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

[setter]

Balance:

setter:

the Church gives more than tacit approval of films that show actions and behaviours that do disservice to the dignity of the human person - have a read of this link

www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2572

which is a list of 45 films that the Vatican reccomends - films that include scenes of fornication, profanity and violence.

more than tacit approval - positive recommendation. Because stories like these are good for humanity, good for the human soul.

Brokeback Mountain may fit into this category or it may not - point is, the fact that it shows homosexual relationships doesn’t neccessarily rule it out - it may still be “powerful” and valuable.
What Catholic viewer discretion cautions did this bishop actually give in his public “review recommendation” positive endorsement of this movie. Othewrwise, your comparison is erroneous.

 

[Libero]

I actually enjoy that part. Typically, they take a position, well thought out IMO, and they don’t back down. Readers attempting to criticize, better use clear logic, or they’ll be shot down…kind of like Simon shooting down singers who can’t sing…brutally honest…but that’s showbiz.

He is so mean!!! - There was one week on it here, when he was being really nice, it is strange though

 

[MikeWM]

setter:

But what to do when a bishop publically endorses a film based on it’s lessons to be learned, while at the same time failing to comment, or offer critque, to the uncontested immoral backdrop in which the primary characters are engaged. The Church does teach that SSA is an intrinsically disordered desire that is a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. I feel that this is a derelict of duty for a person in his position of influence.

It seems pretty much a given to me. There really can’t be many people out there who are unaware of the Church’s position on homosexuality, surely? Should he mention every tenent of the faith every time he says anything?

Mike

 

[fix]

MikeWM:

It seems pretty much a given to me. There really can’t be many people out there who are unaware of the Church’s position on homosexuality, surely? Should he mention every tenent of the faith every time he says anything?

Mike

It would be a good idea to mention it when he is talking to the “gay” issues reporter about a “gay” movie and other “gay” things. Then again, why bother with details.

 

[Libero]

It would be a good idea to mention it when he is talking to the “gay” issues reporter about a “gay” movie and other “gay” things. Then again, why bother with details.

That does sound like a bit of a callous comment, it almost insinuates something that I am not going to pursue. The Pope has said that he appointed this bishop, because he knew that he would be capable with engaging well with the GLBT community in SF - that will involve talking about such issues, if you think you could do a better job that His Grace the bishop, then you should have done something about it - ?

 

[fix]

Libero:

That does sound like a bit of a callous comment, it almost insinuates something that I am not going to pursue. The Pope has said that he appointed this bishop, because he knew that he would be capable with engaging well with the GLBT community in SF - that will involve talking about such issues, if you think you could do a better job that His Grace the bishop, then you should have done something about it - ?

My comment was in response to the poster who said that a bishop should not have to state Church teaching every time he discusses some topic. I pointly mentioned that this bishop was talking to a reporter who covers “gay and lesbian” issues exclusively and the questions, as reported, were about “gay” issues and that “gay” movie. Why on earth should any bishop not bring up Church teaching when talking about such issues?

Your post is lost on me as I am missing your insinuation?

 

[Libero]

Your post is lost on me as I am missing your insinuation?

Oh it will just be me imagining things then, I have been couked up inside all day - beginning to get cranky.

As for why he wouldn’t want to bring up church issues, he has just been accepted into office, he probably doesn’t want to seem like a raging old conservative man in a very liberal diocese. It would be important not to, if he wants to benefit the community.

 

[setter]

Libero:

That does sound like a bit of a callous comment, it almost insinuates something that I am not going to pursue.

Pointing out the irony of the context of the good bishop’s comments is now considered callous?

 

[setter]

Libero:

As for why he wouldn’t want to bring up church issues, … It would be important not to, if he wants to benefit the community.

This is an interesting take. Not a good prescription for pastorally forming the faith of the flock entrusted to his care.

 

[fix]

setter:

This is an interesting take. Not a good prescription for pastorally forming the faith of the flock entrusted to his care.

