Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[TableServant]

OK, let me ask one question. Has anyone who has a problem with the review actually told the bishops that there is a problem?

If you have a problem with your brother, seek him out and discuss it with him. Don’t gossip among the people about your brother!

Tell the bishops why you disagree with the review. I’d expect that the reviewer did watch the movie, so this might require that you view the, admittedly objectionable, material, in order to give a truly informed opinion. But do they not deserve the respect that Christ requires of us, to discuss it with them?

 

[oat_soda]

You might want to take a breath and think of the tasks they have at hand and then maybe this moderate movie review will not seem so terrible. Give it a try.

you might want to contemplate the sacredness of marriage and the conjugal act and how satan is distorting it to destroy our society by destroying the family.

start by reading theology of the body by JPII. then the movie review might seem more potentially damaging, especially when it has the authority of the bishops. Give it a try.

 

[oat_soda]

If you have a problem with your brother, seek him out and discuss it with him. Don’t gossip among the people about your brother!

i think this is a good idea. i will try to write the usccb a letter clearly stating the teaching of the catholic faith as presented in the catechism and other vatican documents and how their review is potentially misleading and morally neutral on homosexuality, acts or the tendency itself.

 

[cathgal]

TPJCatholic:

Cathgal,

I agree with nearly everything in your last post. I have no issue with people taking the movie to task. My issue is that attacking the Bishops will not do any good at all, and actually leads to much harm. I doubt the Bishops are even aware of the review. You can argue they should be, yet it is very easy for us to say what Bishops should do from our shoes…

It just seems to be “bash our Bishops” season, and it is a season that has lasted for several years and I am sick of it. The review was not even that far off the mark…it was rated “L” and the text did stgate many problematic facts about the movie.

Perhaps this boils down to approach. You tend to right away assume the Bishops are failing, whereas I give them the benefit of the doubt and try to be more understanding of their position. They are our leaders and they need our prayers and support, not our attacks and complaints. If you disagree with the review, then create a thread telling people what you think…but to drag the Bishops into this is just flat wrong–imo.

You keep saying that I attack the bishops. I don’t think so. All I said was the review was represented by USCCB and that’s what shown on the website. How else can I say that. How else can that be interpreted. Oh, let me guess. These movies were reviewed by some person working for USCCB. Well dang, change the wording on the website!
I’m not assuming anything. I’m interpreting what the website is saying.

They or s/he can give whatever rating they think is right but be consisteeeeeeent.

Title of thread is ’ Even the bishops’ conference loves the gay cowboy movie’
What cowboy movie? Why bishops’ conference loves it? Let me check what this thread is saying…duh. It’s all the same issue.

 

[YinYangMom]

Look, a story is a story, a movie is a movie. When the movie is well-crafted all the way around to tell the story then the merit is in the end-product.

Just as Narnia is not a movie about Christ, this movie isn’t about gays, though for some reason, the publicity campaigns chose to present them as such.

What the USCCB reviewer was saying is this movie shows the story without shoving it in the viewers face. It reveals the greater story about lonliness, love, loss, relationships and the losses all parties endure because of choices made.

It didn’t recommend we all run out to see it, did it?

It didn’t condemn it as morally offensive because the story was told in a respectful manner (unlike Derailed, Get Rich or Die Tryin’, Saw II).

When you take a list at what type of films the reviewers reserve the “O” rating for and compare that to Brokeback Mountain (should you see it for the film that it is, not the endorsement of the gay lifestyle we ‘think’ it is - just as people should see Narnia for the film that it is, and not the endorsement Evangelical Christianity others ‘think’ it is) then - in perspective - the review is fair. At least they’re consistent.

Look at the other “L” movies:
Jarhead
AeonFlux
Just Friends
North Country
Prime
The Weatherman
The Ice Harvest

Other popular movies which have gay characters:
Boys Don’t Cry" A-IV
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang L
Rent L
The Birdcage A-IV
Midnight Cowboy A-IV
Chasing Amy O
To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar A-III

Apparently there is a ‘tasteful’ way to put a story onto film and an obscene way.

