Even the bishops' conference loves the gay cowboy movie

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Sheesh. Narrow? I used the dictionary definition. If words mean whatever the writer wants them to mean, there can never be any intelligent conversation. Since it is against the rules to post quotes from other threads, I do suggest that one review your past posts where you are only judging their words. In those situations you obviously had a standard for judging.

Furthermore, your use of love for pizza and comparing it to this review is equally fallacious (defined as erroneous, misleading or deceptive).

The title of the piece was relating the the organization in question approved of the movie. I can see how the author may have arrived at that conclusion. How he expresses it is a matter of taste.

Considering that you don’t think that words matter or one is safe to believe the writer is intelligent to know the definition, it is easy to understand how you also don’t think one should read the classification system used by the USCCB close. Please note the bold. Thus, “L” is the next to lowest rating. They don’t use A-IV anymore. However the definition is still there as there were past movies (still on the website) w/ that rating.

The point is it is less than the “worst” rating. We can quibble about it more if you wish.

Furthermore, it is SIMPLISTIC to read any of these ratings to reach a conclusion that some are “endorsed” or “banned”.

Who used the word banned?

This was the old way of doing it. But, the Bishop’s determined that the spiritual and emotional maturity of people was so diverse that such SIMPLISTIC ratings were ineffectual and being ignored. The current system is about giving information, pointing out the pitfalls to the themes and plots relative to Catholic theology. They did that in this review.

Yes, it is called nuancing the situation. I read posts here in the same light.

It is then left to the prudential judgment of the faithful to determine whether or not to attend the movie. Personally, I consider myself emotionally and spiritually mature enough to see the movie w/o any threat to my faith or soul. I am properly informed of the content and agenda and fore-warned is for-armed. However, I also see no reason for me to spend my money to see this money. I’m not going to make that decision for others.

You imply some are calling for a censor. Why? They call for honesty and a more responsible review.

Finally, if I had jumped the gun and relied on a news article (another example of the media not reporting the news but advocating agenda) that was misleading and inaccurate, I’d just admit I made a mistake. But that is me. Again, I’m not going to make that decision for others.

Again you imply some want to make decisions for others. We all can read the reviews from that site and others. We all comment on them. Some defend the nuancing, others call them as they them.

 

[TPJCatholic]

From everything I have read the movie should have been rated “O”, not “L.” Let us just be grateful that the reviwer gave it an “L” and not an A1.

I suppose some people would say that places feces on the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also art…yet to me it is gravely sinful.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Who is is suitable for? Academic research into the culture of death?

Again, see post #116

I am evaluating by the reviewers own words. He states “facts” about what transpired in the movie, then gives it a rating that is not consistent with the matieral he reported.

Consistent with regard to artistic merit and moral suitability, not on moral suitability alone.

Why are the bishops in the business of evaluating the secular artistic merit?

Because the Church has always protected the arts. I take it you would want all nude paintings, sculptures in and around St. Peters and the Sistene Chapel painted over to cover ‘private parts’? The Church has always defended the beauty in the human body when displayed with dignity.

This movie apparently does not paint a rosey picture about SSAers, it conveys the message the Church has defended all along - it’s destructive to all involved.

Artistic merit includes homosexual acts, gratuitous frontal nudity, rough sex, etc?

Where did you get “gratuitous frontal nudity” from? That’s not in the review. THIS is what was said:

two **brief **sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations.

 

[TPJCatholic]

fix,

Some movies should be banned, there is nothing wrong with banning things that are bad for the general public.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

OK, so how much trash needs to be cultivated, overlooked and minimized before it out weighs the artistic merit of such compelling high art?

I was thinking the same thing when I read that people interpreted this review by the Bishops to be “glowing” and that they “love” the movie. I’m also struck by the diligence w/ which people keep trying to avoid the fact that this was done but keep changing the subject to whether or not it deserves an “L” or “O” rating.

Reasonable minds might also disagree on whether or not the review was too soft. Personally, I considered it factual, concise and very critical of the plot and subject matter. However, I don’t see how Catholics can stand by when lies are told about the Bishops.

 

[YinYangMom]

joyfulmess:

So ying yang mom, in reference to post #116 does your “compass” tell you the same thing about all things? For example can one go to rated xxx movies KNOWING they are immoral and find “artistc” beauty and God’s message there ? Because your catholic conscience should put up a red flag and tell you NO…This is not meant for you.

See post #125.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

OK, so how much trash needs to be cultivated, overlooked and minimized before it out weighs the artistic merit of such compelling high art?

Guess we’d have to define ‘trash’ to know.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Again, see post #116

I did and was unmoved to change my position.

Because the Church has always protected the arts. I take it you would want all nude paintings, sculptures in and around St. Peters and the Sistene Chapel painted over to cover ‘private parts’? The Church has always defended the beauty in the human body when displayed with dignity.

Yes, authentic art, not propaganda or impure pop art.

This movie apparently does not paint a rosey picture about SSAers, it conveys the message the Church has defended all along - it’s destructive to all involved.

I do not get that from the review. It was nuanced to say the least.

