S
stove
Guest
Sad to say but I agree. The Ads are coming now… Like this one found on beliefnet.com/
- Status
A
Arnobius
Guest
US Bishops asked to Fire Chief Film Critic over Glowing Reviews for “Brokeback” and “Compass”
“Bishops horrified at what has been done in their name”
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07120304.html
One can only hope…
“Bishops horrified at what has been done in their name”
lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07120304.html
One can only hope…
G
Graing
Guest
Arnobius beat me to it. The two men that write these reviews and work for the USCCB have done this before with “Brokeback Mountain”. There are many bishops who have come out and said that these two men should be fired. Don’t assume that our bishops share the opinion of these two “critics”. If they aren’t fired now, I will be frustrated.
The Book of Jude comes to mind.
The Book of Jude comes to mind.
T
tomarin
Guest
it appeared to me to be a thoughtful and informed review. at least the people who wrote the review have seen the movie, which is more than anyone else who is outraged about it can say.
T
tomarin
Guest
they’re still your bishops and as long as you’re catholic you should keep the tone of your criticism respectful, which you have failed to do in this post.
G
Graing
Guest
A nice superficial review with little concern about the motivation of the author. I may not have seen the movie - but I have read the author’s own words concerning his GOALS with the trilogy. I would think that a primary goal for our bishops - and their employees - would be to protect our children. When an author wants to draw young children into a fantasy tale then gradually destroy their belief system and “kill God”, the USCCB and their employees should be more cautious. In this case, maybe they were just being lazy and not researching the original material and its motivation enough. But based on the glowing review of “Brokeback Mountain”, I wouldn’t bet on it.
A
Arnobius
Guest
If someone made a movie about The Turner Diaries, would not people be right to be concerned about that fact, even if they “toned down” the racism within it?
Or more concretely, remember back in the late 80s and early 90s when there was a lot of anti-Japanese racism around, and Michael Creighton wrote the rather racist novel “Rising Sun.” The movie toned it down, but Japanese-Americans were still very alarmed by the publicity it gave to the claims of the book.
If the producers of the movie went out of the way to tone down the anti-Christian themes, it is good that they recognize this, but there is still a concern about the fact that the books themselves are claimed by the author himself to be about killing God.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
As the serpent told Eve, you’ll never know until you bite the apple.
S
stove
Guest
It is entirely possible that this is a wonderful film that really is in line with Christian morals and Catholic teaching. In fact, it is more than just possible, it is probable. We already know that the first book in this series is not very objectionable. We already know that it is a hook to get readers involved in the story. So they buy the second and third books which are increasing anti-religion/anti-Christian/anti-Catholic/anti-God and Pro Lucifer. Yes God is evil and Lucifer is good in this series.
There really is no debate about the fact that the books become progressively worse so it shouldn’t be hard to accept the fact that the same will hold true for the movies. The first movie serves the same purpose as the first book. They are a hook to lure viewers into this series.
That being said, some have stated that the movie should stand by itself and should be judged by its own merit. But this is faulty logic. The movie was made as the first part of a series of movies. A sequel is the expected result of the ending given, which is just like that of the books, an unfinished story.
Now, some may state that it is unfair to assume that the next movies in this series will be any more anti-Christian than this one is. They may say that the first movie was toned down, so the same may be true of the second and third movies as well. My response to that, is this: Even if it is possible to tone down the movies to a degree that would make them acceptable, I still think there are two good reasons that this film should be boycotted.
First, adolescents who watch and enjoy the movie will be more likely to purchase the books in the series, especially books 2 and 3. Think this is mere speculation? Consider: the Lord of the Rings books sold less than 1 million copies per year between 1965 and 2001. But after the release of the first film they sold 14 million copies in less than 2 years. (usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-12-12-lotr-main_x.htm)
Secondly, I don’t think that 1 cent of my money or any Christians money should go into the pocket of such an outspoken atheist and anti-Christian such as Pullman. And yes, the money that this movie takes in determines how much he will receive for the rights for his next two movies.
Thank you and God Bless,
In Jesus through Mary
Steve
T
tvdxer
Guest
An “A-III” movie is not necessarily more offensive than an “A-I” movie. An “A-III” movie simply isn’t suitable for children.
H
He_Man
Guest
I respectfully wish they’d retire, how’s that?
Give me a break; they do a disservice to God and the Catholic Church with some of garbage they pull. I will follow they lead theoligically, but every time they step outside that realm, they end up on the OPPOSITE end of the Vatican and common sense.
When the Catholic League is more fervent in its actions than the USCCB, you know you have problems.
T
tomarin
Guest
well, it is a capsule review, i’m not sure how much more in-depth it can get. nevertheless, the reviewers did address the controversy the books and the author’s statements have created.
but they aren’t writing a review of or passing judgement on the books the movie is based on (which i guess is what you find objectionable), they’re writing a capsule review of the movie itself, which it appears is somewhat different from (and less offensive than) the books.
i think they did the right thing by addressing directly the question of what is objectionable in the movie itself, which appears to be, very little.
