Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[oat_soda]

And if he is doing this solely because the subject matter is about homosexuality, it is homophobic.

you’re equating homosexuality with lust. it is true that the homosexual act is lustful, but it is more disordered then lust between a man an woman because it is unatural and is why it is considered as sin that cries out to heaven. the mere tendency is disordered whereas sexual attraction between a man an woman isn’t. not all sins are equal. if you legitimize this term “homophobic”, why not legitimize terms such as “pediophobic” or “beastiphobic”.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

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 do not want to go off topic, but this deserves a proper response.

The so called culture wars are often fought over the topic of “gays and lesbians”. These issues garner so much attention because they are so common, so accepted as licit and so counter to nature.

Yes, the actions can be mortal as other sins are mortal. We should “fight” all these sins, but we have to start some place.

Also, please see Aquinas as he showed us sins of sodomy are greater than other sexual sins. That does not minimize the offense or culpability of other sexual sins, but in a culture that wants to normalize what is not normal we need to be very clear and exact whenever possible.

And the term homophobia to me is simply a political word used to attack those who see the gay agenda as immoral. It is misplaced and mostly a propaganda tool.

 

[oat_soda]

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).

WRONG. while they both are mortal sins, they still cary diffrent amounts of punishment. the catechism acknowledges sins that cry to heaven:

**1867 **The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

To your third point, I don’t agree it was “off-handed”. Read the summary of the review.

i guess we will agree to disagree. i thought the review was overtly positive and didn’t address the issue of a homosexual agenda and the attack on the family which this clearly was.

“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… The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic …The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic

descriptions like “heartbreaking”, “wonderfully authentic”, “arrives at last” (i guess they were familar and were waiting for it to come out), “superb performance”, “oscar” performance, … etc. sound like a positive review to me by the usccb.

 

[Orionthehunter]

oat soda:

WRONG. while they both are mortal sins, they still cary diffrent amounts of punishment. the catechism acknowledges sins that cry to heaven: i guess we will agree to disagree. i thought the review was overtly positive and didn’t address the issue of a homosexual agenda and the attack on the family which this clearly was. words like heartbreaking, wonderfully authentic, arrives at last, superb performances doesn’t sounds like a positive review to me by the usccb.

Please explain how they carry different amounts of punishment. Hell is Hell and eternal damnation doesn’t care how you got there.

I do think your site of the Catechism (1867) is a good one. I agree w/ it.

What sins “cry to heaven”?

1. Blood of Abel- Not just murder but premeditated murder motivated by sin (jealously, revenge, etc.).
2. Sins of the Sodomites- Not just lustful acts (heterosexual or homosexual) but the sins of rape and forced prostitution.
3. The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt- Not just slavery but slavery where the people are worked to death (ala slave labor camps)
4. The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan- Not just a passive disregard for the human dignity of these people but overt exploitation and motivated by overt disregard for human dignity.
5. Injustice to the wage earner- The Catechism site is one that I don’t have available so I’ll pass on commenting on it.

While I’m sure some interpret “Sins of Sodomites” to specifically focus on sodomy, that is not the consensus interpretation. It is about cruel crimes (ala rape and forced prostitution) against unwilling participants. Sodom was infamously known for the slave sex trade and kidnapping travelers for these purposes (remember the sin of unhospitality was considered almost as serious as murder in the nomadic tradition of the Israelites). This interpretation coincides with the extra-ordinary cruelty of hte other sins listed here.

 

[oat_soda]

Please explain how they carry different amounts of punishment. Hell is Hell and eternal damnation doesn’t care how you got there.

there is the temporal punishment for sin in purgatory. when it comes to punishment in hell, i really don’t know but think it’s reasonable to expect diffrent levels, as there probably are in heaven. i think it would be a matter of justice and there are allusions in the bible that those who are given much will be punished more then those that have not.

1. Sins of the Sodomites- Not just lustful acts (heterosexual or homosexual) but the sins of rape and forced prostitution.

this is where we disagree. while i agree that the sin of the sodomite includes rape, and perverse fornication, it is fundamentaly alluding to the homosexual act itself. the catechism doesn’t go into enough detail so i will quote from the scriptures:

Rom 1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error… they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them."

Jude 1:7 -“As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after strange flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.”

Leviticus 18:22, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Deuteronomy 23:17, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, …, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

the way most people would iterpret these scriptures is sodomite as refering to homosexual acts. also, in corinthians we see the word “effeminate” which is even more clearly referring to homosexuality and not rape.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Oat, after I hit “post” I gave your post more consideration so I’d like to add the following to my other post.

