Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[GregoryPalamas]

I would guess that few here have seen the movie or would wish to see it. I certainly don’t and I won’t see it. However, I do have two questions based upon a review given by a commentator yesterday morning on WLS radio. Do the two main male characters abandon their families to follow their lusts? Is the wife accused of “homophobia” because she objects to the pervert’s breaking of his vows?

I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. Pop culture defends anything for the sake of following ones lust.

CDL

 

[fix]

Note, incidentally, the elitist attitude of the non-retraction retraction: We who are the cognoscenti and are able to “assess” the moral issues raised by Brokeback Mountain are able to “handle it” and so it is only an L, but because of complaints from the masses, who are too ill-informed to “assess” the moral issues it raises, we’ve got to slap an O on it even though that’s not what it really deserves.jimmyakin.org/

Great point.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

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.

All I know is that I’ve used the reviews of the USCCB on controversial movies and have always found them clear and concise and providing an accurate description of the plot and the moral pitfalls to the movie. I have no reason to believe that this review is inaccurate. My conclusion is based on my review of this review and other reviews regarding the plot and that the USCCB properly can completely outlined that the implied approval of same sex relationships, adultery, fornification and other aspects of the movie are contrary to Church Moral Teaching.

Some have not seen the movie and are excercising them prejudice and bias in determining some of the reviews are nuanced, conflicted and perhaps too feeble in expressing what they believe the message of the film authentically portrays.

 

[YinYangMom]

GregoryPalamas:

I would guess that few here have seen the movie or would wish to see it. I certainly don’t and I won’t see it. However, I do have two questions based upon a review given by a commentator yesterday morning on WLS radio. Do the two main male characters abandon their families to follow their lusts? Is the wife accused of “homophobia” because she objects to the pervert’s breaking of his vows?

I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. Pop culture defends anything for the sake of following ones lust.

CDL

Those are good questions, the type which lean me toward seeing the film just to find out which reviewers gave honest reviews and which gave slanted reviews (the slant can go either way - pro-gay lifestyle or anti-hate).

At this point I don’t care so much about the movie as much as I do about how accurately it was reviewed by various media sources. Who has been fair in their reviewing?

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

All I know is that I’ve used the reviews of the USCCB on controversial movies and have always found them clear and concise and providing an accurate description of the plot and the moral pitfalls to the movie. I have no reason to believe that this review is inaccurate. My conclusion is based on my review of this review and other reviews regarding the plot and that the USCCB properly can completely outlined that the implied approval of same sex relationships, adultery, fornification and other aspects of the movie are contrary to Church Moral Teaching.

Some have not seen the movie and are excercising them prejudice and bias in determining some of the reviews are nuanced, conflicted and perhaps too feeble in expressing what they believe the message of the film authentically portrays.

The fiasco surrounding the review of Brokeback Mountain is simply the most egregious example of a problem that has been building for some time at the OFB.

When I first encountered their reviews a number of years ago, I was very impressed with how well they were done and how successfully they brought balanced Catholic sensibilities to the field of film criticism.

But in recent years the quality of the reviews and ratings has declined—to the point that I no longer consult them as they are of little use.

In the case of Brokeback Mountain, though, the OFB has gone beyond mere uselessness.jimmyakin.org/

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Some have not seen the movie and are excercising them prejudice and bias in determining some of the reviews are nuanced, conflicted and perhaps too feeble in expressing what they believe the message of the film authentically portrays.

This is simply a biased and prejudiced opinion.

 

[buffalo]

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.

This is a relief. I am one of those unintelligent and blind followers.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

This is a relief. I am one of those unintelligent and blind followers.

Better to be a fool for Christ than one who is thought of as intelligent by the world.

 

[buffalo]

fix:

Better to be a fool for Christ than one who is thought of as intelligent by the world.

Thanks fix - I needed that. Getting beat up for being mindless is hard to take. But wait - I am mindless, why should I even think about it.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

Thanks fix - I needed that. Getting beat up for being mindless is hard to take. But wait - I am mindless, why should I even think about it.

Perhaps you cannot appreciate art?:

Tead Behr, a Christian movie reviewer points out these facts about the film: (It uses) "about 58 obscenities (including ,many “f” words), 15 strong profanities, one light profanity, and references to urinating; two extreme scenes of bloody violence include shot of castrated man and man’s head is beaten bloody until he is dead, and scenes of violence where men fight and wrestle in a rough way, and homosexual sodomy scene plays almost like a homosexual rape; very strong sexual content includes depicted homosexual and heterosexual sodomy (with a hint of sadomasochism during one or more homosexual scenes), depicted homosexual kissing and groping, depicted intercourse between married couple, and implied intercourse and almost intercourse with women who are shown topless; upper female nudity in several scenes, full male nudity in bathing scene, rare male nudity, and upper male nudity; alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking; and, lying, men cheat on wives, sexual “repression” is seen as evil, family arguments, divorce, and negative portrayal of heterosexual fathers."http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121607.html

 

[YinYangMom]

So, Fix and Buffalo…any comments on “Boys Don’t Cry” not getting an “O”?