T
tomarin
Guest
it’s the pope’s call on whether and when they retire. to some degree i think you’re calling into question his authority as well as that of the bishops by making the statement you made.
you have every right and even the duty to criticize church leaders when they are not teaching orthodoxy. but part of orthodoxy is recognizing the authority of the bishops and submitting to it gracefully. making sweeping generalizations about the “garbage they pull” without reference to anything specific is contrary to the respect you owe them as successors to the apostles.
if your hostility is in reference to the movie review, i’d say you’re over-reacting. if the source of it lies elsewhere, i wish you’d be explicit about it – then i could evaluate your statements in some kind of context. but to be in a continual, seething state of rebellion against the bishops is something you should probably talk to your parish priest about. i say this with all charity.
C
Contarini
Guest
Maybe the Catholic League is just a bunch of nuts?
Hey, if you can insult your own bishops, whom both of us believe to be successors of the Apostles, I can insult a lay-led organization that sets itself up as the Guardians of the Faith and discredits that same faith by its paranoia and cynical deployment of the silliest stratagems of political correctness.
Edwin
A
Arnobius
Guest
The Bishops do have authority and do needed to be treated with the respect of their office, even when we find their actions problematic.
However, the USCCB is not an authoritative or magisterial body, and their statements do not bind. So when Catholic Groups react with dismay over some of their ill judged decisions, they are not being bad Catholics, so long as they respect the office.
Let me clarify I do not support the Liberal or SSPX view of choosing what to believe and what not to of course. The individual bishops do need to be obeyed when they act in their role as bishop.
We should remember Canon 212
Can. 212 §1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
§2 Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
However, the USCCB is not an authoritative or magisterial body, and their statements do not bind. So when Catholic Groups react with dismay over some of their ill judged decisions, they are not being bad Catholics, so long as they respect the office.
Let me clarify I do not support the Liberal or SSPX view of choosing what to believe and what not to of course. The individual bishops do need to be obeyed when they act in their role as bishop.
We should remember Canon 212
Can. 212 §1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
§2 Christ’s faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
H
He_Man
Guest
And you think I mind that you post that, why? It really doesn’t bother me; we don’t even know each other. If that is what you think, so be it.
So you dislike the Catholic League; why would that matter to another anonymous poster on CA?
I respect the theological authority of the Bishops; I disagree with their positions and how they have handled many issues: the priest scandal, publicly pro-choice Catholic politicians, rampant sacaramental abuses that go unpunished, their one-sided and naive stance on the immigration issue in America (where they focus on one side out of many, charity for the poor only), angst over Motu Proprio, relative silence on issues that attack the faith in media; the list goes on and on.
So what’s the problem? I, and many other Catholics, feel as though the younger Priests are much more centered in on God’s desire for Catholics than many our of middle-aged Bishops, and that the Church won’t in fact get any better or stronger until these bishops are gone. None of which is illegal, or a sin, to my knowledge.
I am require to respect their authority; not like each of them personally.
We are also supposed to respect our priests as well, but there is no shortage of criticism when problems arise on here.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Since people are talking about the classifications used by the USCCB, I thought it might be helpful to post them:
I think it can be difficult for many of us lay people to appreciate the situation. The USCCB employs over 300 people in their various departments (which are made up of laity, priests, and religious). One of these offices - the Office for Film and Broadcasting - is responsible for movie reviews. It would be impossible for them to consult the bishops for every movie review. Each bishop has his own problems to worry about in his own diocese.
What is the appropriate response of an individual bishop if they disagree with a particular movie review? Is it really worth going to bat for with all the other issues going on? I know that I can tend towards being a media junky and often attribute much importance to books, movies, TV, etc., but I’m sure most bishops do not rank movie reviews very high on their list of priorities.
Even so, unless a bishop has both read the books and seen the movie (of which many bishops probably have not the time nor the desire to do), he would not have enough information to convincingly argue against the movie.
Now I haven’t read the books or the seen the movie, but from what I have heard, most people seem to say
(1) The book of The Golden Compass is the least offensive of the three books, and
(2) The movie of The Golden Compass has watered down many of the anti-Catholic statements found in the book.
Taking these two together, it seems reasonable to me that, “taken purely on its own cinematic terms” (as the review says) the movie “can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”
Now, I would tend to agree that many of the USCCB movie reviews can be off in certain respects. And I’m not saying it would be a bad thing for there to be different people in some of these positions. I just think we need to keep things in perspective.
I’m all for holding people accountable, but let’s be fair! I think if we spent as much time praying for our bishops as we do criticizing them, we would be a lot better off!
