Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[YinYangMom]

Chapter 14 Liberalism and Free-Thought

---

****In our day the Catholic world, with as much justice as reason, attributes impiety as a quality of free-thought, whether in a person, a journal or an institution. “Free-thinker” is an odious epithet which few are willing to accept, but which many justly bear in spite of their protestations. They chafe under the appellation of the word, but find no inconvenience in being all that it implies. Persons, societies, books, governments which reject, in matters of faith and morals, the only and exclusive criterion—that of the Catholic Church—are Liberals. They acknowledge themselves to be Liberals. They feel honored to be so recognized and never dream of scandalizing anybody except us terrible “irreconcilables.”

Now change the expression; instead of Liberals, call them free-thinkers. They resent the epithet as a calumny and grow indignant at the insult, as they term it. But why this excruciating tenderness, this delicate sensitiveness over the variations of a simple term? Have you not, dear friends, banished from your conscience, your books, your journals and your society all recognition of the supreme authority of the Church? Have you not raised up as the sole and fundamental criterion of your conduct and your thought your own untrammeled reason?

more…

Buffalo, that’s not me…so why share that article with me?

Liberal and free thinker obviously can carry positive and negative connotations. I personally don’t associate myself with either term because there’s no assurance people will understand it as it reflects me, personally…instead, they’ll jump to one of the extreme conclusions missing the mark altogether, as you have just proven.

What I said is IF ‘free thinking and liberal’ is the ability to see the good in all of God’s artists - while recognizing Satan’s attempts to mar the work - without it shaking my faith, but rather, increasing it, makes me a ‘liberal, free thinking’ Catholic, **then **I would consider it a compliment.

You return with an article devoted to defining the terms “liberal” and “free-thinker” in the most negative, weak light possible.

 

[Brad]

TableServant:

Outside of anything else, I must disagree with this statement. Not that the USCCB should not be in the business of promoting (proclaiming) the Gospel, but I would argue that providing guidance on items of cultural interest and signifigance, good or bad, is proclaiming the Gospel.

We might disagree with the way that they do it, or what individuals are saying on the organization’s behalf, but this ***is ***their business.

Bishops are shepherds responsible for souls getting to heaven.

If they want to point out specific cultural items that are problematic and should not be engaged in that is fine. But to write movie reviews as if going to the movies is somehow important for souls to get to heaven takes resources away from what needs to be done and provides prolematic situations such as the one here.

A Bishop is not in the pop cultural review business. We have sports, music, plays, video games, restaurants, travel destinations, amusement parks, books, colleges, cars, computers, food…

Why review movies and not everything else that may or may not be harmful? There is no justification unless you were to say it is important because movies are important in society today. But that argument simply implies that the Bishops are giving more credibility to movies and Hollywood - most of which we should not be attending anyhow.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

I agree with your last post to a certain degree. I feel that it could be productive for the Bishops to speak on issues like movies, yet they must have a faithful and unified voice or else it can do more harm than good.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

I was surprised to see an 'L" rating. I thought it should be rated “O”. I cannot rely on the secular reviews, so I turn to the Bishop’s site. I would expect that it be rated from a truly Catholic perspective. I still can make my decision if I wish to see it, but I would have been warned.

The Catholic Church is the moral authority. The gold standard so to speak. This watering down hurts its credibility.

See post #44…the review was consistent with other ‘gay topic’ films…take special note of the type of films this board reserves for “O” movies. I tend to agree there is a distinct difference between those and the Ls/A-IVs.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Buffalo, that’s not me…so why share that article with me?

Liberal and free thinker obviously can carry positive and negative connotations. I personally don’t associate myself with either term because there’s no assurance people will understand it as it reflects me, personally…instead, they’ll jump to one of the extreme conclusions missing the mark altogether, as you have just proven.

What I said is IF ‘free thinking and liberal’ is the ability to see the good in all of God’s artists - while recognizing Satan’s attempts to mar the work - without it shaking my faith, but rather, increasing it, makes me a ‘liberal, free thinking’ Catholic, **then **I would consider it a compliment.

You return with an article devoted to defining the terms “liberal” and “free-thinker” in the most negative, weak light possible.

Because you attempted to justify the good works of artists even thought the main message is evil. The trappings being more important then the message. I have a hard time with that line of thinking as it smacks of liberal thought.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

See post #44…the review was consistent with other ‘gay topic’ films…take special note of the type of films this board reserves for “O” movies. I tend to agree there is a distinct difference between those and the Ls/A-IVs.

Consistency does not impress me. I am indeed disappointed with the relativism. Evil is evil, morally offensive is morally offensive. Then they should all be rated 'O". I want the ratings to always speak to the highest truth.

 

[YinYangMom]

Brad:

Bishops are shepherds responsible for souls getting to heaven.