 

[YinYangMom]

oat soda:

you might want to contemplate the sacredness of marriage and the conjugal act and how satan is distorting it to destroy our society by destroying the family.

start by reading theology of the body by JPII. then the movie review might seem more potentially damaging, especially when it has the authority of the bishops. Give it a try.

And yet the review emphasizes the damage done to the wives:

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.

And this is why, it seems, they don’t trash the film on subject content alone but look at the story and film in its entirety.

 

[mlchance]

Let’s also point out the movie reviewers in question aren’t the Magesterium. They are offering their opinion - perhaps well-informed, perhaps not - about movies from what they perceive to be an honest Catholic perspective.

The ratings given are advisory, not binding on conscience.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The title of this thread is such a gross misrepresentation of the view of the Bishop’s conference such that if it was done intentionally it is “bearing false witness” which is a grave matter. If done wrecklessly, one should be more careful when casting aspersions on our Bishops. That too may be grave matter.

If the Bishop’s loved the movie, the Rating would have been A-1, A-2 or A-3. I certainly don’t think a rating of “L: limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling” means they love it.

Furthermore, I don’t think that the review makes it very clear that they don’t endorse the subject matter or the plot as an endorsed lifestyle:

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.”

For those who think that the rating should have been “Obscene”, I think is short-sighted. Obscene is used to designate films that have gratutious scenes of violence, sexual content and exploitation, or otherwise is morally offensive. I don’t think using a sinful plot (whether it be homosexuality or adultery) qualifies it as necessarily morally offensive. To do so would require so many movies to be “O” that the rating would become meaningless.

The proper role of the USCCB in this regard is not to be our censors. They tried that once and their ratings/recommendations came to be universally ignored. I think the more effective method is to give clear information (ie pointing out that the plot essentially involves matter that “a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles” as they did) and identifying specifically the matter(s) against Church moral teaching (“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.”) will make it clear to the Catholic moviegoer the moral ramifications of the plat if they choose to see it even if the underlying message is contrary to Church teaching.

The Bishops are Shepherds and Teachers. Not censors.

 

[cathgal]

"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. "

This can apply to a heterosexual relationship. If both parties is married, homo or hetero, it is still an unresolved relationship and it still can be a tragedy for all parties involved. But why is this movie made out to be a homosexual relationship, that’s the real question. Do they want the audience to sympathize with the homo relationship, to understand where the homo is coming from. We know what’s the hetero perspective is, but homo. I believe that’s clearly what the message is. And feeling SORRY for homosexuals, maybe in time, society will accept their behavior. It’s their agenda. They don’t want to make it too bold.

Why don’t they make movie about homos and not have them marry then show the tragic of their relationship. That would be a big difference and a movie I would support, but that’s wishful thinking.

 

[rayne100]

manualman:

I haven’t seen the movie. Don’t suppose I will.

My major beef with the review is that the reviewer seems ignorant of the fact that MANY catholics want to know BEFORE-HAND if the movie is a piece of underhanded propaganda (Cider House Rules, Million Dollar Baby) or an actual artistic expression of the trials of life of a kind that most of us can’t imagine. For crying out loud, that’s the whole point of having a catholic review. If the reviewer doesn’t even KNOW I want his opinion on that distinction, then he needs a new job.

QUOTE]

What in the worl do catholics have agains Million Dollar Baby?
That was a wonderful movie.

 

[Orionthehunter]

"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. "

This can apply to a heterosexual relationship. If both parties is married, homo or hetero, it is still an unresolved relationship and it still can be a tragedy for all parties involved. But why is this movie made out to be a homosexual relationship, that’s the real question. Do they want the audience to sympathize with the homo relationship, to understand where the homo is coming from. We know what’s the hetero perspective is, but homo. I believe that’s clearly what the message is. And feeling SORRY for homosexuals, maybe in time, society will accept their behavior. It’s their agenda. They don’t want to make it too bold.