Where did you get “gratuitous frontal nudity” from? That’s not in the review. THIS is what was said:

two **brief **sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations.

One of these reviews mentions bare breasts in some scene. I can’t recall which review.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Guess we’d have to define ‘trash’ to know.

Yes, and apparently from the reviewer at the USCCB it would be hard to discern.

 

[fix]

TPJCatholic:

fix,

Some movies should be banned, there is nothing wrong with banning things that are bad for the general public.

Please take that about with the posters who embrace the USCCB review.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

You imply some are calling for a censor. Why? They call for honesty and a more responsible review.

Actually, I think we all pretty much agreed some are calling for reviews solely on moral issues as opposed to artistic merit and/or moral issues…

and there, lies the real debate.

Should the USCCB review films on

moral issues
artistic merit
both
they shouldn’t be reviewing them at all.

 

[TPJCatholic]

fix,

I was merely making a comment.

 

[joyfulmess]

YinYangMom:

Again, see post #116

Consistent with regard to artistic merit and moral suitability, not on moral suitability alone.

Because the Church has always protected the arts. I take it you would want all nude paintings, sculptures in and around St. Peters and the Sistene Chapel painted over to cover ‘private parts’? The Church has always defended the beauty in the human body when displayed with dignity.

This movie apparently does not paint a rosey picture about SSAers, it conveys the message the Church has defended all along - it’s destructive to all involved.

Where did you get “gratuitous frontal nudity” from? That’s not in the review. THIS is what was said:

two **brief **sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations.

I agree the church has always defended the beauty in the human body with dignity…there is no dignity in 2 men nude bodies lusting after each other

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I was thinking the same thing when I read that people interpreted this review by the Bishops to be “glowing” and that they “love” the movie. I’m also struck by the diligence w/ which people keep trying to avoid the fact that this was done but keep changing the subject to whether or not it deserves an “L” or “O” rating.

I think the final rating is the central issue. Others may not agree, but if the reviewer said basically what he said, then made a point that it was an “O”, few would have complained as they are now.

Reasonable minds might also disagree on whether or not the review was too soft. Personally, I considered it factual, concise and very critical of the plot and subject matter. However, I don’t see how Catholics can stand by when lies are told about the Bishops.

I agree. I am all for pointing out the truth in all these matters.

 

[joyfulmess]

YinYangMom:

Actually, I think we all pretty much agreed some are calling for reviews solely on moral issues as opposed to artistic merit and/or moral issues…

and there, lies the real debate.

Should the USCCB review films on

moral issues
artistic merit
both
they shouldn’t be reviewing them at all.

**MORAL ISSUES ** THAT CONCERN OUR FAITH OTHERWISE FOR WHOSE BENEFIT ARE THEY REVIEWING FILMS FOR?

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Actually, I think we all pretty much agreed some are calling for reviews solely on moral issues as opposed to artistic merit and/or moral issues…

and there, lies the real debate.

Should the USCCB review films on

moral issues
artistic merit
both
they shouldn’t be reviewing them at all.

I think one poster made the point they should be looking at the morality of it.

 

[fix]

TPJCatholic:

fix,

I was merely making a comment.

I was not being flip.

 

[Orionthehunter]

TPJCatholic:

From everything I have read the movie should have been rated “O”, not “L.” Let us just be grateful that the reviwer gave it an “L” and not an A1.

I suppose some people would say that places feces on the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also art…yet to me it is gravely sinful.

Good point. But you have not seen the movie. Furthermore, the USCCB have created definitions of movies to be understood by people in different ways. Neither “L” or and “O” is an endorsement but their is a distinction. Distinction gives information. Giving information is good.

But ironic that people “think” it should be reviewed as “O” but haven’t seen the movie, haven’t entertained the idea that “L” also is a different and actually a more intelligent distinction of criticism (by criticizing the plot and subject matter) rather than the simplistic “O” that is usually used for movies that have primarily gratutitous sex and violence but still think it ok to condone telling lies about our Bishops.

 

[fix]

**MORAL ISSUES ** THAT CONCERN OUR FAITH OTHERWISE FOR WHOSE BENEFIT ARE THEY REVIEWING FILMS FOR?

Yes, that is a fair point. If they are simply art reviews with a tip of the hat to the moral issues as if they all balance out perfectly, why bother at all?

 

[YinYangMom]

TPJCatholic:

I suppose some people would say that places feces on the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also art…yet to me it is gravely sinful.

Gravely sinful for the artist, yes.

However, that is just another example of how God uses his artists even though they don’t know it.

On the surface a piece like that would be all Satan’s doing, but it’s quite possible the project started out as God’s work (selecting Mary),

Satan, as usual, takes advantage of the opening to do his manipulating (the feces **and **finding someone to display the work as ‘art’)

and yet God still retains the upper hand because the display results in a rally by all Christians in defense of their Mother. Rosaries get prayed (just think about the number of rosaries we’re talking about here and the impact that must have on the souls in purgatory, on our nation!), Mary gets placed in the forefront of many peoples’ minds and hearts who otherwise were forgetting about her.