Malone calls on fellow bishops to oppose ‘Fifty Shades’ film

[Jeanne_S]

Any time the Church comes out full force against a movie or anything related to popular culture, it only serves to cause people who, otherwise wouldn’t have gone to see it, to come out in droves. Billy Joel said that when he released the single Only The Good Die Young, it peaked at 63 on the charts and started to fall until a Catholic bishop started calling for the song to be banned. And do you know what happened? It went all the way to number 1.

Do you not also think that our shepherds should also warn us about using the internet, since it too can present a “moral danger to the flock?” I can promise you that you can find things on the internet that make 50 Shades of Grey look like a children’s book.

You keep falling back on the same tired,weak argument…
Have you ever read or studied the Virtues?
Prudence,Temperance are a few that come to mind .For those who don’t feel the need to go there re any book or movie that in their " prudential judgement" ,would offend God,by indulging in their desires ,is part of living a virtuous life,which draws us to holiness.
It really is that simple.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’ve read it. It’s terrible on so. Many. Levels. Want me to go into details? I could write an entire book myself just on about how bad FSOG is.

People here, especially people who are sensitive about sex and violence, should not have to read or watch it to know it’s bad. There are more than enough reviews that explain how it is morally objectionable.

I only read the piece of garbage to gain a better understanding of why it’s such a sensation. And you know what my conclusion was? Our society is dysfunctional. It’s the only logical explanation. Nothing this sophomoric, this poorly researched, this poorly written, this emotionally stunted, this psychologically wrecked, could gain meteoric popularity without a societal-level dysfunction.

Please let me know if you need me to go on, about any aspect of how bad FSOG is.

Thanks for taking one for the team. I was contemplating reading it so I could discuss it “intelligently” but now I don’t have to.

Timothysis, I don’t know if you are including or excluding me regarding reading the book. I’ve read parts; the writing was awful. Do I have to read the whole thing to know it’s bad? I was reading some fan fiction recently and after four chapters threw in the towel. The characters were supposed to be IC but I couldn’t hear their voices. But more over, the story was so contrived that I couldn’t stand it. Should I have read the whole thing before deciding it wasn’t worth my time? I didn’t even read the last chapter to find out what happened. I didn’t care.

I agree with you that most people on this board don’t have any idea what BDSM is but even if they did most would not support it. The relationship in the book/movie is abusive or at least unhealthy, and portrays an unrealistic/idealistic picture of relationships as do most romance novels. And the “BDSM” portrayed in the movie (and book) is not authentic according to people in the scene. They seem to be welcoming the opportunity to set things straight in articles I’ve skimmed.

 

[Havard]

The fact that you’ve actually read the book gives you the right to criticize and condemn it. I don’t have a problem with that. As I said before, is it really such a radical idea that someone should read something before they call it “trash” and “garbage” and disparage everything about it.

Honestly, a quick excerpt could tell you all you need to know about it. It’s not like you have to try hard to cherrypick the bad bits. The whole thing is bad bits.

To tell you the truth, I don’t have an idea what the book is about but I do know that there are many celebrated works, The Bridges of Madison County comes to mind, that deal with subject matters that people here deem to be morally objectionable. Should we also include murder mysteries on the list? What about westerns where we cheer on the bad guy? Just how far are we supposed to go in condemning a work because it has elements that we define as morally objectionable?

This book isn’t in the same league as any of your examples. You’re talking about books with good writing or positive elements mixed with objectionable elements. This is a book that, to be quite honest, I’m not sure has any positive elements.

And did it cause you to turn to a life of sin?

No, unless you count being tempted to call up E.L. James and go off on her for making abusive relationships sexy/chic. I was well able to read the book without being turned on for a wide number of reasons, not the least of which because I am, thankfully, turned off by abusive, dysfunctional relationships. But further, it wasn’t written with a male audience in mind, the writing was laughably bad, and the characters weren’t appealing in any way. So no danger there.

The same could be said about the song Louie Louie or the “classic” tv show Leave It To Beaver or any number of examples from popular culture.

Read the book then. I’m interested in hearing you might think they’re comparable.

My position all along has never been one to defend the book from bad reviews or criticism but to highlight the lack of intellectualism in condemning something that so many posters haven’t even read (and relying on a good friend’s opinion, even though she’s a “good” Catholic doesn’t suffice). Why this is so radical to people here is beyond me. I suppose that it isn’t surprising since this forum has turned in to little more than people asking if everything they do is a sin or whether World War II was a “just” war. Even during the days of the Index of Forbidden Books you could be assured that if something was placed on the list, the proper authorities at least had the intellectual wherewithal to have actually read and researched the book in question before condemning it, something that seems to be anathema to so many here. If that position offends any here, then I sincerely apologize but I also shake my head while doing it.