Why don’t they make movie about homos and not have them marry then show the tragic of their relationship. That would be a big difference and a movie I would support, but hell will freezes before that’d happen.

The review makes it clear that this is part of the agenda when the review says “Tacit approval of same-sex relationships.”

 

[TPJCatholic]

cathgal,

Catholics need to be formed, not coddled. Attack the reviewer, not the Bishops, they did nothing wrong and the review was not even that far off the mark.

Every Catholic (read that: every Catholic) is called to insure they have a properly formed conscience, every Catholic. Bishops are to be Sheperds in that effort, yet each person’s faith is between them and God. If person “x” gets an abortion and then dies and has to face Jesus about getting that abortion, they are not going to be able to blame their actions on Bishops–each person is responsible for how they follow Christ.

You have attacked the Bishops by slamming them about the review and many others have done the same. Bishops are not prefect and reviews are not infallible documents…they are merely someone’s opinion. From my point of view I never understood why the Bishops did not take a stand against the Harry Potter stories, yet I never slammed them for it, I merely trusted that they have their reasons for what they do. I trust my leaders…period.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Rayne 100: What in the worl do catholics have agains Million Dollar Baby? That was a wonderful movie.

Personally, when I watched this movie in my house, I was drawn into it such that I was tempted to think that euthanasia might be right in some respects. This was the Devil talking.

USCCB Movie Review: Dark-edged drama about an ornery old-school trainer and manager (Clint Eastwood) who finds personal redemption in molding a scrappy but determined female boxer (Hilary Swank) into a contender, only to have his efforts implode in tragedy. What starts out as a formulaic Rockyesque fight film takes a disturbingly downbeat turn, becoming a somber meditation on assisted suicide with a morally problematic ending which, despite knockout performances by Eastwood (who also directed), Swank and Morgan Freeman as a grizzled ring rat, will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes. A guilt-wracked, but ultimately permissive depiction of euthanasia, much bloody boxing violence, some rough and crude language and profanity. O – morally offensive. (PG-13) 2004

P.S. Based on the review of the subject of this thread, I think the review makes it clear that I’m unlikely to be tempted to think that gay sex and adultery is a good choice.

P.S.S: RE my post below that points out that it is a lie to say that the Bishop’s love this movie, I suggest that you read the review of the Chronicles of Narnia review and compare it to the review on this movie. I think you can see the difference between the two and pointing out the inaccuracy of saying the Bishops love the “gay cowboy” movie.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

TPJCatholic:

You have attacked the Bishops by slamming them about the review and many others have done the same.

Since I was one of the early posters, and since this thread has taken a turn that I had not anticipated, I just want to clarify my position.

My post above (#2) was my reaction to the review. I felt, and still do, that the review left alot to be desired in the area of usefulness and clarity.

This commentary (of someone who has *not *seen the movie) was directed soley on the actual review, the reviewer, and the content of the movie as presented – not at the USCCB as a body, or the Bishops individually. When I use the phrase “USCCB review” I used it merely as a descriptive identifier, and not as an assignation of authorship.

Thanks!
VC

 

[manualman]

rayne100:

What in the worl do catholics have agains Million Dollar Baby?
That was a wonderful movie.

Naturally, I can’t speak for all catholics, just for me.

I agree that all but the last few minutes of the film were wonderful. But at the last moment, I felt they destroyed the entire thing by revealing that everything up to that moment had been nothing but a setup job to make all the viewers more sympathetic to euthanasia. Think about it. You just spent two hours submerging yourself into this character who is real, admirable, has flaws, is heroic, learns, loves… then commits suicide when faced with a majorly degraded quality of life. The whole thing was a setup from the very start to make us all more sympathetic to assisted suicide and euthanasia. Sorry for the disgression.

I would definately like the reviewer to tell me when a movie functions as propaganda for a cause contrary to the teachings of the church.

