SanFrancisco bishop Thinks Gay Propaganda Film Brokeback Mountain is "Very Powerful"

[frommi]

estesbob:

Now what more do we need to kow about him?

The pope appointed him

 

[estesbob]

frommi:

The pope appointed him

So that makes him above criticism? Are you saying we can not discuss the actions of any Bishop since all of them were appointed by the Pope?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

estesbob:

So that makes him above criticism? Are you saying we can not discuss the actions of any Bishop since all of them were appointed by the Pope?

As my Father-in-Law used to say of classical music he didn’t like, "I don’t blame the one who wrote it; I blame the one who chose to play it."

Does that put the bishop ablove criticism, or is it criticism of the pope who chose him?

 

[UtahMaggie]

estesbob:

So that makes him above criticism? Are you saying we can not discuss the actions of any Bishop since all of them were appointed by the Pope?

We can discuss their actions and criticize them (that’s been obvious on this thread). But how about giving Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he’s doing when he appointed the bishop to San Francisco.

 

[estesbob]

UtahMaggie:

We can discuss their actions and criticize them (that’s been obvious on this thread). But how about giving Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he’s doing when he appointed the bishop to San Francisco.

The Archbishop let him down. A lot of American Catholic Bishops have been doing that in the last few years. They ought to put Archbishop Chaput in San Francisco. I can think of many terms he might use to describe Brokeback mountain but "powerful"is not one of them.

 

[frommi]

estesbob:

The Archbishop let him down. A lot of American Catholic Bishops have been doing that in the last few years. They ought to put Archbishop Chaput in San Francisco. I can think of many terms he might use to describe Brokeback mountain but "powerful"is not one of them.

They are both bishops.

And I don’t think he’s above criticism, but you should really assume that the pope knows plenty about him and his writings.

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

Good point - perhaps the only people who are the slightest qualified here, are those who were under his direction when he was Bishop in Utah - I know of one person here who was, and so far, they have defended the bishop to a great extent - that has to say something.

A person does not have to be under his direction in order to provide qualified criticism. Public statements are just that - public. BTW, I suppose that the publication that was interviewing him is only for those within the diocese to read?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

Has anyone read his book either, or is it the case that everyone here has chosen to simply condemn this man without knowing the slightest bit about him?

I am not condemning the bishop; I am criticizing his approach to how he handled the interview.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

I would believe so too, but then again Paul was preaching at a very different time, this much more stern attitude was vital, now, it does not work as well, people who don’t want to hear it, simply ignore it.

And people are different now than then? The same problems were going on in Corinth and elsewhere as are going on now. And people’s reactions and responses are much the same. Some will heed the call and repent in response to God’s love and mercy. Others will thumb their noses at the message. The same occurs both then and now.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[Joe_Kelley]

frommi:

They are both bishops.

And I don’t think he’s above criticism, but you should really assume that the pope knows plenty about him and his writings.

That I do.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

miguel:

Not for one moment did I think you were entertaining that possibility.
I realize that. Libero’s response to your question should have been a simple no. I am highly suspicious of people who can’t answer a simple question. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. NONE. It is also a criminal act.

Thank you for clearing that up and excuse me for misunderstanding your post.

 

[UtahMaggie]

irenaeus1:

I am not condemning the bishop; I am criticizing his approach to how he handled the interview.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

He said it was “very powerful” and it was. He didn’t say he agreed with or condoned homosexuality actions.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

UtahMaggie:

He said it was “very powerful” and it was. He didn’t say he agreed with or condoned homosexuality actions.

Dear Maggie,

I still don’t think it was wise that he commented on a pro-homosexual movie to a reporter who covers gay and lesbian issues. The fact that the bishop made the statement “very powerful” it makes sense that people especially gays would interpret it as being a positive statement about the movie. I feel the bishop could have used the interview as an opportunity to talk about the church teachings on homosexuality. Who knows maybe the bishop did just that but the reporter omitted it from the article. If a reporter has an agenda the article will be slanted in the way he wants it to go. This could be the case here in which case the bishop needs to be more careful the next time he grants an interview with a reporter.

 

[MikeWM]

GloriaPatri4:

The fact that the bishop made the statement “very powerful” it makes sense that people especially gays would interpret it as being a positive statement about the movie.