If they want to point out specific cultural items that are problematic and should not be engaged in that is fine. But to write movie reviews as if going to the movies is somehow important for souls to get to heaven takes resources away from what needs to be done and provides prolematic situations such as the one here.

A Bishop is not in the pop cultural review business. We have sports, music, plays, video games, restaurants, travel destinations, amusement parks, books, colleges, cars, computers, food…

Why review movies and not everything else that may or may not be harmful? There is no justification unless you were to say it is important because movies are important in society today. But that argument simply implies that the Bishops are giving more credibility to movies and Hollywood - most of which we should not be attending anyhow.

I was under the impression the feature was added because there was a demand for it from constituents. Catholics wanted a reliable source of reviews from a Catholic perspective rather than the secular media jammed down their throats. The bishops responded by hiring reviewers. I don’t think the reviewers are bishops themselve, but I suspect they do get to check the reviews before allowing them to be posted.

I think there’s a false understanding of what a review really is. It is not a censorship list. It’s purpose is to describe the piece, comment on how it relates to the supposed viewer, and then places a rating on it - all with the understanding that in the end, it is up to the reader to determin whether or not to see the film. This is what the site has consistently done.

I thought the review went right to the points that we Catholics care about. It told me there was indeed one sex scene…it told me it was mostly clothed…it told me there was one bare breast scene…it told me the wives were portrayed well, not as nags. Up until I read the review I fully expected the movie to contain several gay sex scenes without clothes, and I didn’t even know they had wives and kids…I also thought it was going to be about how wonderful their love was without regard for everyone else around them, and perhaps have a happy ending for them. This review showed me my preconceptions were wrong. I welcome that.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

I was under the impression the feature was added because there was a demand for it from constituents. Catholics wanted a reliable source of reviews from a Catholic perspective rather than the secular media jammed down their throats. The bishops responded by hiring reviewers. I don’t think the reviewers are bishops themselve, but I suspect they do get to check the reviews before allowing them to be posted.

I think there’s a false understanding of what a review really is. It is not a censorship list. It’s purpose is to describe the piece, comment on how it relates to the supposed viewer, and then places a rating on it - all with the understanding that in the end, it is up to the reader to determin whether or not to see the film. This is what the site has consistently done.

I thought the review went right to the points that we Catholics care about. It told me there was indeed one sex scene…it told me it was mostly clothed…it told me there was one bare breast scene…it told me the wives were portrayed well, not as nags. Up until I read the review I fully expected the movie to contain several gay sex scenes without clothes, and I didn’t even know they had wives and kids…I also thought it was going to be about how wonderful their love was without regard for everyone else around them, and perhaps have a happy ending for them. This review showed me my preconceptions were wrong. I welcome that.

These ratings go back 40 years or so. I remember my mom referring to them when I was a kid. I had to look in our local Catholic paper if I wanted to go see a movie. They are now watered down.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Consistency does not impress me. I am indeed disappointed with the relativism. Evil is evil, morally offensive is morally offensive. Then they should all be rated 'O". I want the ratings to always speak to the highest truth.

It seems you want the USCCB to censor based on moral truth.
Apparently, the Church does not believe this is her role. Her role is to educate on moral matters. It is up to us to adhere to the teachings or not. We all get to make informed choices. The reviewer provided information. You and others can, from that review, know with certainty how much gay activity you would be exposed to in watching the film, and therefore, rightfully have chosen **not **to view the film. It did not recommend everyone run out and see it, did it? It didn’t even say it’s for all adults. Where has the review led you astray???

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

II thought the review went right to the points that we Catholics care about.

A review is basically an opinion with some description of the movie. Why so many are troubled is because this review is associated with a bishop’s conference. I would think many would be under the impression that anything associated with a bishop’s conference would be solidly pro Gospel and anti culture of death.

In the end the reviewer did not give this film the worst possible rating of an “O”.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

It seems you want the USCCB to censor based on moral truth.
Apparently, the Church does not believe this is her role. Her role is to educate on moral matters. It is up to us to adhere to the teachings or not. We all get to make informed choices. The reviewer provided information. You and others can, from that review, know with certainty how much gay activity you would be exposed to in watching the film, and therefore, rightfully have chosen **not **to view the film. It did not recommend everyone run out and see it, did it? It didn’t even say it’s for all adults. Where has the review led you astray???

Sure do. I depend on her teachings and moral truths in all other areas, why not movie reviews? I still have a free will choice to go see the movies. Has the Church fallen for the atheist claims that Catholics have no mind of their own. Hogwash I say.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

It did not recommend everyone run out and see it, did it? It didn’t even say it’s for all adults. Where has the review led you astray???

Which adults would benefit from this entertainment?