 

[YinYangMom]

"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. "

This can apply to a heterosexual relationship. If both parties is married, homo or hetero, it is still an unresolved relationship and it still can be a tragedy for all parties involved. But why is this movie made out to be a homosexual relationship, that’s the real question. Do they want the audience to sympathize with the homo relationship, to understand where the homo is coming from. We know what’s the hetero perspective is, but homo. I believe that’s clearly what the message is. And feeling SORRY for homosexuals, maybe in time, society will accept their behavior. It’s their agenda. They don’t want to make it too bold.

Why don’t they make movie about homos and not have them marry then show the tragic of their relationship. That would be a big difference and a movie I would support, but that’s wishful thinking.

They don’t want the audience to do anything, except see their film. There is no hidden agenda.

Like it or not, there are quite a few homosexuals in our society. They do and have, historically, married to hide their tendencies from the hate and discrimination society harbors toward them and/or attempt to run away themselves from their own feelings.

While Hollywood is embracing homosexuality, the country cowboy culture and others outside of CA are still rather violently repulsed by it and they do tend to express it.

So this isn’t like someone made this all up in their heads, based on nothing. Somebody wrote about a very real situation in our very real world and somebody else put it to film. It’s a drama, more than anything else, and drama is meant to provide a glimpse into very human situations and emotions. This film does it, artfully, apparently. I certainly won’t be running out to spend $8 to see it, but may consider renting it for $1.99 on a bargain night down the line. Art is art.

 

[oat_soda]

For those who think that the rating should have been “Obscene”, I think is short-sighted. Obscene is used to designate films that have gratutious scenes of violence, sexual content and exploitation, or otherwise is morally offensive. I don’t think using a sinful plot (whether it be homosexuality or adultery) qualifies it as necessarily morally offensive. To do so would require so many movies to be “O” that the rating would become meaningless.

this is like a frog that gets slowly boiled to death without noticing it. if the graphic portrayal of two cowboys sodomizing each other isn’t obscene, what is? if the point of the movie was to show how homosexuality can be redemed in Christ, then yes, it may not be morally offensive. but aside from that in todays anti-family pro-gay climate, i don’t see how this film does anything but promote homosexual lifestyles.

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. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from “The Princess Diaries,” giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.

this sounds like favorable recomendation to adults, or the reviewer has a crush on leger.

the whole problem here is relativism. if the usccb doesn’t draw the line somewhere, then in reality they are saying it doesn’t matter. homosexuality is a serious sin, one that crys to heaven, and unless this movie is about how serious a sin it is, i can hardly understand how any catholic would give money to see this garbage.

 

[YinYangMom]

manualman:

I would definately like the reviewer to tell me when a movie functions as propaganda for a cause contrary to the teachings of the church.

Ok, I’m obviously missing this whole ‘propaganda’ thing.

Truth is Truth. I don’t care how anybody sugar coats basic Truths, the bottom line is those who are faithful hold fast to the Truth.

You and Orion and many other faithful Christians have certainly recognized the real ‘tragic’ ending to the film - and for that, you can thank the Church.

Most people probably saw the ending as liberating, logical, justifiable, and felt relief at the end.

The thing is, it’s a story. Just as in books, we each interpret these works of art differently. That’s ok. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Producers are in the business of making money through films. Directors are in the business of making money through marketable films so that they can afford to make the ‘real’ pieces they want to share with the world. Ok, so maybe those few have an agenda…

but their having an agenda doesn’t change the way I think or believe when it comes to life issues. God is my guide there, through the Church. If I have any concerns or questions about what I’m seeing and reading, then I turn to Her for clarification.

If we all just remain firm in our faith all these ‘agendas’ and ‘propaganda’ things are powerless, so why the fuss?

Seems to me the more we react offended the more fuel we add to their fire. Not giving into them, not promoting them, not spending money on them is not providing oxygen for it to continue.

Methinks we protest too much.