Which is wrong, why? The movie showed some of the challenges and difficulties faced by people who are homosexual. That is something we need a greater understanding of in order to fulfil our Catechism obligation to treat homosexuals with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’.

Mike

 

[estesbob]

MikeWM:

Which is wrong, why? The movie showed some of the challenges and difficulties faced by people who are homosexual. That is something we need a greater understanding of in order to fulfil our Catechism obligation to treat homosexuals with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’.

Mike

If that was his purpose he should have follwed it up and put his remark in some context. The San Fransicio hommosexual community took it as a sign of support. as you can see in this thread many commited Catholics took the remark the same way.

I have a problem with him even meeting with a publication that promotes a sinful lifestyle. Should he next meet with the publshers of NAMBLA;s newsletter? How about an S&M magazine?

 

[setter]

MikeWM:

Which is wrong, why? The movie showed some of the challenges and difficulties faced by people who are homosexual. **That is something we need ** a greater understanding of in order to fulfil our Catechism obligation to treat homosexuals with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’.

Mike

I just don’t understand how infidelity of heart, mind and body to one’s maritial vows in the face of competing sexual desires is all that unique to persons identifying a primary SSA and is necessary to treat such persons with “respect, compassion and sensitivity”. You can just as easily insert “persons identifying a primary O(opposite) SA” who are no more deserving of merit for nurturing and choosing sin based on a sexual attraction. We all have our crosses to bear, it is how one responds to grace that is important. Fidelity, fortitude, temperance, prudence, …these are all non-discrimatory universal virtues free to everyone’s choosing and nurturing, regardless of primary sexual orientation or state in life.

 

[Libero]

The Bishop met with a publication that promotes and ecourages a sinful lifestyle. The fact he gave this interview to such a publication shows poor judgement to say the least. During his interview he never once criticizes the sinful behavior the publication promotes and when asked about a movie that centers on homosexual behavior all he can say is it it “powerful”

Now what more do we need to kow about him?

ALOT!! I can relate this topic to when people on this forum were attacking Cardinal Murphy O’Connor about his response to the pope’s document regarding homosexual seminarians. Every single British person - or those under his jurisdiction - came to defend the Cardinal, yet those who had the smallest knowledge of the man seemed to be the ones criticising him.

The San Francisco Chronicle does not really promote the lifestyle either, it merely addresses it without putting it’s own viewpoint in - it is not a gay newspaper.

Does it not occur to anyone else that attacking Hollywood will probably only cause more damage than acheive good.

What good do you think that the Archbishop would acheive by attacking the film, or what it stands for? What great feats would be accomplished by the bishop going of on a tangent and having a rant?

 

[Libero]

A person does not have to be under his direction in order to provide qualified criticism. Public statements are just that - public. BTW, I suppose that the publication that was interviewing him is only for those within the diocese to read?

Well, it would be if it were not for modern technology - it is a San Francisco newspaper, not a national one.

 

[UtahMaggie]

GloriaPatri4:

Dear Maggie,

I still don’t think it was wise that he commented on a pro-homosexual movie to a reporter who covers gay and lesbian issues. The fact that the bishop made the statement “very powerful” it makes sense that people especially gays would interpret it as being a positive statement about the movie. I feel the bishop could have used the interview as an opportunity to talk about the church teachings on homosexuality. Who knows maybe the bishop did just that but the reporter omitted it from the article. If a reporter has an agenda the article will be slanted in the way he wants it to go. This could be the case here in which case the bishop needs to be more careful the next time he grants an interview with a reporter.

And I’m saying to be patient and see what he has to say when he addresses the issue directly and not by discussing a film. You can’t change the past. Some are saying “He should have said…he shouldn’t have said…” Whatever it is you disagree with, it’s in the past and can’t be changed now. I’m sure the issue of homosexuality will be brought up in the future. Be patient and wait to see what he says at that time.

 

[Libero]

The Archbishop let him down. A lot of American Catholic Bishops have been doing that in the last few years. They ought to put Archbishop Chaput in San Francisco. I can think of many terms he might use to describe Brokeback mountain but "powerful"is not one of them.

But what would he acheive, other than most probably scaring alot of homosexuals away? I have to say, I prefer the new Archbishops approach “the softy softy approach” but it probably doesn’t appeal to everyone - one thing I shall not deny