Change will come (and is coming!), but it doesn’t happen overnight. The bishops aren’t going to fire everyone at the USCCB in one fell swoop. That would kill the organization and probably not reflect well on the Catholic Church in the mind of the American public (and you would never get a majority of the bishops behind such a drastic decision). But many of the newer, younger bishops are very good. There are more and more younger people in diocesan positions as well, and these people tend to be more “traditional”. It may take some time for this to filter into the USCCB.
Wow, this turned into a much longer post than I thought it would. I hope it’s not too off topic!
I think the media often misrepresents things in order to be provocative. The bishops do not personally do movie reviews, nor are their reviews in any way intended to be infallible. I’m sure that’s obvious to most people here, but I say it anyway
I think it can be difficult for many of us lay people to appreciate the situation. The USCCB employs over 300 people in their various departments (which are made up of laity, priests, and religious). One of these offices - the Office for Film and Broadcasting - is responsible for movie reviews. It would be impossible for them to consult the bishops for every movie review. Each bishop has his own problems to worry about in his own diocese.
What is the appropriate response of an individual bishop if they disagree with a particular movie review? Is it really worth going to bat for with all the other issues going on? I know that I can tend towards being a media junky and often attribute much importance to books, movies, TV, etc., but I’m sure most bishops do not rank movie reviews very high on their list of priorities.
Even so, unless a bishop has both read the books and seen the movie (of which many bishops probably have not the time nor the desire to do), he would not have enough information to convincingly argue against the movie.
Now I haven’t read the books or the seen the movie, but from what I have heard, most people seem to say
(1) The book of The Golden Compass is the least offensive of the three books, and
(2) The movie of The Golden Compass has watered down many of the anti-Catholic statements found in the book.
Taking these two together, it seems reasonable to me that, “taken purely on its own cinematic terms” (as the review says) the movie “can be viewed as an exciting adventure story with a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism.”
Now, I would tend to agree that many of the USCCB movie reviews can be off in certain respects. And I’m not saying it would be a bad thing for there to be different people in some of these positions. I just think we need to keep things in perspective.
I’m all for holding people accountable, but let’s be fair! I think if we spent as much time praying for our bishops as we do criticizing them, we would be a lot better off!
Change will come (and is coming!), but it doesn’t happen overnight. The bishops aren’t going to fire everyone at the USCCB in one fell swoop. That would kill the organization and probably not reflect well on the Catholic Church in the mind of the American public (and you would never get a majority of the bishops behind such a drastic decision). But many of the newer, younger bishops are very good. There are more and more younger people in diocesan positions as well, and these people tend to be more “traditional”. It may take some time for this to filter into the USCCB.
Wow, this turned into a much longer post than I thought it would. I hope it’s not too off topic!
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
But if their name goes on it they are personally responsible for its content and its effects. Note that the Enron executives did not personally do all the financial statements either.. . The bishops do not personally do movie reviews, nor are their reviews in any way intended to be infallible. I’m sure that’s obvious to most people here, but I say it anyway
. . .
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That is certainly a valid point.
Do you think it is a pattern that the majority of movie reviews are off the mark, or is it just a few? I have seen mention of Brokeback Mountain and Golden Compass, but nothing else. If these are the only two they have goofed on, then their success rate would still be pretty high.
I take it to be a positive sign that they at least did take seriously the complaints about Brokeback Mountain and change the rating. They could have easily left it.
S
SamDash
Guest
Another embarrassment from the USCCB. Wish I could say I was surprised.
Even if true that the most vitriolic anti-Christian rhetoric has been removed (which I’m sure Hollywood would be business savvy enough to do), that’s hardly the point.
As has been noted, this is relatively the least offensive of the trilogy, which is hardly an accident. Get people roped into the story before hitting them with the angriest stuff. So, firstly, even if the movie is relatively innocuous, people will naturally want to read the book afterward, which is not innocuous.
Secondly, Hollywood obviously wants to make a trilogy of movies. Those movies would no doubt follow the books’ pattern of being progressively more anti-Christian. If this movie flops, those sequels won’t get made.
Plus, why help put money in the pocket of a man who is so virulently anti-Christian?
Even if true that the most vitriolic anti-Christian rhetoric has been removed (which I’m sure Hollywood would be business savvy enough to do), that’s hardly the point.
As has been noted, this is relatively the least offensive of the trilogy, which is hardly an accident. Get people roped into the story before hitting them with the angriest stuff. So, firstly, even if the movie is relatively innocuous, people will naturally want to read the book afterward, which is not innocuous.
Secondly, Hollywood obviously wants to make a trilogy of movies. Those movies would no doubt follow the books’ pattern of being progressively more anti-Christian. If this movie flops, those sequels won’t get made.
Plus, why help put money in the pocket of a man who is so virulently anti-Christian?
- Status