Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Yeah, but define “offensive, degrading message and tone.”

Yes, from the USCCB review one is hard pressed to discern that.

So far, what I’ve read in the reviews about this film is the message is not one which will encourage lots of people to go out and become gay, nor will it do much to help closeted gays find courage to come out of the closet. I’ve read that the film portrays effectively the pain a relationship such as this causes on everyone involved.

I cannot say that from the USCCB review.

We cannot deny there is a very strong repulsion towards gays in certain communities…that gays are discriminated against, often times bullied and teased, and sometimes violently beaten or killed. Are you suggesting the Catholic teaching supports a community who treats gays this way? That they are justified?

Where are you getting all this from?

Why is it that a film which shows the dark side of humanity with regard to how gays are treated is viewed by more people as ‘gay propaganda in support of the gay lifestyle’ than it as a film which shows some of the atrocities gay people have to endure from fellow humans (some, even Christian) as they struggle with SSA.

You assume I accept your take on the film as the initial premise? I do not.

Where is the Christian disgust toward humans who would treat another person in such a manner? Where is the call from us to stop people like that from treating gays like filth?

Who endorses such behavior?

Now I bet you all think that just because I don’t want gays to be beaten, killed, discriminated against in any way means I support the gay lifestyle. I DO NOT. I support the dignity of EVERY single human being, just as the Catechism directs me.

Thank you, but I have no idea why you bring all this up?

Where Jimmy thinks this film’s aim is to get people to embrace the gay lifestyle, I suspect the film’s aim is to open up peoples’ eyes to the atrocities some of us commit toward gay people so that we’ll stop the violence and the discrimination. And yet, many of you consider treating gays with dignity and respect is the equivalent to embracing their lifestyle - supporting gay marriage, gay adoptions, etc. - but it isn’t.

I am not following.

What is wrong with speaking out against the discrimination, bullying and violence people impose on homosexuals? What is un-Christian about that?

Please see all the cut and paste from Vatican documents that address these issues I have posted about 10,000 times.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Oh ,and by the way, it is morally offensive. :whacky:

What’s morally offensive to me is people who would drag a gay man by chains from their pickup truck.

What’s morally offensive to me is teens who beat gays to a pulp and don’t get expelled for it.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who spit on gays, shout at them that they are damned to hell, and who will not hire them because they’re gay.

I take it that doesn’t qualify for you as morally offensive?

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

What’s morally offensive to me is people who would drag a gay man by chains from their pickup truck.

What’s morally offensive to me is teens who beat gays to a pulp and don’t get expelled for it.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who spit on gays, shout at them that they are damned to hell, and who will not hire them because they’re gay.

Great now we have all you wrote, plus that new “gay” film we all can agree are morally offensive.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

What’s morally offensive to me is people who would drag a gay man by chains from their pickup truck.

What’s morally offensive to me is teens who beat gays to a pulp and don’t get expelled for it.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who spit on gays, shout at them that they are damned to hell, and who will not hire them because they’re gay.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who would drag a man (any man) by chains from their pickup truck.

What’s morally offensive to me is teens who beat others to a pulp and don’t get expelled for it.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who spit on anyone, shout at them that they are damned to hell, and who will not hire them because they’re sinners.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Where is the mention of “an agenda”?

How about even a mention of the movie** attempting to legitimize that which has been called disordered by the Church**?

or

Using cowboys in a red state to encourgage national sympathy for those decide not to contain their sexual urges?

Agenda: How much clearer do they have to say “tacit approval of same sex relationships”? Do you not know what tacit means? Tacit- not expressed openly, implied. Personally, I like that they used “tacit” as it accurately alerts a movie goer that the promotion of homosexuality is subtle.

Attempting to legitimize : How much clearer do they have to say "**the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles ** "? Maybe you need equal quantity of admonition but to me concise and succinct is most effective.

