Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[Gottle_of_Geer]

YinYangMom:

Here’s the thing - art is art. God is the source of all creation. God is indeed working through our script writers, our song writers, our directors, our camera techs, our musicians, our actors, our dancers, our painters and so on down the line. In stage and on screen I am absolutely fascinated by set design, costume design, lighting, music, score and the such - there is so much more to a movie than plot and acting.

Now if my ability to see the good in all of God’s artists - while recognizing Satan’s attempts to mar the work - without it shaking my faith, but rather, increasing it, makes me a ‘liberal, free thinking’ Catholic, then I thank you for the compliment.

:tiphat:

Nice post ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Orionthehunter:

I’ll repost for the umpteenth time. The review was concisely clear on the moral issues.

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

or this section:

"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. "

The last section displays a moral story that adultery causes pain and suffering to those not directly involved in the adultery and their failure to put the relationship in its proper place (to be terminated in total- in fact and in their mind) results in tragedy.

Maybe this wasn’t clear enough for some, but it is quite clear to me on what to expect if I were to see this movie.

It seems that what some people want is an unqualified condemnation of the film from the bishops - that seems to be the basic issue.​

 

[joyfulmess]

## It seems that what some people want is an unqualified condemnation of the film from the bishops - that seems to be the basic issue. ##

**A message from your Father,

“Pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace.” 2 Timothy 2:22
“For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous.” Psalm 1:6**

 

[pnewton]

## 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.

I do not expect garbage from Mel Gibson. If you do, that is your preconception, not mine. It was a story, not propaganda. No one should look for history in a movie. That is what history books are for.

By the same token, the bishops job is to define immorality. I do not know of any Church document that promotes homosexuality. Giving any movie a blanket condemnation on all artisitc points because of evil content is dishonest and outside the area of morality.

 

[fix]

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

OP refers to original post. The info you asked about is this:

To protest the pro-homosexual review given by the USCCB ‘Film & Broadcast’ office, call NYCity office at 212-644-1880 and the Washington, D.C. office at 202-541-3000. 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. I had to give catechesis to her on the phone for several minutes and she accepted the teaching and thanked me.bettnet.com/blog/index.php/weblog/comments/even_the_bishops_conference_loves_the_gay_cowboy_movie/

 

[buffalo]

**USCCB reclassifies gay Western “Brokeback Mountain” after complaints

**Washington DC, Dec. 16, 2005 (CNA) - “Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience) by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive) after several pro-family organizations expressed concern for what they saw as an implicit endorsement of the USCCB film critic to the controversial gay western. Brokeback Mountain is the story of two sheep-herding cowboys in Wyoming who begin a homosexual relationship on the range in the 1960s, and continue their affair even after they marry women.

The $13-million film garnered seven Golden Globe nominations from foreign film critics.

Director Ang Lee’s homosexual Western premiered last weekend in limited release. Showing in five theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the film grossed $544,549, averaging $108, 910 per theater. A wider release is slated on December 16, with a nationwide release in January.

In the original comment posted on the USCCB’s website, the reviewer wrote that the Catholic Church “makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity,” and that “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,” said the original USCCB’s review, which also called the movie “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”

more…

 

[fix]

**
**Washington DC, Dec. 16, 2005 (CNA) - “Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience) by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive) after several pro-family organizations expressed concern for what they saw as an implicit endorsement of the USCCB film critic to the controversial gay western. Brokeback Mountain is the story of two sheep-herding cowboys in Wyoming who begin a homosexual relationship on the range in the 1960s, and continue their affair even after they marry women.

The $13-million film garnered seven Golden Globe nominations from foreign film critics.

Director Ang Lee’s homosexual Western premiered last weekend in limited release. Showing in five theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the film grossed $544,549, averaging $108, 910 per theater. A wider release is slated on December 16, with a nationwide release in January.

In the original comment posted on the USCCB’s website, the reviewer wrote that the Catholic Church “makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity,” and that “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,” said the original USCCB’s review, which also called the movie “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”

more…

“While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true,” said the original USCCB’s review, which also called the movie “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”

“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,” the original USCCB review said.

 

[joyfulmess]

USCCB reclassifies gay Western “Brokeback Mountain” after complaints

Washington DC, Dec. 16, 2005 (CNA) - “Brokeback Mountain,” originally rated L (limited adult audience) by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has been reclassified as an O (morally offensive) after several pro-family organizations expressed concern for what they saw as an implicit endorsement of the USCCB film critic to the controversial gay western. Brokeback Mountain is the story of two sheep-herding cowboys in Wyoming who begin a homosexual relationship on the range in the 1960s, and continue their affair even after they marry women.

The $13-million film garnered seven Golden Globe nominations from foreign film critics.

Director Ang Lee’s homosexual Western premiered last weekend in limited release. Showing in five theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the film grossed $544,549, averaging $108, 910 per theater. A wider release is slated on December 16, with a nationwide release in January.

In the original comment posted on the USCCB’s website, the reviewer wrote that the Catholic Church “makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity,” and that “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,” said the original USCCB’s review, which also called the movie “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”

more…

And your point is…

 

[fix]

“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,” says the new USCBB posting.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5643

Which limited audience would benefit from a movie like this?

