I have seen. If one went to that movie to embrace euthanasia, that would be a sin. If one went to get an understanding of the mindset of a terminally ill person and the challenges they face, it would not be a sin and could actually be redeeming so long as came away further empowered to understand the wrong of euthanasia.

Do you think it would be a sin?

 

[Brad]

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 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.

Not sure what you are getting at. Saying something is a sin, potentially a cause of sin, or simply supports something that shouldn’t be supported (which you seem to think is not a possibility) is not the same thing as banning something. It is called prudence - something any good teacher should offer if they care about souls.

I can list a bunch of other examples of what Bishops should say we should not do. Lots could and do make the case that a strip club isn’t so bad - after all you are just looking - some even say it is art and could tell you something about the humanity of the “employee”. Some things just aren’t good to do. Would a priest be banning playing in traffic if he said not to do it?

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

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.

I interact with plenty of people that label themselves homosexual - for better or for worse.

I didn’t say you are attempting ot join the bandwagon. I’m just trying to help you be aware of the possibilities.

You can get something good out of anything. But some things should not be done as a whole because the bad is too much. That is as simple as I can say it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Nope. Intellectualism is good. Using the intellect properly, though, is far more importan than just head knowledge.

But your assessment is still incorrect (not to mention seemingly critical of what knowledge I might have). I was suggesting the “buy-in” simply because Yingyang claimed she could use the film to properly guage what homosexuals go through. Reading Machiavelli might get you to understand Machiavelli but if he were writing fiction novels about kings in an effort to undermine their credibility, you would tend to believe his biased perspective could not tell you much about the reality of kings.

You can’t be serious. Do you really think that reading fiction novels leads one to believe the story? It is fiction. If one is that susceptible to this, one should probably be in a monastery/convent. But for those who understand it is fiction are probably the ones who the USCCB believes can handle the L rated movies: limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. For those who can’t make that distinction, they probably are not to be included in the “limited adult audience” and probably should stick w/ movies rated A-1 (general patronage) or A-2 (adults and adolescents) and even avoid A-3 (adults only) as they probably are too immature.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Wouldn’t it be a sin to see it?

I guess that’s a matter of why you see it and what you derive from it, as with all other sins. The intent makes a difference.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Not sure what you are getting at. Saying something is a sin, potentially a cause of sin, or simply supports something that shouldn’t be supported (which you seem to think is not a possibility) is not the same thing as banning something. It is called prudence - something any good teacher should offer if they care about souls.

I can list a bunch of other examples of what Bishops should say we should not do. Lots could and do make the case that a strip club isn’t so bad - after all you are just looking - some even say it is art and could tell you something about the humanity of the “employee”. Some things just aren’t good to do. Would a priest be banning playing in traffic if he said not to do it?

I’ve said many times that I’ve reached the prudential judgment that I will not watch this movie. I’ve used the words “prudence” or variations throughout this thread. It is with prudence that any intelligent person can read this review and deem that for most this movie is of little (if any) merit.

The introduction of strip clubs and playing in the street is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion. Or at least this feeble mind can’t see the relevance.

 

[manualman]

I got tired of reading, but wanted to share one more thought.

Regardless of whether the USCCB decides to recommend or ‘ban’ certain movies, should a basic minimum of a movie review with the bishops reputation attached alway warn moviegoers of any themes in the movies that tend towards hostility of the faith?

Again, I haven’t seent he movie, but from the review, it would appear that the movie does NOT primary portray the homosexual lifestyle as destructive and having inherent awful consequences (as suggested by YingYang). It sounds to me like the movie suggests that all of the tragic consequences are a result of the two men living in a culture that is not ‘gay-friendly.’

Again, just from reading the review, and noting that the writers chose to place the story in a decidedly RED state setting it seems to me that the whole purpose of the story is to plant the idea in viewers heads that if the world abandoned its ‘bigoted and hateful’ opposition of homosexuality, the world would be a better place.

If, indeed such a message underlies the movie, then DARN right the bishops review ought to note it. At least warn us about the suggestions that are going to be planted in our minds!

 

[Orionthehunter]

manualman:

I got tired of reading, but wanted to share one more thought.

