Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[fix]

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.

I guess I cannot see the merit in describing a work of art in strictly academic terms as helpful for the average Catholic to determine if it is edifying in terms of one’s salvation. Should we not look at everything in terms of eternity?

What I am saying is how beneficial is it to evaluate camera angles, makeup, props, etc and balance it against a story and depiction that is terribly morally offensive. I am not against making films and books that have as there subject immoral things like murder, homosexuality, robbery, etc. I am against relating these topics in a way that glorifies them, minimizes them, nuances the consequences, or uses them as propaganda to further an agenda.

So, as a simple minded notion to review any film and tell me that the actors really portrayed the characters well, but it was promoting fornication, devil worship, etc what good is it? Do they balance each other out?

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I guess I cannot see the merit in describing a work of art in strictly academic terms as helpful for the average Catholic to determine if it is edifying in terms of one’s salvation. Should we not look at everything in terms of eternity?

What I am saying is how beneficial is it to evaluate camera angles, makeup, props, etc and balance it against a story and depiction that is terribly morally offensive. I am not against making films and books that have as there subject immoral things like murder, homosexuality, robbery, etc. I am against relating these topics in a way that glorifies them, minimizes them, nuances the consequences, or uses them as propaganda to further an agenda.

So, as a simple minded notion to review any film and tell me that the actors really portrayed the characters well, but it was promoting fornication, devil worship, etc what good is it? Do they balance each other out?

“look at everything in terms of eternity”: You have a much more narrow perspective on this than I do. What is right for one may not have the same impact on another. In fact, I don’t think that it is inherently sinful to watch a movie like “Million Dollar Baby” even though I found the movie offensive. While I wish that I had never seen it, it did alert me to the insiduous and subtle appeal of euthanasia. Such “alerting” does put one on greater notice.

“glorifies them, minimizes them, nuances the consequences, or uses them as propaganda to further an agenda”: Again, you have a much more narrow view of this matter. There are few movies (name one if you know of one. I can’t think of a single one)dealing w/ sinful subject matter that don’t have at least components of the plot that “glorify, minimize, nuance or propagandize” this sinful matter. This is how you tell stories w/ protaganists and antaganists. But this doesn’t inherently make a movie “offensive” or we’d never be able to see anything or read anything.

“balance each other out”: Of course, they don’t balance them out. That is moronic. I have stated clearly that Million Dollar Baby and Pulp Fiction to name two are morally offensive despite their very creative artistic merit. Do you even read anything I have written?

I guess the difference between you and me is that you believe that if the subject matter is offensive, it simplisticly and universally should be deemed “O”. I believe that if the review is accurate (since neither of us have seen the movie, we are incapable to make that judgment) and properly points out how the matter conflicts w/ Catholic Teaching, I am mature enough to make the determination of whether I should/can attend the movie.

I am still having a hard time understanding why this movie is more morally offensive than movies that have as their subject matter fornification, adultery, murder, greed, etc. Just as this review properly outlined the issues where this movie contrasted w/ Catholic Teaching, I expect the same on movies on other sinful subjects. I guess I don’t have the inspired insight of some to why this subject matter warrants special distinction. But until I get that insight, on this issue, we will have to disagree.

 

[YinYangMom]

joyfulmess:

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.

Who’s advocating for anyone??? Where do you get that out of any of my posts? Please point that out.

As for bank robbers, murderers, rapists and child molestors I clearly see the evil that they do, but I do not stop there. I try to look deeper to find Christ inside the person, as we are told Jesus is in each of us. There have to be reasons a person gets reduced to commit crimes…the person was not born that way, as all of God’s children are born innocent. So according to Church teaching we’re to minister to those in prison, right? We aren’t supposed to lock 'em up and then forget about them…furthermore, JPII set the example for forgiving them their sins to boot, not holding them against them. So I don’t understand your comment “stop trying to find compassion”. Where is your evidence from Church teaching to support such a position?

As for the gays in my life…of course I’m ministering to them. Like I said before, the best way to do so is to listen to their stories so that I can find the way to offer Jesus to fill whatever void they’re trying to take care of. In the process of listening, compassion comes naturally. Have you no clue the struggles these people have endured for years? How can you minister to a person if you don’t know where their hurts are coming from? Yes, I can pray for them, but I also have to help them, as you said - and that means getting to know them, treating them with dignity and respect. I get the impression you think I’m supposed to recognize them, pray for them, but that’s it - heaven forbid I should actually bond with any of them since they’re such sinners and I might get tainted. I am not afraid for me. I am strong in my faith and I have Jesus by my side. He apparently doesn’t want me avoiding them 'cause they seem to be comfortable enough with me to become my friends.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For those interested in this topic:

Jimmy Akin’s take on the review at his blog. Also note quite an active comment box (warning: some foul language).