And yeah, I know, many others believe we don’t protest enough. But I recall Peter cutting off the ear of the person arresting Jesus. While he was justifiably angry and righteously defending Jesus, Jesus said that was not the way. And granted, no one’s calling for violence but I certainly hear anger and rage in too many voices…it is but a very thin line between that kind of anger and violence.

No, the way was through Peter as the first Pope…through evangelization, love, forgiveness. The true soldier of Christ does not use anger or weapons, but Truth and Prayer.

 

[YinYangMom]

oat soda:

this is like a frog that gets slowly boiled to death without noticing it. if the graphic portrayal of two cowboys sodomizing each other isn’t obscene, what is? if the point of the movie was to show how homosexuality can be redemed in Christ, then yes, it may not be morally offensive. but aside from that in todays anti-family pro-gay climate, i don’t see how this film does anything but promote homosexual lifestyles. this sounds like favorable recomendation to adults, or the reviewer has a crush on leger.

the whole problem here is relativism. if the usccb doesn’t draw the line somewhere, then in reality they are saying it doesn’t matter. homosexuality is a serious sin, one that crys to heaven, and unless this movie is about how serious a sin it is, i can hardly understand how any catholic would give money to see this garbage.

But they did draw a line - only adults should consider this movie, and only those who for whatever reason, would be ok with the content revealed in the review. NO CHILDREN, NO TEENS, NOT ALL ADULTS.

By the way, where do you get “graphic portrayal of two cowboys sodomizing each other” from the USCCB review which says:

Incidentally, that scene – short and with the men mostly clothed – is the only onscreen gay sexual encounter in the film.

When I finally see the movie on DVD I’m rather certain I’ll close my eyes through that scene just as I do heterosexual sex scenes in other movies. At least I know there’s one to be alert for, and can plan to skip it. If the review had said there were multiple scenes, each more graphic than the previous, then that wouldn’t even get into my house (then again, if that had been the case I’d bet the reviewer would have given it an “O”).

You know, I absolutely loved “Braveheart” and still can’t bear to watch the end. Violence, especially the realistic kind, is difficult for me to take. Even in “The Passion of the Christ” I can’t watch his flogging and can hardly bear the crucifixion. But should the entire movie be branded as a violent film pushing an agenda promoting torture? Should I avoid the entire movie because on one or two ‘difficult’ scenes?

 

[cathgal]

TPJCatholic:

cathgal,

Catholics need to be formed, not coddled. Attack the reviewer, not the Bishops, they did nothing wrong and the review was not even that far off the mark.

Every Catholic (read that: every Catholic) is called to insure they have a properly formed conscience, every Catholic. Bishops are to be Sheperds in that effort, yet each person’s faith is between them and God. If person “x” gets an abortion and then dies and has to face Jesus about getting that abortion, they are not going to be able to blame their actions on Bishops–each person is responsible for how they follow Christ.

You have attacked the Bishops by slamming them about the
review and many others have done the same. Bishops are not prefect and reviews are not infallible documents…they are merely someone’s opinion. From my point of view I never understood why the Bishops did not take a stand against the Harry Potter stories, yet I never slammed them for it, I merely trusted that they have their reasons for what they do. I trust my leaders…period.

Why do you keep insisting that I attack ‘the bishops by slamming them about’ . This is what I call harsh. I merely pointed out that the USCCB, not bishops, review was disagreeable. Now whether it’s the bishops as a whole or a single person, that’s not the point. I only judge by what’s on the website. Truth is, I know it’s not a group of bishops but some person. But it’s the bishopS that allow this person to represent them, so they got to take the blame, even indirectly.

This person expressed my thought better than I can and maybe you will get what I’ve been trying to say:

“This commentary (of someone who has *not *seen the movie) was directed soley on the actual review, the reviewer, and the content of the movie as presented – not at the USCCB as a body, or the Bishops individually. When I use the phrase “USCCB review” I used it merely as a descriptive identifier, and not as an assignation of authorship.”