I hear what you are saying in that it is possible for some to misinterpret that positive things said about the movie that you listed. (I just go ballistic when people say that a movie rated “L” or “O” is “loved” by the Bishops or they are “glowing” over it. I’m appalled that some would bear false witness against our ecclesiastical authorities just to prove a point or advance an agenda). However, I keep these things in mind.

1. The review is intended for a Catholic audience and not people just looking for the artistic merit of the movie. Thus, the clarity and conciseness of the portions of the review that I have constantly referred to bring to the forefront the issues for a Catholic audience. I think this is an effective way to clearly communicate the Catholic morality issues.
2. I think credibility is key. If the reviewer took an overly hyperbolic critical view of this movie and didn’t accurately describe the “artistic merit” or non-morality issues (i.e acting, story development, etc.), the final conclusion (i.e. rating) would be disregarded by a substantial number of people using the USCCB to help them select movies.
3. Most of the people who have a knee-jerk reaction to movies on this subject matter (I am one of them and incidentally have a similar reaction to any movie that is about extreme cruelty of man to fellow man) don’t need a USCCB review to inform them. I saw the G-rated trailer while attending the Johnny Cash movie and I saw all I needed.
4. Each person has different levels of spiritual maturity on different issues. The USCCB needs to have a rating system and presentation format that speaks to people regardless of their maturity and development across a broad spectrum of movie genre’s and subjects.

There are people who have a greater capacity to view movies like the gay cowboy movie w/ a proper capacity to discern the moral dilemmas without undue emotional consternation. These people need good objective, non-hyperbolic reviews to properly discern the issues. And for these people, I don’t think attending a movie that has tacit approval of same sex relationships will come away from the movie a gay rights advocate.

For me, I go to movies that explore philosophical dilemmas on “big picture issues” like murder, treason, loyalty to country and generally don’t like “chick flick issues” like love and romance(ala A Time to Kill-rated A-IV by the USCCB or even Kill Bill-rated “O”) for which equally good, objective, non-hyperbolic reviews is necessary to properly discern the issues. I can tell you that viewing these movies did nothing to make this anti-death penalty advocate view vigilante justice any more favorably.

Similarly, I watched “Million Dollar Baby” without reading the USCCB review. I wish I had as it would have told me that this movie didn’t explore the philosophical dilemma of euthanasia but instead with excessive reliance on guilt and false compassion used manipulative techniques to obfuscate a Catholic character’s inner charity to promote euthanasia. The USCCB review would have properly alerted me that this movie was not for me. Instead I relied on secular reviews (and the fact I like Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood).

Oat, I guess my point is that I don’t think it wise for the USCCB to use hyperbolic verbage or condemnation on any movie. They need to just present the facts about the moral questions (the Church is not ambigous on its teaching and this review wasn’t ambigous about the issues of homosexuality, fornication, adultery or the violence/nudity/obscenity issues). Furthermore, since I want the USCCB to the “reviewer of choice” (to prevent me from making the “Million Dollar Baby” mistake again), I think it appropriate and helpful for the reviewer to give an honest assessment of the “artistic merit” issues separated from the moral issues.

This approach respects the prudential judgment, intellect, and the capacity of the faithful Catholic to discern what movies he/she should/may attend. And what can be more Catholic than respecting a persons capacity to reason and weigh moral questions. If we don’t trust people to make proper choices (what is proper for some is improper for others) on movie selection, we have a totally different level of trust of our fellow faithful Catholics than that of our Creator.

 

[Orionthehunter]

oat soda:

this is where we disagree. while i agree that the sin of the sodomite includes rape, and perverse fornication, it is fundamentaly alluding to the homosexual act itself. the catechism doesn’t go into enough detail so i will quote from the scriptures: **the way most people ** would iterpret these scriptures is sodomite as refering to homosexual acts. also, in corinthians we see the word “effeminate” which is even more clearly referring to homosexuality and not rape.

The Church doesn’t accept the way “most people” would interpret the Bible as necessarily correct. I concede that many people do interpret it this way. However, years ago, I was in a Catholic Bible study on Genesis w/ a good Catholic Study guide. We spent extensive time discussing this section and we reached the conclusion that the “sins of the Sodomites” was essentially the cruel nature combined with the gravity of the act and not referring to consensual acts. This is similar to the comparison that premeditated murder motivated by revenge is worse than murder in a moment of passion.