VC

 

[fix]

“look at everything in terms of eternity”: You have a much more narrow perspective on this than I do.

Narrow, I can’t think of anything wider.

What is right for one may not have the same impact on another. In fact, I don’t think that it is inherently sinful to watch a movie like “Million Dollar Baby” even though I found the movie offensive. While I wish that I had never seen it, it did alert me to the insiduous and subtle appeal of euthanasia. Such “alerting” does put one on greater notice.

I am not thinking simply as one may be committing a sin, but how an entire movie may portray a particular subject.

There are few movies (name one if you know of one. I can’t think of a single one)dealing w/ sinful subject matter that don’t have at least components of the plot that “glorify, minimize, nuance or propagandize” this sinful matter. This is how you tell stories w/ protaganists and antaganists. But this doesn’t inherently make a movie “offensive” or we’d never be able to see anything or read anything.

That individual scenes depict immoral acts, within the bounds of propriety, is not the issue. The overall “take home message” may be the real issue. If a particular film has as its message the downplaying or sympathetic portrayal of vice that would seem to many not to be a movie that is edifying.

“balance each other out”: Of course, they don’t balance them out. That is moronic. I have stated clearly that Million Dollar Baby and Pulp Fiction to name two are morally offensive despite their very creative artistic merit. Do you even read anything I have written?

My point is if the review gives this “glowing” portrayal of acting, or whatever, then mentions in a matter of fact manner that the movie may be morally " problematic" that seems to be lopsided and perhaps give an erroneous support to a bad film.

I guess the difference between you and me is that you believe that if the subject matter is offensive, it simplisticly and universally should be deemed “O”. I believe that if the review is accurate (since neither of us have seen the movie, we are incapable to make that judgment) and properly points out how the matter conflicts w/ Catholic Teaching, I am mature enough to make the determination of whether I should/can attend the movie.

Does the “O” rating take away your maturity or free will?

I am still having a hard time understanding why this movie is more morally offensive than movies that have as their subject matter fornification, adultery, murder, greed, etc. Just as this review properly outlined the issues where this movie contrasted w/ Catholic Teaching, I expect the same on movies on other sinful subjects. I guess I don’t have the inspired insight of some to why this subject matter warrants special distinction. But until I get that insight, on this issue, we will have to disagree.

Who said I agree with their other reviews?

 

[AJC]

buffalo:

I was surprised to see an 'L" rating. I thought it should be rated “O”. I cannot rely on the secular reviews, so I turn to the Bishop’s site. I would expect that it be rated from a truly Catholic perspective. I still can make my decision if I wish to see it, but I would have been warned.

The Catholic Church is the moral authority. The gold standard so to speak. This watering down hurts its credibility.

I read the review and the bureaucratic functionary of the USCCB who wrote it, did indicate it had a rating of L, but throughout the review praised the story and the film-making. No wonder the laity is confused! Talk about mixed messages. Once again the Bishops let us down.

AJC

 

[YinYangMom]

Verbum Caro:

For those interested in this topic:

Jimmy Akin’s take on the review at his blog. Also note quite an active comment box (warning: some foul language).

VC

Jimmy says:
The unmistakable message that the filmmakers intend is thus:

“How sad that our culture was (and is) so ‘homophobic.’ If only people had been more accepting of homosexuality then Ennis and Jack wouldn’t have felt pressured into marrying women and having families. Their ongoing homosexual adultery wouldn’t have caused their wives pain. And they would have been cruelly mistreated and one brutally killed as a manifestation of the ‘homophobia’ that continues to plague our society today. So that things like this will never happen again, we should all learn a lesson from this that our society must come to embrace homosexuality as an equal, respectable alternative lifestyle.”

My only question then is, has Jimmy seen the movie? How can he speak to what the filmmakers intent is without seeing it? Jimmy states clearly what I would expect the film to project…but until I see it I won’t know whether the film meets my expecations or not.

Now statements like Jimmy’s here, has me even more interested in viewing the film - not so much for the film itself - but now just to see who was right…the forbes guy or Jimmy. What is interesting to me is I had no interest in viewing the film whatsoever when I first read about it in Entertainment Weekly. But with this USCCB/Jimmy Akin ‘controversy’ now I’m leaning toward seeing it.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

What is interesting to me is I had no interest in viewing the film whatsoever when I first read about it in Entertainment Weekly. But with this USCCB/Jimmy Akin ‘controversy’ now I’m leaning toward seeing it.

Do you agree with this?:

Originally Posted by oat soda
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.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

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.)?

This is far from obvious. Now if you want to make the case that faithful Christians believe that any movie that positvely promotes homosexuality, adultery, fornication, sexual harrassment, aprtheid, genocide, murder, or greed is not sending an appropriate message (especially when it is promoted in a deceptive and emotion-appealing manner) then you would be on the right track.

Orionthehunter:

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.”