Cowboys in a red state : LOL Being from a red state (one of the most red states), I find this hilarious. We are used by Hollywood as buffoons, religious zealots, racists, and any other trait considered “wrong” by the Hollywood elites. We are used to it. However, in this regard, I guess I appreciate that you find this offensive. If you weren’t there expressing outrage at the other movies that use us and our culture as the villian, I am glad you are on board now.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Where are you getting all this from?

Who endorses such behavior?

Thank you, but I have no idea why you bring all this up?

Jimmy Akin:

“And they would have been cruelly mistreated and one brutally killed as a manifestation of the ‘homophobia’ that continues to plague our society today.”

Apparently, the tragic ending has to do with murder of one of the characters by gay-haters.

Perhaps, then, the purpose of the film is to remind everyone that the hate is still out there and it needs to be stopped.

For all the demonstrating people are doing against the gay lifestyle, where is the equivalent outrage from Christians over violence against any minority group?

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

What’s morally offensive to me is people who would drag a man (any man) by chains from their pickup truck.

What’s morally offensive to me is teens who beat others to a pulp and don’t get expelled for it.

What’s morally offensive to me is people who spit on anyone, shout at them that they are damned to hell, and who will not hire them because they’re sinners.

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that…

Now, if the purpose of a film were to lead up to making a statement about the moral offensiveness about people doing these things to a heterosexual person (perhaps he’s white, perhaps he’s ‘goth’, perhaps she’s in an interracial relationship, whatever reason people use to treat any human so cruelly)…would you expect the USCCB to rate the movie “O” or “L” or “A-IV”???

 

[Orionthehunter]

Brad:

Evangelization depends upon culturally-sensitive movie reviews?

Please clarify. What is a homophobe?

Sheesh. I do not advocate culturally sensitive movie reviews. All I am saying that if the worst rating is applied to movies such that half of all movies are given the worst rating, we need to have a better definition of ratings. The worst rating should be applied to the worst of the worst. Since this movie is a “romantic tragedy” where the principal actors suffer for their sin, I don’t believe this movie is totally without moral merit and thus not the worst of the worst. “Million Dollar Baby” is significantly more offensive as in the end it advocates euthanasia unequivocally.

A homophobe in the context of this discussion is one who elevates homosexuality to be the gravest of sin. This is contrary to Church teaching. Once one transgresses into mortal sin, they are all equally condemning. And frankly, IMO, raising this movie to be equally “morally offensive” as movies that don’t present the moral consequences to sin as this movie does indicates that some might believe that is solely becuase of the subject matter of this film that it is among the worst of the worst. In other words, just becuase it is about homosexuality they apply a standard that isn’t applied to murder, genocide, abortion, greed, fornification, adultery, and other deadly sins. This “higher standard” to homosexuality verses other deadly sins is homophobic.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that…

Now, if the purpose of a film were to lead up to making a statement about the moral offensiveness about people doing these things to a heterosexual person (perhaps he’s white, perhaps he’s ‘goth’, perhaps she’s in an interracial relationship, whatever reason people use to treat any human so cruelly)…would you expect the USCCB to rate the movie “O” or “L” or “A-IV”???

Nope. “O” There are many other decent (not morally offensive) ways to do that. To convey a proper teaching one does not have to explicitly show morally offensive material.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Nope. “O” There are many other decent (not morally offensive) ways to do that. To convey a proper teaching one does not have to explicitly show morally offensive material.

I don’t think that the Passion of the Christ would have been as effective if it hadn’t shown the graphic morally offensive treatment of Jesus. The issue is whether the material is gratuitous or necessary for the plot.

But with regard to the movie in question, the homosexual acts were not shown graphically.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

I don’t think that the Passion of the Christ would have been as effective if it hadn’t shown the graphic morally offensive treatment of Jesus. The issue is whether the material is gratuitous or necessary for the plot.

But with regard to the movie in question, the homosexual acts were not shown graphically.

Is the main purpose of the movie a Catholic lesson?

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

Yeah, but define “offensive, degrading message and tone.”

So far, what I’ve read in the reviews about this film is the message is not one which will encourage lots of people to go out and become gay, nor will it do much to help closeted gays find courage to come out of the closet. I’ve read that the film portrays effectively the pain a relationship such as this causes on everyone involved.

Closeted gays? The reality is that the circle of homosexual agenda promotion is manufacturing closets and encouraging others to go in, avoid the truth, and then come back out.

YinYangMom:

We cannot deny there is a very strong repulsion towards gays in certain communities…that gays are discriminated against, often times bullied and teased, and sometimes violently beaten or killed.

Please give one such example with link please.

YinYangMom:

Why is it that a film which shows the dark side of humanity with regard to how gays are treated is viewed by more people as ‘gay propaganda in support of the gay lifestyle’ than it as a film which shows some of the atrocities gay people have to endure from fellow humans (some, even Christian) as they struggle with SSA.

1. Because they don’t seem(in actuality) to suffer from external “atrocities” any more than the general population.
2. Because the MSM and Hollywood is full of homosexual agenda proponents, which includes the agenda of minimizing marriage and Christian values and early sexualization of children

YinYangMom:

Where is the Christian disgust toward humans who would treat another person in such a manner? Where is the call from us to stop people like that from treating gays like filth?

I believe it is all over Catholic teaching. Further, if you bring an actual case of an atrocity before this forum, I am sure it would be widely condemned.

YinYangMom:

Where Jimmy thinks this film’s aim is to get people to embrace the gay lifestyle, I suspect the film’s aim is to open up peoples’ eyes to the atrocities some of us commit toward gay people so that we’ll stop the violence and the discrimination.

Some of us? Who? Where? When?

YinYangMom:

What is wrong with speaking out against the discrimination, bullying and violence people impose on homosexuals? What is un-Christian about that?

Nothing. When it happens, speak out against it.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Nope. “O” There are many other decent (not morally offensive) ways to do that. To convey a proper teaching one does not have to explicitly show morally offensive material.

But, there have been many films which use violence ike that to get the message across - the message being - there are many ways to deal with this issue, people, violence is not one of them. West Side Story comes to mind, would you rate that “O” as well?

The point being, Jimmy Akin, is presuming the underlying message of the entire movie is pro-gay lifestyle. I suspect, based on various reviews, that the underlying message of the movie is anti-violence toward gays.

I won’t know which of us is right unless I see the film.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Is the main purpose of the movie a Catholic lesson?

No. The review is quite clear about that. In case you missed it, the review says:

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

Or this:
“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: "As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic. "

Or this: "The adulterous nature of their affair is another hot-button issue. "

If this is your standard for movie ratings, I’d say that now you have gotten to a level such that 95% of all movies deserve the “O” rating. Now we have a novel idea. Rather than having reviews, we could just list the 5% of movies that promote a Catholic lesson and tell Catholics to not go to the rest. I’m sure that will enhance the credibility of the USCCB.

 

[buffalo]

Orionthehunter:

No. The review is quite clear about that. In case you missed it, the review says:

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

Or this:
“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: "As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic. "

Or this: "The adulterous nature of their affair is another hot-button issue. "

If this is your standard for movie ratings, I’d say that now you have gotten to a level such that 95% of all movies deserve the “O” rating. Now we have a novel idea. Rather than having reviews, we could just list the 5% of movies that promote a Catholic lesson and tell Catholics to not go to the rest. I’m sure that will enhance the credibility of the USCCB.

Gee - what I have been seeing in the movies and on TV is consistent with your view that 95% deserve an “O”.

I think you are onto something. Just give an affirmative to wholesome Catholic friendly films.

The title could be - Catholic friendly films. The Disclaimer will read: The films below have been rated by the USBCC as to their moral content. Only those that correspond to Catholic values do we waste our time on. You can assume the critics of the films are evaluating artistic merit under this framework. Read the review to learn the plot and other merits of the film.