The problem is that there is only one side to this argument. There isn’t anyone claiming it’s not a reworked Twilight fan-fic of the BDSM erotica variety, or “mommy porn” with bondage. The people who like it admit that that is exactly what it is. They only argue that it’s a good example of said genre. But saying it could be good is like saying “this porno could be good”… you have to believe porn can be good at all to make that statement.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I see this as a waste of time and effort. There are far more profound amoral issues than this film which is apparently so bad that the critics have been restrained from even seeing it. It is amusing that the feminists have been upset by it considering that they think murder of the unborn and prevention of life through artificial contraception are rational choices. Amoral idiots.
The gay agenda that used to be a minority and trivial issue has been so prevalent that that distracts us from the breakdown of marriage and the eradication of masculinity. This will result in the destruction of society over a period of time. I think the Bishop would be better off preaching about adultery than focusing on a film which will be critically panned and then discarded in the same way that “sex in the city” and all the other cognitively challenged rubbish was. Anyone remember “9 1/2 weeks” with Mickey Rourke? Nope. See?

 

[pnewton]

My position all along has never been one to defend the book from bad reviews or criticism but to highlight the lack of intellectualism in condemning something that so many posters haven’t even read (and relying on a good friend’s opinion, even though she’s a “good” Catholic doesn’t suffice).

Does one have to worship Baal to know that the worship of Baal is bad? Does one have to stumble over a cliff to heed the road sign warning of a steep turn ahead? I understand what you are saying, but reviews that have read it give enough *specifics *that anyone of us can make a reasonable determination of whether we should subject ourselves to it. I do not have to see the movie to know I do not want to see any movie composed of 20% sexual situation scenes, sexual gratification that degrades women, or any other number of specifics we can know of a movie before seeing it.

On a personal note, my wife called to see if she could have a night free for a girl’s night out at the movie. I asked the title and she told me it was this movie. I told her what it was about and she declined the night. She called back later thanking me for the head’s up after she read more about the movie.

“Gray is the Devil’s favorite color” - Peter Kreeft

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Does one have to worship Baal to know that the worship of Baal is bad? Does one have to stumble over a cliff to heed the road sign warning of a steep turn ahead? I understand what you are saying, but reviews that have read it give enough *specifics *that anyone of us can make a reasonable determination of whether we should subject ourselves to it. I do not have to see the movie to know I do not want to see any movie composed of 20% sexual situation scenes, sexual gratification that degrades women, or any other number of specifics we can know of a movie before seeing it.

On a personal note, my wife called to see if she could have a night free for a girl’s night out at the movie. I asked the title and she told me it was this movie. I told her what it was about and she declined the night. She called back later thanking me for the head’s up after she read more about the movie.

“Gray is the Devil’s favorite color” - Peter Kreeft

It’s actually “Grey” if you’re quoting Peter Kreeft. HTH

 

[Timothysis]

I see this as a waste of time and effort. There are far more profound amoral issues than this film which is apparently so bad that the critics have been restrained from even seeing it… I think the Bishop would be better off preaching about adultery than focusing on a film which will be critically panned and then discarded in the same way that “sex in the city” and all the other cognitively challenged rubbish was. Anyone remember “9 1/2 weeks” with Mickey Rourke? Nope. See?

Bingo. So much fury over a stupid book and movie, yet for some reason people here think it to be the worst moral outrage of the day.

 

[Timothysis]

I understand what you are saying…

Then why the silly examples of Baal and driving off a cliff in your post? I am simply saying that for the moral majority here to denounce and condemn something without reading it, or using such childish terms as “trash,” “garbage” or “filth” to describe it* without even reading it * seems to be contrary to the Catholic practice of understanding a subject intellectually and then determining where it falls in regards to faith or morals. For the life of me, I can’t understand why this is so radical. It makes me wonder how many here would support a book burning of titles that are deemed to be “trash.”

Look, I have no interest in the book or movie and I could care less about the BDSM lifestyle/culture but I do have enough intellectual honesty (which seems to be an amusing thought to some here) to actually know about something if I’m going to condemn it. My brother and I argued about the Ben Stein movie Expelled. He falsely attributed things to Ben Stein that was not in the movie. I asked him if he had seen it and he replied, “no, but I’ve read about it on a website.” To which I replied that he was completely mistaken about it and that if he wanted to discuss it, then he needed to watch the movie! But according to some here, it is perfectly acceptable to base your personal opinion on something by reading postings of what other people said. Perhaps that works for some, but not for me.

 

[Timothysis]

Thanks for taking one for the team. I was contemplating reading it so I could discuss it “intelligently” but now I don’t have to.

So, if you didn’t read it, how does that square with this:

I’ve read parts; the writing was awful. Do I have to read the whole thing to know it’s bad?

66% of the reviews on Amazon give the book at least 3 stars, with 46% giving it 5 stars. Now, should we just ignore those nearly 20,000 reviews or simply take your word that it was “awful?”

 

[Timothysis]

It depends on any given individual to exercise discernment on what they want to read to watch. If they decide if FSOG is not worth reading, it is up to them. Who cares what some random person on the internet thinks about it?

I have decides not to read or watch FSOG based on what others who have read it have told me. So Timothysis says my objection is not good enough or intellectual enough. Honestly, I don’t care.

I perfectly respect your decision to not read the book. Unless I have missed it, you haven’t been speaking from a supposed position of authority to others about what the book is or isn’t when you haven’t read it yourself. That is all I am saying. I can’t for the life of me understand why so many think that bizarre.