A relevant Catechism section is:

III. The Different Kinds of Sins

1852
There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853
Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

But even if I were to concede your point, the sins of the sodomites are co-listed w/ premeditated murder. We do a disservice if we just condemn a movie based on the subject matter without considering the context with which it is presented. We wouldn’t do it to a movie that has as its subject matter premeditated murder. This movie, while about a subject matter contrary to our belief system, does present the subject matter in a way that the primary actors suffer for their sin and is not an unapologetic promotion of the lifestyle but does tacitly approve of same sex relationships. However, this distinction is significant just as the way vigilante justice was presented in Time to Kill and even “Kill Bill”.

 

[pnewton]

Orionthehunter:

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.

It is totally reasonable to find a movie like this objectionable and worthy of harsh condemnation and still find it eaually abhorrant when people scandalize God’s shepherds with lies.

Homosexuality, while mortal sin, is not listed in God’s Top Ten List, while bearing false witness is.

 

[TPJCatholic]

pnewton,

Lying is not referred by God as being an abomination.

 

[pnewton]

TPJCatholic:

pnewton,

Lying is not referred by God as being an abomination.

I do not understand your point. I stated that homosexuality is a mortal sin (objective mortal sin, that is). Of course homosexuality is an abomination. But bearing false witness against thy neighbor is one of the Ten Commandments. Not being called a specific word is irrelevant.

 

[TPJCatholic]

pnewton,

My point is that on one hand God made lying one of His commanments, yet on the other hand He spoke severely against homosexual acts by calling them an abomination. They are both mortal sins. No matter how one wants to spin it, it seems God is not happy with homosexual acts, and He is not happy with lying, and both actions lands us in a state of mortal sin. Nortal sin is mortal sin, there is really no worse state then “mortal.”

 

[Brad]

Are you kidding me? How about commandment #1, commandment #6, and even quite possibly bearing false witness itself.

 

[Brad]

YinYangMom:

Wait up…those comments came from the USCCB review…which is not directed toward ‘secularized society’…it’s geared toward Catholics who will use all of their catechisis along with the review to determine whether or not they would see the film.

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Catholics and even regular church goers are NOT secularlized? That’s a tough argument to defend. Not too many of them checking their catechism before acting.

If the review was really geared towards faithful abiding Catholics then it would rightfully reference magisterial teaching documents to point out the moral errors of the movie - including saying that they are wrong.

 

[Brad]

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.

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

Links please. Not just inflammatory statements.

 

[Brad]

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.

A far cry from “agenda-promoting”. Tacit simply means “not-spoken” or “implied”. Giving the movie and the storyline good remarks in the review also lends tacit approval.

Orionthehunter:

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.

With all the “good stuff” mentioned about the movie then you are correct - this is not enough admonition. A Catholic audience will find it contrary to their moral principles? Some Catholics would, others would not. What is wrong with saying that the actions ARE contrary to moral principles. What is with the third person talk?

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

Links please. Not just inflammatory statements.

See post #334.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

See post #334.

Is that what is called advocacy journalism? Because it sure seems that way.

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

Are you arguing that the vast majority of Catholics and even regular church goers are NOT secularlized? That’s a tough argument to defend. Not too many of them checking their catechism before acting.

What I’m saying is those who do check their catechism before acting are the ones most likely to even know the USCCB website exists, they’ll tend to visit it frequently for all sorts of issues, and they’re the ones who the USCCB offer movie reviews for. It’s a targeted market.

Those secularized Catholics and Christians most likely will be satisfied with secular media film reviews and wouldn’t wan the ‘narrow Catholic’ view, since they believe they are more intelligent than the Catholic Church believes they are :whacky:

If the review was really geared towards faithful abiding Catholics then it would rightfully reference magisterial teaching documents to point out the moral errors of the movie - including saying that they are wrong.

Already argued with the ‘artistic merit’ part of the review purpose…it’s based on morals and artistic merit. This particular review uses both quite clearly.

 

[Brad]

Orionthehunter:

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.

Would someone be a liarphobe if we were indeed incorrectly raising homosexuality to be the gravest sin and they didn’t like that?

Or would someone be an overly presumptuous liarphobe if we wer not raising homosexuality to be the gravest sin but it was perceived that way because we were pointing out that it was wrong?

If someone is strongly against murder then are they murderphobic or are they just reasonable?

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Is that what is called advocacy journalism? Because it sure seems that way.

I don’t know what advocacy journalism is.
What I do know is Matt Sheppard was brutally murdered as was Brandon Teena and those other victims in Chicago - for being homosexual.

Are you disputing that?