 

[buffalo]

fix:

A review is basically an opinion with some description of the movie. Why so many are troubled is because this review is associated with a bishop’s conference. I would think many would be under the impression that anything associated with a bishop’s conference would be solidly pro Gospel and anti culture of death.

In the end the reviewer did not give this film the worst possible rating of an “O”.

I guess I know have to ask what qualifies for an “O”?

 

[joyfulmess]

It’s a disgrace that the USCCB review came back the way it did. We depend on our church leaders to lead us in the true teaching of our church.I think they let us down and it’s another blow to our Catholic religion. I have not and will not see the movie. Did anyone notice that on the USCCB website, there is no way to send them an e-mail? I want to let the USCCB know how I feel about this. Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[fix]

joyfulmess:

It’s a disgrace that the USCCB review came back the way it did. We depend on our church leaders to lead us in the true teaching of our church.I think they let us down and it’s another blow to our Catholic religion. I have not and will not see the movie. Did anyone notice that on the USCCB website, there is no way to send them an e-mail? I want to let the USCCB know how I feel about this. Anyone else feel the same way?

If you follow the link in the OP to the blog and read the comment section you will see how to contact the USCCB as one lady already has and you may read their response to her.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

I guess I know have to ask what qualifies for an “O”?

My question as well. I understand this is a matter of opinion to some degree.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Because you attempted to justify the good works of artists even thought the main message is evil. The trappings being more important then the message. I have a hard time with that line of thinking as it smacks of liberal thought.

Who’s justifying anything?
Stuff exists.
“good” or “bad” is relative to the source of the definition.
For me, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is defined by the Church.
But work is work.
Art is art.
God inspires all of it, and as such, speaks to us through it.
The message we receive depends on our translators.
Again, mine, is the Church and Her teachings, so I’m not dismayed by life around me.
I refuse to not see the good in all of God’s work.
Again, if that makes me a ‘liberal’ so be it.

Look, good comes from suffering, right?
We are not called to run away from suffering just because it’s a bad experience. We are to embrace it so that the good God wants to create from it can come to fruition.

It’s the same with this ‘tainted’ art…the source (God) is good, parts of the delivery method may be ugly (secularism)…but there is God’s message inside the entire package and we miss that message if we close our eyes to it.

Yes, if you aren’t properly formed in your faith, you run the risk of picking up Satan’s message instead of God’s, but that’s why these films get that “L” rating. The obvious message by the secularists is pro-gay, God’s message is the reinforcement that this just is not the way He intended life to be.

I welcome God speaking to me in all His works, not just the Bible and the Church. They are my compass, my translator, but they are not my end-all, as God continues to speak through His creations.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Art is art.
God inspires all of it, and as such, speaks to us through it.
The message we receive depends on our translators.
Again, mine, is the Church and Her teachings, so I’m not dismayed by life around me.
I refuse to not see the good in all of God’s work.
Again, if that makes me a ‘liberal’ so be it.

It’s the same with this ‘tainted’ art…the source (God) is good, parts of the delivery method may be ugly (secularism)…but there is God’s message inside the entire package and we miss that message if we close our eyes to it.

Yes, if you aren’t properly formed in your faith, you run the risk of picking up Satan’s message instead of God’s, but that’s why these films get that “L” rating. The obvious message by the secularists is pro-gay, God’s message is the reinforcement that this just is not the way He intended life to be.

I welcome God speaking to me in all His works, not just the Bible and the Church. They are my compass, my translator, but they are not my end-all, as God continues to speak through His creations.

Do you believe in the artistic merit in porn?

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

A review is basically an opinion with some description of the movie. Why so many are troubled is because this review is associated with a bishop’s conference. I would think many would be under the impression that anything associated with a bishop’s conference would be solidly pro Gospel and anti culture of death.

In the end the reviewer did not give this film the worst possible rating of an “O”.

Because it does not deserve it by their own standards, whatever those may be.
Looking at the type of films they reserve the “O” for, it seems to be reasonable it did not get the “O” you sought.

What I don’t get is why the “L” isn’t good enough for you. It reaffirmed your already preconceived notion this would be an offensive film by your standards, and it acknowledges it bears some morally offensive material according to Church standards. Thing is, the “L” didn’t change your mind, did it? You’re not going to go watch the movie because of it, are you?

You’re not happy because they didn’t rate it the way you wanted it to be rated, but you’re missing a very, very important fact. The reviewer saw the film, you did not. Therefore, the reviewer is in a better position to rate it than you are.

Per the site:

"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. "

You want them reviewed solely on moral suitability. The board reviews also on artistic merit - and that is where these distinctions lie.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Sure do. I depend on her teachings and moral truths in all other areas, why not movie reviews? I still have a free will choice to go see the movies. Has the Church fallen for the atheist claims that Catholics have no mind of their own. Hogwash I say.

So I ask again, has this review led you astray?
Are you any more inclined to see it because of the review?