 

[Timothysis]

I
I’ve never seen an episode of the tv show The Walking Dead. Are you seriously arguing that I can’t make a statement about the show along the lines of “the show is about zombies”??? EVERYONE acknowledges the show is about that.

If that is all you can say about the show, then you haven’t really describe much about it, have you?

Can you similarly reduce a 514 page book into the same simple type sentence?

 

[Jeanne_S]

I perfectly respect your decision to not read the book. Unless I have missed it, you haven’t been speaking from a supposed position of authority to others about what the book is or isn’t when you haven’t read it yourself. That is all I am saying. I can’t for the life of me understand why so many think that bizarre.

Really?How is Sarcelle’s decision to not read this book any different than mime or others’ decision? Just curious…

 

[Bruised_Reed]

So, if you didn’t read it, how does that square with this:

66% of the reviews on Amazon give the book at least 3, with 46% giving it 5 stars. Now, should we just ignore those nearly 20,000 reviews or simply take your word that it was “awful?”

In my previous posts I mentioned I read excerpts online and read through a couple pages of the book. I do a bit of reading and can get a feel for the writing in a few paragraphs. I can’t read everything and recommendations are usually off so I need to choose my own reading and need to make selections quickly. The part I read from the book directly had no sexual content but the dialog was so stilted I had to laugh.

 

[Timothysis]

Really?How is Sarcelle’s decision to not read this book any different than mime or others’ decision? Just curious…

Because Sarcelle isn’t saying that their friend said “this” about it or that their sister said “that” about it and pronounces it to be “trash” or “garbage” sight unseen. He (or she, I’m not really sure) simply said, “I heard what it’s about and I’m not interested.” Bravo.

I’ve mentioned Bill O’Reilly’s book about Jesus before. I haven’t read it, don’t care to, either. And that is based on my experience of watching O’Reilly for years. But I did not care for the people who condemned his book without reading it based on different things he said at different times, on different subjects and different topics. The vast majority of people who condemned his book hadn’t even read it! The people in the thread who did actually read it said they enjoyed it very much and that it wasn’t what others were saying about it. So whose position should carry more weight; those who read it or those who didn’t? Opinions are as common as elbows but not all of them are correct.

 

[Timothysis]

In my previous posts I mentioned I read excerpts online and read through a couple pages of the book. I do a bit of reading and can get a feel for the writing in a few paragraphs. I can’t read everything and recommendations are usually off so I need to choose my own reading and need to make selections quickly. The part I read from the book directly had no sexual content but the dialog was so stilted I had to laugh.

So, you read excerpts and a couple of pages but because you do a “bit” of reading you can judge a book by it’s proverbial cover?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Because Sarcelle isn’t saying that their friend said “this” about it or that their sister said “that” about it and pronounces it to be “trash” or “garbage” sight unseen. He (or she, I’m not really sure) simply said, “I heard what it’s about and I’m not interested.” Bravo.

I’ve mentioned Bill O’Reilly’s book about Jesus before. I haven’t read it, don’t care to, either. And that is based on my experience of watching O’Reilly for years. But I did not care for the people who condemned his book without reading it based on different things he said at different times, on different subjects and different topics. The vast majority of people who condemned his book hadn’t even read it! The people in the thread who did actually read it said they enjoyed it very much and that it wasn’t what others were saying about it. So whose position should carry more weight; those who read it or those who didn’t? Opinions are as common as elbows but not all of them are correct.

ok ,if that’s all that is bothering you,then let me rephrase my statement.
I heard from a close friend what the book was about,based on her very apt critique,I determined it was trash and decided not to read it!There ,how 's that!?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Your statement, "Certainly, one has to read a piece of academic literature before she/he can criticize it and even some works of fiction" nicely sums up my position.

50 shades of grey isn’t a piece of academic literature so it don’t merit the same privileges as academic literature. By academic literature, I mean what can be found in respected academic journals or books written within certain intellectually respected genres such as philosophy, history, etc. 50 Shades of Grey falls within the genre of erotica. Its porn.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

So, you read excerpts and a couple of pages but because you do a “bit” of reading you can judge a book by it’s proverbial cover?

Yeah.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

In my previous posts I mentioned I read excerpts online and read through a couple pages of the book. I do a bit of reading and can get a feel for the writing in a few paragraphs. I can’t read everything and recommendations are usually off so I need to choose my own reading and need to make selections quickly. The part I read from the book directly had no sexual content but the dialog was so stilted I had to laugh.

That’s plenty!

It makes Dan Brown seem Shakespearean

 

[Timothysis]

ok ,if that’s all that is bothering you,then let me rephrase my statement.
I heard from a close friend what the book was about,based on her very apt critique,I determined it was trash and decided not to read it!There ,how 's that!?

Fine, except for this: “I determined it was trash.” You may not be interested in the book or the topic, but unless you’ve actually read it how can you determine that it is trash? It is akin to someone saying “I don’t listen to Led Zeppelin because I heard their music is satanic.” Well, it isn’t and if the person took the time to listen they would realize that. Its called being prejudicial;"* leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion "*