Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[cathgal]

YinYangMom:

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.

Well, you’re one smart Catholic. Would that all Catholics are as smart as you. But we’re not worry about smart Catholics, just some dumb ones. :whacky:

 

[Elliott]

Wow. Bare breasts. Clothed rough homosexual sex. It’s not morally offensive. I guess I’m not part of that limited audience.

 

[BillyT92679]

"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.

Firstly, I don’t think referring to people with SSA as “homos” is quite a good thing… no matter what sins they unchaste ones commit, all of them are our brothers and sisters and deserve not to be called by pejorative terms. We’re all cloaked with sinful garments.

Secondly, the film is supposed to be great art. But it still feels contrived and put-upon. Oddly, a film which was, probably, meant to be more of a statement “Boys Don’t Cry” about an arguably even more controversial topic, seemed at least more honest than BBM seems. (Probably because it was very tragic, and very real.) BBM was originally a New Yorker short story, it’s East Coast liberalism as an attack on Middle America. The gay thing I think is almost incidental, it’s more of an attack on simple folk by turning the whole archetype on its head.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

The USCCB disgusts me in general.

 

[Libero]

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

Finally, someone who catches onto that - a story is a story.

Firstly, I don’t think referring to people with SSA as “homos” is quite a good thing… no matter what sins they unchaste ones commit, all of them are our brothers and sisters and deserve not to be called by pejorative terms. We’re all cloaked with sinful garments.

Good point - I think “homos” qualifies as derogatory language.

The USCCB disgusts me in general.

Thats not a very charitable way to talk about the confernence of Bishops, also, why? So many people talk negatively about the USCBC, why, is it because they merely say something that you disagree with, because in effect, complaining about the CBC because of their viewpoint is just as bad as people who complain about church viewpoint.

 

[Al_Masetti]

manualman:

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.

This is an excellent post. Years ago I used to go to the movies a lot but after a while I got tired of being “set up”. The writers would create an allegedly apparently sympathetic character and I would get drawn into the plot and the story and then there would be a suicide or some dark awful ending and I would start to question my own beliefs.

So I stopped going to the movies.

 

[pnewton]

I was shocked when I first read the title of the thread. Then as I read the review and discovered that the title was a lie, I was more put off with the distortion of truth by the initial poster, than that this movie got only the second worst rating by the bishops.

I wonder how many here are in the position to speak intelligently about whether the reviewer used good judgement, meaning you have actually seen the movie. I know that I am not. I seldom watch any of the A-IV movies, and never watch homosexual movies, as they disgust me to no end. Therefore, since I have no personal knowledge, I must bow to the reviewers opinion.

 

[davy39]

buffalo:

Maybe I will have to start using this site - they got it right -

Brokeback Mountain -

-4 Abhorrent

Very strong (but often implicit rather than explicit) Romantic, politically correct worldview with very strong pro-homosexual content, including explicit sex scenes that sometimes come across as sadomasochistic, a pro-Marxist or pro-Communist subtext seems evident, with some strong anti-capitalist sentiments against one protagonist’s employer, although that protagonist eventually proves to be a good salesman for his father-in-law’s company, and an explicitly anti-Christian scene where one protagonist mocks people who go to church and who sing hymns about Jesus Christ and an anti-American subtext that seems evident, as well as revisionist history of homosexuality in America in order to serve the movie’s politically correct, Romantic worldview about homosexuality and its sexual perversions, including a Christian wedding scene with the Lord’s Prayer, but it has an ironic tone in context of the rest of the movie; 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.

This really looks like a movie that a “free thinking” and “liberal” Catholic would want to see. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to watch it, even out of curiosity. It is plain and simply, out and out trash. I won’t see it and I will try to discourage other from seeing it.

 

[Petrina]

TPJ Says:

…so it is just as much OUR fault as it is the Bishops fault, yet I suppose it is easier for people to find a lofty target (Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope), then it is to see fault within themselves.

TPJ,

I refuse to take the blame for the mess the church is in now! It is the Bishops who appointed the gatekeepers and reviewers at the seminaries. Have you heard Fr. John Corapi’s story about how the vocations director he first interviewed with said “under no circumstances should this man ever be admitted to a seminary” and labeled his thinking “medieval”?

I do agree that we need to pray for our priests and bishops and pray for holy priests. But maybe some of the bishop bashing around here is simply frustrated people “venting” at what they consider to be a disgusting situation… among other like minded people who care about the church.

By the way, I do pray for holy priests. I also complain when I see things that aren’t right. I also fast and pray about those things.

 

[fix]

L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.

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.

How does this edify anyone or help us as we look at everything from the standpoint of eternity?