Regardless of whether the USCCB decides to recommend or ‘ban’ certain movies, should a basic minimum of a movie review with the bishops reputation attached alway warn moviegoers of any themes in the movies that tend towards hostility of the faith?

Again, I haven’t seent he movie, but from the review, it would appear that the movie does NOT primary portray the homosexual lifestyle as destructive and having inherent awful consequences (as suggested by YingYang). It sounds to me like the movie suggests that all of the tragic consequences are a result of the two men living in a culture that is not ‘gay-friendly.’

Again, just from reading the review, and noting that the writers chose to place the story in a decidedly RED state setting it seems to me that the whole purpose of the story is to plant the idea in viewers heads that if the world abandoned its ‘bigoted and hateful’ opposition of homosexuality, the world would be a better place.

If, indeed such a message underlies the movie, then DARN right the bishops review ought to note it. At least warn us about the suggestions that are going to be planted in our minds!

Are you reading from teh USCCB review? If so, you are much more adept at reading between the lines than I. But this being said, I do think that the following warning by the reviewer does warn us that there is an underlying theme that endorses/condones homosexual behavior. Heck, there are very few films (even PG movies) that don’t have an underlying theme that endorses fornification and premarital sex.

“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.”

PS: Note the following update on the reclassification of the movie from L to O. It appearst that much of the debate on this thread was also related to a misunderstanding of the rating system which led people to reach inaccurate conclusions.

“Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling) has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive). This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating – which restricts films in that category to those who can assess from a Catholic perspective the moral issues raised by a movie – is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because, in this instance, there are some who are using the “L” rating to make it appear the Church – or the USCCB – position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been with revised specifically to address its moral content.

 

[joyfulmess]

fix:

If you follow the link in the OP to the blog and read the comment section you will see how to contact the USCCB as one lady already has and you may read their response to her.

Ok what exactly is the “OP”? I’d like to read that. Or better yet can you provide a link so everyone that is interested can read it. Thanks

 

[pnewton]

buffalo:

I am the OP. The title is the title of the article. The mods have warned me that the title must be the same, so I followed the rules.

I apologize for maligning you. You only followed the rules. It was the author on the website that lied about the bishops conference.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

Like most questions, the simple answer is usually wrong.

Not usually. Some require a detailed answer. Most do not.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

You can’t be serious. Do you really think that reading fiction novels leads one to believe the story?

We are having a disconnect here. That is exactly what I am arguing against. It was Yingyang’s implied premise when she said she might watch the movie to understand better the plight of homosexuals.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

The introduction of strip clubs and playing in the street is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion. Or at least this feeble mind can’t see the relevance.

Believe me, I am not telling you what to do. However, I think the Bishops are in a moral position to do so in certain situations.

Also, I do NOT think you have a feeble mind. That is why I challenge you to think about the possible relevance (not the particular example but the parallels that are drawn - there is an infinite number of examples).

 

[Brad]

joyfulmess:

Ok what exactly is the “OP”? I’d like to read that. Or better yet can you provide a link so everyone that is interested can read it. Thanks

Here is a quote from the woman’s comment on the blog:

“The woman answering the phone in NYC told me the reviewer had his opinion and I have my opinion and just because they differ doesn’t mean he is wrong”

Did Christ say He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life or did He say He was the Way and the Life but truth is in the eye of the beholder (relativism)?

 

[joyfulmess]

Orionthehunter:

Like most questions, the simple answer is usually wrong. It would go to intent. If one went to the movie to embrace homosexuality, that would be a sin (assuming the theological tests of knowledge etc. were met. As I have not seen this movie, I’d rather comment on “Million Dollar Baby” (rated O by the USCCB) which I have seen. If one went to that movie to embrace euthanasia, that would be a sin. If one went to get an understanding of the mindset of a terminally ill person and the challenges they face, it would not be a sin and could actually be redeeming so long as came away further empowered to understand the wrong of euthanasia.

Do you think it would be a sin?

Since you are obviously having a hard time answering this question,( post # 236 ) I will answer it. Yes it would be a sin to see this movie **since we already know what it is about ** ( because of the clarity of the review) it would be a deliberate decision to go to the theatre, buy the ticket and devote part of your day to watch something that you know is on a subject that is forbidden by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ . Why on earth would anyone with a clear conscience want to participate in advocating something they know is intrinsically evil?Don’t cluttr your life with things from the dark side, keep your life and soul towards the light.

 

[mike182d]

You should all probably check out the movie review again.

Brokeback Mountain’s rating was changed to “O” for morally offensive with the following preface:

““Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling) has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive). This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating – which restricts films in that category to those who can assess from a Catholic perspective the moral issues raised by a movie – is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because, in this instance, there are some who are using the “L” rating to make it appear the Church – or the USCCB – position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been with revised specifically to address its moral content.”

Although, I still can’t get over the tone of the review’s opening:

"“Brokeback Mountain” (Focus), the much publicized “gay cowboy love story” adapted from a New Yorker magazine piece by Pulitzer Prize-winner Annie Proulx,* arrives at last**, and the film itself – a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection – belies the glib description. *While it is the story of an intimate relationship, more to the point it’s the relationship of two emotionally scarred souls."

“…at last?” Yes! We finally have a movie about gay cowboys! At last!!!

Think I’m crazy? Let’s compare the opening lines for the review of the Passion of the Christ:

““The Passion of the Christ” (Newmarket) is an uncompromising interpretive dramatization of the final 12 hours of Jesus’ earthly life. Unflinching in its brutality and penetrating in its iconography of God’s supreme love for humanity, the film will mean different things to people of diverse backgrounds. Co-writer, producer and director Mel Gibson has undoubtedly created one of the most anticipated and controversial films of recent times.”

The difference in approach is kind of creepy…

 

[Brad]

mike182d:

You should all probably check out the movie review again.

Brokeback Mountain’s rating was changed to “O” for morally offensive with the following preface:

““Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling) has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive). This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating – which restricts films in that category to those who can assess from a Catholic perspective the moral issues raised by a movie – is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because, in this instance, there are some who are using the “L” rating to make it appear the Church – or the USCCB – position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been with revised specifically to address its moral content.”

They are still confused. It wasn’t the “L” rating that was misunderstood. It was the content of the review that was (and still is) objectionable.

By the way, who is going to be reading that review that doesn’t think he/she can assess the moral issues raised by the movie? This is ambiguous language rather than decisive and clear language - the same problem that the review has.

Finally, even if he/she can assess the moral issues, why should they go and participate in voyeurism of naked men and women?

Some houses need cleaning.

 

[pnewton]

I just flipped back and re-read the review. It is good to see that whoever oversees these reviews have taked steps to give it the worst possible rating. Within the review there is nothing that is ambiguous about the Church’s view on homosexuality. No Catholic needs to watch this garbage.

I wonder it the website that issued the initial article will acknowledge the stand of the USCCB on this or if they will show continuing disdain of Church leadership.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

YinYangMom:

But they did draw a line - only adults should consider this movie, and only those who for whatever reason, would be ok with the content revealed in the review. NO CHILDREN, NO TEENS, NOT ALL ADULTS.

By the way, where do you get “graphic portrayal of two cowboys sodomizing each other” from the USCCB review which says:

When I finally see the movie on DVD I’m rather certain I’ll close my eyes through that scene just as I do heterosexual sex scenes in other movies. At least I know there’s one to be alert for, and can plan to skip it. If the review had said there were multiple scenes, each more graphic than the previous, then that wouldn’t even get into my house (then again, if that had been the case I’d bet the reviewer would have given it an “O”).

You know, I absolutely loved “Braveheart” and still can’t bear to watch the end. Violence, especially the realistic kind, is difficult for me to take. Even in “The Passion of the Christ” I can’t watch his flogging and can hardly bear the crucifixion. But should the entire movie be branded as a violent film pushing an agenda promoting torture? Should I avoid the entire movie because on one or two ‘difficult’ scenes?

Braveheart was an utterly disgraceful piece of English-bashing propaganda. It glorifies a monastery-burning thug, & even invents an adulterous affair for him, and is typical of the garbage one expects from Mel Gibson.​

Now that is a genuinely immoral film. Yet apparently immorality is invisible, unless it is sexual or in some sense ecclesiastical. Amazing. ##