 

[fix]

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.

Great insight.

 

[Brad]

pnewton:

Within the review there is nothing that is ambiguous about the Church’s view on homosexuality.

Actually there is. That is the problem.

pnewton:

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.

I disagree that it shows disdain for Church leadership. Rather, I believe it shows frustration of a small segment of the leadership.

 

[Brad]

Gottle of Geer:

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

Let’s provide some clarity here. The issue is not that orthodox Catholics ignore immorality if it does not involve violations of the marital act. It is that the heterodox ignore immorality when it does invovle violations of the marital act, even to the point of promoting such immorality.

 

[Brad]

## It seems that what some people want is an unqualified condemnation of the film from the bishops - that seems to be the basic issue. ##

A reasonable request from faithful Catholics. However, some would settle for not providing glowing comments about the film in a review on the USCCB website.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Originally Posted by 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.

fix:

Great insight.

I couldn’t disagree more. If “moral suitabilty” trumps any discussion about artistic merit, this cuts two ways:

1. Good moral films made poorly and good moral films made well would get the same review.
2. Movies that deal w/ difficult subject matter (murder, suicide, euthanasia, fornification, adultery, and even homosexuality) whether the matter is dealt w/ honestly or not would be disregarded as “morally offensive”. Talk about a formula for irrelevance.

I want the USCCB to give both insight into the moral suitability and artistic merit as defined below. I am a mature adult. I want good solid information on the both the content, subject matter, plot, and artistic merit. I don’t want to have to read the USCCB for one component and another reviewer for the other component.

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.

 

[joyfulmess]

YinYangMom:

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.

According to your logic… Are bank robbers, murderers, rapists,and child molestors, being misrepresented also? You have got to see it for what it is and stop trying to find compassion for an evil we know exists. The best thing you can do for homosexuals is to pray for them, offer masses for them, pray that satan will loosen his grip on them. He has blinded them to the evil of which they participate in. You have a lot of homomsexuals in your life?..This is a great opportunity for you to minister to them and pray for them, invite them to church with you, plant that seed of faith and watch as the Lord saves them. Do your part to bring about conversions. Thats how God wants you to do it. Not by advocating for them. You will do them more harm than good by being their advocate. And in the process of praying for them you may even make a life long friend.

 

[Brad]

pnewton:

Giving any movie a blanket condemnation on all artisitc points because of evil content is dishonest and outside the area of morality.

Is the Church now in the business of assessing detailed artistic merit or is She still in the business of saving souls?

Nobody is asking for a blanket condemnation of all artistic talent in the film. Many are asking that the USCCB not compromise the Church’s moral teachings as a result of that talent. Talent should never be used for evil.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

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.

I would guess there could be a pornographic film that meets such critera. Must be ok?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

A reasonable request from faithful Catholics. However, some would settle for not providing glowing comments about the film in a review on the USCCB website.

It is obvious that some believe that any movie that deals w/ homosexuality should be condemned regardless of how the subject matter is portrayed. Do we also think that this standard should also apply to other sinful subject matters (ie. adultery, fornification, sexual harrassment, apartheid, sexual harrassment, genocide, murder, greed etc.)?

Furthermore, the characterization of this review as “glowing” is inaccurate. This review that included the following would not be “glowing” to any faithful Catholic but is blatantly critical.

“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.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I would guess there could be a pornographic film that meets such critera. Must be ok?

As I’m not an expert on pornography, I wouldn’t know if one has passed this test on artistic merit. This being said, since pornography is inherently an offense against human dignity, even if it passed this standard, the moral suitability discussion would be such that any faithful Catholic would understand that such a movie would be morally offensive. Schindler’s List, North Country, Mississippi Burning and Rwanda are also movies that have as their subject matter areas of human degradation and an inherent offense against human dignity. The difference that is now obvious is that issues of homosexuality is the only issue that no matter how dealt w/ on the screen should be deemed “morally offensive.” I guess I don’t see the distinction- sinful matter is sinful matter. If one should be deemed morally offensive, all should be.

 

[joyfulmess]

Orionthehunter:

As I’m not an expert on pornography, I wouldn’t know if one has passed this test on artistic merit. This being said, since pornography is inherently an offense against human dignity, even if it passed this standard, the moral suitability discussion would be such that any faithful Catholic would understand that such a movie would be morally offensive. Schindler’s List, North Country, Mississippi Burning and Rwanda are also movies that have as their subject matter areas of human degradation and an inherent offense against human dignity. The difference that is now obvious is that issues of homosexuality is the only issue that no matter how dealt w/ on the screen should be deemed “morally offensive.” I guess I don’t see the distinction- sinful matter is sinful matter. If one should be deemed morally offensive, all should be.

Some of the movies you refer to are based on actual events, Schindlers List, really happened. Mississippi Burning was based on actual events. There is a difference here between these movies and “Brokeback Mountain”.That doesn’t make it less objectionable, but it is used in a way to portray the tragedy that happened. Yes they contain morally effensive material, but they are not fantasy like “Brokeback Mountain”. So I think if you are going to compare, then compare apples to apples.