I read much intellectualizing in an attempt defend a review that would seem to be off the mark.

 

[fix]

pnewton:

Therefore, since I have no personal knowledge, I must bow to the reviewers opinion.

OK, but does the postion and attitude of the reviewer play a part in determining what is acceptable or unacceptable? I ask because I read this review as well:

The Catholic reviewer seems to have missed the moral depravity angle. The review, which is featured on the USCCB’s official website, is written in much the same glowing terms as those of New York Times’ reviewer who called it a “moving and majestic” depiction of thwarted love. The USCCB’s reviewer enthused about the film’s depiction of “love and loss,” calling it “a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection.”…

The final sop to the homosexual mythology comes when one of the men suggests they leave their wives and set up house together…

The unnamed USCCB reviewer, in keeping with the now-standard tone of acceptance required of Catholic “progressives,” walked a hair-thin line between Catholic teaching and wholehearted approval of the homosexual lifestyle. “The Catholic Church,” the reviewer writes, “makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.”…
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121503.html

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

How does this edify anyone or help us as we look at everything from the standpoint of eternity?

I read much intellectualizing in an attempt defend a review that would seem to be off the mark.

The preamble to the USCCB movie reviews says:

"The following movies have been evaluated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Office for Film and Broadcasting according to artistic merit and moral suitability. The reviews include the USCCB rating, the Motion Picture Association of America rating, and a brief synopsis of the movie. "

I am still trying to see what there is to intellectualize or criticize in this review. It is a factual, concise presentation of the facts of the movie without hyperbole. Artistic merit is shorthand for things like merits of the acting, the plot development, cinematography etc. On this regard, it appears nearly universal that these parts of the movie are well done. I’ve read “The Prince” by Machiavelli a couple of times. IMHO, that guy can articulate his ideas as good as anyone I’ve very read but that does not mean I “love” his ideas as I find them reprehensible.

However, regarding the moral suitability, the review is critical as it very clearly points out that the subject matter is contrary to Church Teaching (“which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles”) and provides detail on specifics that most of us would find objectionable (“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 title of this tread appears to have been started for the purpose of intentionally bashing our Bishop’s. The use of the word “love” is a outright lie as the reviews are not written for the purpose of endorsing or condemning particular movies (they tried that once and their reviews were ignored).

Such a lie is a grave matter (bearing false witness). If it was intentional, it is a mortal sin.

Personally, I not only read the review of the USCCB and others plus seen the “previews” on this movie. I have not intention of seeing this movie in the theatres.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

The preamble to the USCCB movie reviews says:

"The following movies have been evaluated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Office for Film and Broadcasting according to artistic merit and moral suitability. The reviews include the USCCB rating, the Motion Picture Association of America rating, and a brief synopsis of the movie. "

I am still trying to see what there is to intellectualize or criticize in this review. It is a factual, concise presentation of the facts of the movie without hyperbole. Artistic merit is shorthand for things like merits of the acting, the plot development, cinematography etc. On this regard, it appears nearly universal that these parts of the movie are well done. I’ve read “The Prince” by Machiavelli a couple of times. IMHO, that guy can articulate his ideas as good as anyone I’ve very read but that does not mean I “love” his ideas as I find them reprehensible.

However, regarding the moral suitability, the review is critical as it very clearly points out that the subject matter is contrary to Church Teaching (“which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles”) and provides detail on specifics that most of us would find objectionable (“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 title of this tread appears to have been started for the purpose of intentionally bashing our Bishop’s. The use of the word “love” is a outright lie as the reviews are not written for the purpose of endorsing or condemning particular movies (they tried that once and their reviews were ignored).

Such a lie is a grave matter (bearing false witness). If it was intentional, it is a mortal sin.

Personally, I not only read the review of the USCCB and others plus seen the “previews” on this movie. I have not intention of seeing this movie in the theatres.

Please see post #70 and give me your comments. Thanks.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Such a lie is a grave matter (bearing false witness). If it was intentional, it is a mortal sin.

I am sorry but this type of hyperbole is misplaced. The title seems to be an opinion of the person who wrote the blog entry. As such, his opinion is as much a matter of artistic merit as the reviewer of the movie.

We really should be careful not to attribute mortal sin to another.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Please see post #70 and give me your comments. Thanks.

I think that the author Hilary White has born false witness against the Bishops by the following from the article you linked us to:

“Nonetheless, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a glowing movie review of the homosexual propaganda film, Brokeback Mountain, a story of two rugged cowboys who engage in homosexual liaisons and adultery.”

I’m trying to think what person could read the USCCB review and call it glowing. It appears that Ms. White has an agenda.