 

[Orionthehunter]

"Tead Behr, a Christian movie reviewer points out these facts about the film: (It uses) "about 58 obscenities (including ,many “f” words), 15 strong profanities, one light profanity, and references to urinating; two extreme scenes of bloody violence include shot of castrated man and man’s head is beaten bloody until he is dead, and scenes of violence where men fight and wrestle in a rough way, and homosexual sodomy scene plays almost like a homosexual rape; very strong sexual content includes depicted homosexual and heterosexual sodomy (with a hint of sadomasochism during one or more homosexual scenes), depicted homosexual kissing and groping, depicted intercourse between married couple, and implied intercourse and almost intercourse with women who are shown topless; upper female nudity in several scenes, full male nudity in bathing scene, rare male nudity, and upper male nudity; alcohol use and drunkenness; smoking; and, lying, men cheat on wives, sexual “repression” is seen as evil, family arguments, divorce, and negative portrayal of heterosexual fathers."http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121607.html "

I would like to see that this guy is consistent and compiles the number of obscenities and morally reprehensible acts (fornication and sodomy) on other movies. If so, he has credibility. If he has only done it for a movie about homosexuality, he is applying a higher standard to this movie becuase of the subject matter which is raising this deadly sin to a level not held to other deadly sins. Such a discriminating and prejudicial standard to a select group of sinnner and sinful acts is prima facie case of homophobia.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that people professing to be orthodox are quick to diss the Bishops but find credibility in people who tell a blatant and outright lie by calling the Bishop’s review “glowing” or that the Bishop’s “love” the movie despite the adverse rating and the statements about it being about a subject matter and promotion of a lifestyle contrary to Catholic Teaching.

IMHO it is not orthodox to resort to misleading and inaccurate accusations against the Bishop’s to make a point. This is a tactic that they would jump all over those they consider heterodox when they do this. I guess for some it depends on if they agree w/ Church Authority (liberal or conservative) before they give the benefit of the doubt to our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. Sad.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Well, I note that many people apparently have seen the movie. Does it or does it not depict at least one of these lustful gents as having abandoned his vows to his marriage and his family? It seems to me if that is so it is enough to receive thorough going condemnation.

CDL

 

[Orionthehunter]

GregoryPalamas:

Well, I note that many people apparently have seen the movie. Does it or does it not depict at least one of these lustful gents as having abandoned his vows to his marriage and his family? It seems to me if that is so it is enough to receive thorough going condemnation.

CDL

I think this needs to be covered in the review (and it was). However, if this becomes the standard for reviewing movies and giving the worst rating, I’ll bet that over half the movies would then get the worst rating. And any rating system that has by definition a situation where half the movies get a single rating then the rating system is flawed and greater distinction w/i that particular grouping needs to be made so that the ratings mean something.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I would like to see that this guy is consistent and compiles the number of obscenities and morally reprehensible acts (fornication and sodomy) on other movies. If so, he has credibility. If he has only done it for a movie about homosexuality, he is applying a higher standard to this movie becuase of the subject matter which is raising this deadly sin to a level not held to other deadly sins. Such a discriminating and prejudicial standard to a select group of sinnner and sinful acts is prima facie case of homophobia.

I have no idea of his other reviews, but why throw out that slogan of intimidation called “homophobia”? The review can stand on its own. There is no need using language from the gay agenda crowd. Is it now the standard the we must be politically correct in dealing with every “gay” epic the Hollywood crowd pushes on the culture?

Furthermore, I find it ironic that people professing to be orthodox are quick to diss the Bishops but find credibility in people who tell a blatant and outright lie by calling the Bishop’s review “glowing” or that the Bishop’s “love” the movie despite the adverse rating and the statements about it being about a subject matter and promotion of a lifestyle contrary to Catholic Teaching.

I assume you are equally outraged that the movie reviewer from the USCCB used language that was overly subtle, and indeed may be classified as glowing, to review a film that is so counter to a Christian understanding of art.

IMHO it is not orthodox to resort to misleading and inaccurate accusations against the Bishop’s to make a point. This is a tactic that they would jump all over those they consider heterodox when they do this. I guess for some it depends on if they agree w/ Church Authority (liberal or conservative) before they give the benefit of the doubt to our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities. Sad.

It is your opinion that the words are misleading, and only your opinion. BTW, does every bishop in America support the review?

 

[YinYangMom]

"Tead Behr, a Christian movie reviewer points out these facts about the film:

Who’s Tead Behr?
Can’t find any other mention of the name in Google…
considering he’s reported to be a Christian movie reviewer you’d think we’d have access to other reviews of his…

I, too, would be curious to see how he reviews a heterosexual drama and should hope it is consistent. If so, maybe he’s the guy we can trust to tell us the truth about films.

Where is “Tead Behr” even noted as the author of this review? I’m reading it now and don’t see his name in a byline or on the bottom (address comments to)

Well, now I’m finding things…it’s Ted Baehr, founder and publisher of that movie guide webite. Still not clear about who, exactly, wrote the review though.

Wow…check out their rating system! I take it this is what you’d like the USCCB people to adopt?

Looking at their "Best" lists, it seems rather conservative and wholesome. I suspect the site is equally harsh on heterosexual adulterous affair films as homosexual…but I’d need to look further.

$40/ year membership fee required… I guess at the USCCB you get what you pay for

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I really don’t care much about the rating system and its merits or lack thereof. Discipline used to be relevant in the Catholic Church. I doubt that it matters much to anyone any more. Nevertheless, if the movie praises the homosexual lifestyle and attacks faithfulness in marriage which I gather it does from all of the writing here, then avoiding this movie to those who seek holiness is of the utmost importance.

I think those who would defend such trash on the basis that the USCCB doesn’t trash it is a dishonest. If your seeking heaven and oneness with God why would you fill your mind with such trash?

Carson Daniel Lauffer

 

[oat_soda]

I find it ironic that people professing to be orthodox are quick to diss the Bishops but find credibility in people who tell a blatant and outright lie by calling the Bishop’s review “glowing” or that the Bishop’s “love” the movie despite the adverse rating and the statements about it being about a subject matter and promotion of a lifestyle contrary to Catholic Teaching.

you’re not grasping what is upseting people about this review. basically, it is the way that usccb seperates “catholic morality” and "artistic merit and not intergrating catholic morality and artistic merit to see movie as it really is. also, the review tends to glance over the homosexual act as if it morally equivelent to fornication.

it’s like the person doesn’t really care about catholic morality but is forced to mention it off handed during his review. here is a more thorough critic.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I have no idea of his other reviews, but why throw out that slogan of intimidation called “homophobia”? The review can stand on its own. There is no need using language from the gay agenda crowd. Is it now the standard the we must be politically correct in dealing with every “gay” epic the Hollywood crowd pushes on the culture?

I assume you are equally outraged that the movie reviewer from the USCCB used language that was overly subtle, and indeed may be classified as glowing, to review a film that is so counter to a Christian understanding of art.

It is your opinion that the words are misleading, and only your opinion. BTW, does every bishop in America support the review?

I want to see his other reviews. That is a fair issue to determine credibility-- If he is applying a consistent standard of counting the number of obscenities for determining moral suitability to all movies. But if he is using quantitative methods to make a movie appear horrible (when these quantitative methods may in fact be less than other R rated movies), this is dishonest. And if he is doing this solely because the subject matter is about homosexuality, it is homophobic.

I support the Church Teaching fully on homosexuality as a grave matter for which anyone suffering under same sex attraction needs a conviction of will and graces to overcome. I equally support the Church Teaching fully on the other seven deadly sins in the same way. Consistently, I think that anyone who believes that this matter is some type of uber-sin of greater magnitude of the others as professing a teaching contrary to Church Teaching and a form of homophobia.

I am not outraged and don’t consider the review “subtle”. Furthermore, I consider anybody who calls this rating “glowing” to be delusional and filled with prejudice and bias. It is hilarious to consider a review that is “L” or “O” and states to a Catholic audience that the subject matter and the tacit approval of the subject matter is contrary to Church teaching as “glowing.” I read the review by the USCCB and to me it gave adequate, concise and accurate information about the movie such that this informed mature Catholic was able to reach the conclusion that this movie was not one I’d see.

Based on the USCCB review and my take on it, I find no reason why any Bishop would have any disagreement with the review (either prior to or after the ratings change).

 

[Orionthehunter]

oat soda:

you’re not grasping what is upseting people about this review. basically, it is the way that usccb seperates “catholic morality” and "artistic merit and not intergrating catholic morality and artistic merit to see movie as it really is. also, the review tends to glance over the homosexual act as if it morally equivelent to fornication.

it’s like the person doesn’t really care about catholic morality but is forced to mention it off handed during his review. here is a more thorough critic.

Regarding your first point, I read the review and didn’t see them as separating catholic morality and artistic merit but covering them separately and then combining the two in their summary statement:

“It treats the subject matter – which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles – with discretion. 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. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O – morally offensive.”

To your second point, fornification and homosexuality and adultery are all morally equivalent to the Church- grave matter that can be mortal sin (assuming the other conditions for mortal sin exist). There aren’t gradation of Hell. If this is your eternal resting place, you won’t get a better seat if your sin was “only” heterosexual fornification and not homosexual fornication.

To your third point, I don’t agree it was “off-handed”. Read the summary of the review. The discussion of the movies content and subject matter was the predominant portion of the summary (especially after factoring out the obligatory who is in it and directors etc.) and the rest was just a summary of the story line (necessary for any review).