Despite pointing out what is bad in the movie, no assessment of the material being bad to watch is clear. I’ve already quoted the last 4 or 5 paragraphs of the review earlier. It is tilted(glowing) to make you want to see the movie despite all the garbage that is in it.

 

[SHEMP]

They gave it an O (morally offensive). That is what I look at first. I don’t see movies that get an “O” from the US Bishops.
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

 

[fix]

Brad:

Despite pointing out what is bad in the movie, no assessment of the material being bad to watch is clear. I’ve already quoted the last 4 or 5 paragraphs of the review earlier. It is tilted(glowing) to make you want to see the movie despite all the garbage that is in it.

You mean like this?:

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

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

This is far from obvious. Now if you want to make the case that faithful Christians believe that any movie that positvely promotes homosexuality, adultery, fornication, sexual harrassment, aprtheid, genocide, murder, or greed is not sending an appropriate message (especially when it is promoted in a deceptive and emotion-appealing manner) then you would be on the right track.

Despite pointing out what is bad in the movie, no assessment of the material being bad to watch is clear. I’ve already quoted the last 4 or 5 paragraphs of the review earlier. It is tilted(glowing) to make you want to see the movie despite all the garbage that is in it.

Wow. You read something glowing and I read the same review as recommending that it is unfit for a Catholic audience. Maybe the following is enough information for me to make an intelligent decision. Others must need “Do not see this movie. It is about (gays, rapists, or insert your personal phobia).”

"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. "

Whether the final rating is “L” or “O”, it is certainly not glowing. Read the review of the Chronicles of Narnia if you want to see something glowing.

 

[fix]

Buffalo has another thread with another view about the review that I find interesting.

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 (My note: there is an almost serial refusal to make moral judgments here. Re-read that last sentence of the review again…it will “surprise and shock”? One may be surprised and shocked at a birthday party. It’s neutral. How about “shock and disgust” or “shock and dismay” if “disgust” is too harsh? Again, the writer continues to bend over backwards to protect this movie.)
seattlecatholic.com/m051219.html

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Buffalo has another thread with another view about the review that I find interesting.

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 (My note: there is an almost serial refusal to make moral judgments here. Re-read that last sentence of the review again…it will “surprise and shock”? One may be surprised and shocked at a birthday party. It’s neutral. How about “shock and disgust” or “shock and dismay” if “disgust” is too harsh? Again, the writer continues to bend over backwards to protect this movie.)

Have you seen the movie? Maybe the way they deal with it is “surprising and shocking” rather than “shocking and disgusting.” Read closely the sentence and in that context, we are to look at it “from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels”. Maybe since they deal with it differently from the way a heterosexual fornicator/adulterer does, it is “surprising and shocking” or maybe because they deal with it differently from how men deal with it is “surprising and shocking.” Or since the average Catholic viewer probably doesn’t have any idea how a homosexual fornicator/adulterer does anything, by definition, it is “surprising and shocking.”

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Have you seen the movie? Maybe the way they deal with it is “surprising and shocking” rather than “shocking and disgusting.” Read closely the sentence and in that context, we are to look at it “from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels”. Maybe since they deal with it differently from the way a heterosexual fornicator/adulterer does, it is “surprising and shocking” or maybe because they deal with it differently from how men deal with it is “surprising and shocking.” Or since the average Catholic viewer probably doesn’t have any idea how a homosexual fornicator/adulterer does anything, by definition, it is “surprising and shocking.”

Or maybe it is as the author states in the piece I quoted.

 

[fix]

fix:

Or maybe it is as the author states in the piece I quoted.

I do not want to usurp Buffalo’s thread, so I hope some will view it as it makes a compelling case.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Or maybe it is as the author states in the piece I quoted.

But considering that the same person didn’t like the Passion of Christ review which I think is very accurate (I’ve watched that movie over 6 times and intend to every morning prior to Good Friday service for the rest of my life), he has no credibility w/ me.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

But considering that the same person didn’t like the Passion of Christ review which I think is very accurate (I’ve watched that movie over 6 times and intend to every morning prior to Good Friday service for the rest of my life), he has no credibility w/ me.

He is consistent. I really think his points are well placed.

 

[oat_soda]

check out this movies poster. it says right on the bottom that “love is force of nature”.

it is clear that this movie has an agenda, to further advance the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. how the usccb could not recognize this without criticism is disturbing.

 

[Orionthehunter]

oat soda:

check out this movies poster. it says right on the bottom that “love is force of nature”.

it is clear that this movie has an agenda, to further advance the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. how the usccb could not recognize this without criticism is disturbing.

The review acknowledges that there is an agenda and it points out that it is against Catholic Teaching. What part of this don’t you understand? I bolded the specific references from the review.

“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.”

Fix, please start a thread where you think the Passion of Christ review is wanting. I find it a very accurate review of one of the best movies ever done.