The agenda accusastion is further supported by this statement:

“The bishops’ organization gave the film a rating of “L,” warning of its “tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations.” The “L” rating is two notches above the most censorious available in the bishops’ system - “O” for morally offensive.”

This is inaccurate. It is one level above “O”. But more important tha the specific inaccuracy, it shows a lack of “experience” with reading the reviews of the USCCB. This lack of experience and understanding of the USCCB may mitigate the gravity of this lie but it may not mitigate the gravity of not taking more care before attacking the Bishops.

The USCCB don’t use the “O” rating unless the movie is deceptive (ala Million Dollar Baby) in the way it entraps the movie goer to come to believe a sin is ok (ala euthanasia is acceptable). It is clear from all the reviews that a person who believes living the gay lifestyle and adultery is wrong will not come away from this movie with a new opinion. In fact, it appears from the USCCB review that this movie will be confirming in one’s position of the sinfulness.

Furthermore, there is three ratings higher than “L” and one lower. Just on the face of this, it warrants the accusation that “glowing” is a lie.

I guess if you tell lies enough and long enough, people will start believing it. Personally, I consider this attack on the Bishops comparable to pro-choice Catholics in public office- a scandal.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

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.

mom,

there definitely is an agenda out there. The first thing to advance an agenda is to eliminate the outrage. This is done by systematically exposing over time viewers to images and ideas that at one time they would have been repulsed by.
This is done through print, media, music and a PC element in the culture.

Think about it. What was an x rated movie 30 years ago is now a pg-13. What was an O rated movie then is now an L.

 

[buffalo]

pnewton:

I was shocked when I first read the title of the thread. Then as I read the review and discovered that the title was a lie, I was more put off with the distortion of truth by the initial poster, than that this movie got only the second worst rating by the bishops.

I wonder how many here are in the position to speak intelligently about whether the reviewer used good judgement, meaning you have actually seen the movie. I know that I am not. I seldom watch any of the A-IV movies, and never watch homosexual movies, as they disgust me to no end. Therefore, since I have no personal knowledge, I must bow to the reviewers opinion.

I am the OP. The title is the title of the article. The mods have warned me that the title must be the same, so I followed the rules.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

I am sorry but this type of hyperbole is misplaced. The title seems to be an opinion of the person who wrote the blog entry. As such, his opinion is as much a matter of artistic merit as the reviewer of the movie.

We really should be careful not to attribute mortal sin to another.

The title of the thread is clear “Even the bishops’ conference loves the gay cowboy movie”

Love as defined in the dictionary: strong affection or liking of something".

This is a blatant inaccuracy or lie. To tell a lie about another is bearing false witness which is grave matter. For a Catholic to tell a lie about the Church’s ecclesiastical authorities (Bishops) I’m sure is grave matter. If it was intentional (I have always qualified that I don’t know if was intentional), it is a mortal sin by definition. However, to be wreckless as Ms. White is certainly serious. As a Catholic, I feel compelled to defend the Bishop’s when wrongly accused.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

mom,

there definitely is an agenda out there. The first thing to advance an agenda is to eliminate the outrage. This is done by systematically exposing over time viewers to images and ideas that at one time they would have been repulsed by.
This is done through print, media, music and a PC element in the culture.

Think about it. What was an x rated movie 30 years ago is now a pg-13. What was an O rated movie then is now an L.

Yeah, but I don’t care what they rate things…I still don’t watch certain films with certain content…or read certain books…or listen to certain music…the only rating system which matters is God’s, right? Man-made ratings are nothing to a true Christian or ethical person so why the outrage? I just don’t get it. Since when do we base our moral compass on what society says?

Look, they can huff and puff and try to blow my house down - but it ain’t gonna happen. In the end they’ll pass out anyway and I’ll continue living in peace and security. I teach my kids to built their homes of brick and they, too, will remain secure.

Didn’t they say recently that all Christians account for 84% or so of the U.S. population? If we’d just remain steady with God as our compass all these manipulations by the secular population would fall flat on their faces.

So, apparently, lots of Christians are getting sucked into the pseudo-compass – that’s their problem, imo, not the secular sector. The focus of our education (or re-education) campaigns need only be directed to them to change the tide everywhere else.

 

[Orionthehunter]

buffalo:

I am the OP. The title is the title of the article. The mods have warned me that the title must be the same, so I followed the rules.

Buffalo, I apologize if my characterization of the title of the thread as a lie impugns you if your also agree that the title of the thread inaccurately describes the review by the USCCB. I didn’t fully realize that you were only restating the title of the thread but thought you agreed w/ the accusation. Please accept my apology.