Oh wait they already do that:

Ten Best List from 1965 to 2004

and

Family Video Reviews

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

Please give one such example with link please.

Did a google search:

lesbianation.com/
"Fear Stalks Chicago Gay Community
04.07.04

By Steph Smith
(Chicago, Illinois) Four unsolved gay murders in Chicago’s North Side gay neighborhood have the community nervous and angry at police. The most recent killing, was two weeks ago, the others go back several years, but community activists say all the murders have chilling similarities.

All of the victims were found stabbed to death, face down, in their homes. The crimes scenes were marked by unusual violence, yet there were no signs of forced entry…"

Though I was trying to find the one about Matt Shephard, the college kid who was beaten to death…

Then there’s Brandon Teena’s story “Boys Don’t Cry”…

1. Because they don’t seem(in actuality) to suffer from external “atrocities” any more than the general population.

Ah, but it’s ok to produce films which depict the sufferings of the ‘general’ population without automatically giving it an ‘O’ rating?

1. Because the MSM and Hollywood is full of homosexual agenda proponents, which includes the agenda of minimizing marriage and Christian values and early sexualization of children

But not in this film.

I believe it is all over Catholic teaching. Further, if you bring an actual case of an atrocity before this forum, I am sure it would be widely condemned.

Let’s take that premise…say there’s a news story out there, perhaps similar to one from the above references…which upon investigation revealed a cruel end of life to a good person. We discuss it here on the boards - the tragedy, the immorality, etc. - and then someone writes a screenplay about it, and the screenplay gets picked up and a movie made about it. You’d want that movie automatically rated “O” because of the tragic immoral ending? (Note, I did not say it was a gay person…it could have been any person).

Some of us? Who? Where? When?

Considering 84% of Americans are Christian, the odds are rather high that those committing the hate crimes are Christian, not all, but if a group of 5 guys set out to do damage, I’d wager 1 or 2 are church-going.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Oh wait they already do that:

Ten Best List from 1965 to 2004

and

Family Video Reviews

Interesting to note that “Mystic River” is included on their list…along with “Faithless”, “Traffic”, “Braveheart”, “Unforgiven”, “Boyz N the Hood”, “Jesus of Montreal”, “Longtime Companion”…

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

Gee - what I have been seeing in the movies and on TV is consistent with your view that 95% deserve an “O”.

I think you are onto something. Just give an affirmative to wholesome Catholic friendly films.

The title could be - Catholic friendly films. The Disclaimer will read: The films below have been rated by the USBCC as to their moral content. Only those that correspond to Catholic values do we waste our time on. You can assume the critics of the films are evaluating artistic merit under this framework. Read the review to learn the plot and other merits of the film.

Oh wait they already do that:

Ten Best List from 1965 to 2004

and

Family Video Reviews

Wow. So they do give guidance to those unable to intelligently read a clear concise review and exercise their intellect and prudential judgment. So we both should be happy.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Wow. So they do give guidance to those unable to intelligently read a clear concise review and exercise their intellect and prudential judgment. So we both should be happy.

And those same folks are excercising their intellect and prudential judgment in determining some of the reviews are nuanced, conflicted and perhaps too feeble in expressing what the message of the film authentically portrays.

 

[YinYangMom]

joyfulmess:

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.

Ok, let’s go with that rationale…
Boys Don’t Cry was based on a true story…Bishop’s conference gave it an A-IV…

Both stories have people brutally murdered for their sexual orientation. The one based on truth, gets an “A-IV”. The one based on fiction gets an “O”.

The distinguishing difference: a real person had to be killed in order for their story to not be considered ‘morally offensive’.

This is a good thing?

I’d rather get the message through fiction than truth. The end is the same. The message is the same. But at least no one had to die in order to get it across without being considered ‘morally offensive’.