Preach it when it will not stir up too much trouble or make one uneasy? The new Gospel?

 

[Libero]

This is an interesting take. Not a good prescription for pastorally forming the faith of the flock entrusted to his care.

I think it is - it is called being friendly, he can take care of the people of his see, and once he has actually shown he truly cares for them, then he can start teaching them (if you shall forgive the generalisations).

 

[setter]

Libero:

I think it is - it is called being friendly, he can take care of the people of his see, and once he has actually shown he truly cares for them, then he can start teaching them (if you shall forgive the generalisations).

The implication being that one cannot be both “friendly” (user friendly) and offer pastoral guidance in pertinent matters of faith and morals until he first wins the approval of the people? I will repeat myself, not a good prescription for pastorally forming the faith of the flock entrusted to his care, IMHO.

BTW – Let’s hope that this is not the case:

“But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, …” 1 Corinthians 3:1-2

 

[frommi]

I think woven in all of this is worry on the part of some that if this is the type of bishop that B16 would personally appoint, that perhaps he himself is more ‘pastoral’ than some had hoped.

 

[miguel]

frommi:

I think woven in all of this is worry on the part of some that if this is the type of bishop that B16 would personally appoint, that perhaps he himself is more ‘pastoral’ than some had hoped.

Speaking of pastoral:

John 10:11-15
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep, And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.

 

[Libero]

The implication being that one cannot be both “friendly” (user friendly) and offer pastoral guidance in pertinent matters of faith and morals until he first wins the approval of the people? I will repeat myself, not a good prescription for pastorally forming the faith of the flock entrusted to his care, IMHO.

It is evident that the people who are being referred to, are not going to listen to one who merely goes into their diocese, and just tells them to change (even if it is in a friendly manner) - maybe this is where the church has failed before, maybe that is why B16 chose to install this bishop? When attempting to “convert” someone into fully believeing in Catholicism, one has to be tactical, as not to scare people away, as, lets face it, Catholicism can appear to be scary.

The people in SF (or those in question) will not want a bishop who treats them as one - and merely thinks that a homosexual is a homosexual, but rather a bishop who will treat them with compassion, love, dignity, and respect. In attempting to do this, deciding not to attack the homosexual community on the day of your installation is probably a good decision.

 

[miguel]

more on pastoral…

Mathew 18:11-14
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and goeth to seek that which is gone astray? And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

 

[setter]

Libero:

The people in SF (or those in question) will not want a bishop who treats them as one - and merely thinks that a homosexual is a homosexual, but rather a bishop who will treat them with compassion, love, dignity, and respect. In attempting to do this, deciding not to attack the homosexual community on the day of your installation is probably a good decision.

I guess I didn’t expect him to lay down the gauntlet at his installation …but now that I think about it …

 

[GloriaPatri4]

miguel:

Hey fix, this is what the NOR had to say in their current issue:

The latest outrage is Benedict’s appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly “gay”-friendly. He pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large “gay” congregation, where he said that homosexuals are “wonderful.” As Bishop of Salt Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.” He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports “tolerance” for homosexuals. Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnett, head of Dignity-USA, and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry – both groups being comprised of proud “gay” and lesbian Catholics.
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0206-editorial

Are you a subscriber yet?

He was the pastor of St. Victor’s parish.

saintvictor.org/home.html

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I can’t imagine a priest or bishop going to the theaters for such a movie. Or any other Catholic for that matter. Perhaps the golden days of cinema truly are gone…

 

[Liberalsaved]

I can’t imagine a priest or bishop going to the theaters for such a movie. Or any other Catholic for that matter. Perhaps the golden days of cinema truly are gone…

HA! As a movie buff, let me tell you; the golden days of cinema are a myth. The classics are fondly remembered, but there were plenty of dreadful movies made, as well. It’s been that way ever since movies were invented. The subject matter of a film does not determine it’s quality, and for every Citizen Kane and casablanca and Chinatown, there were five, no, better make that ten, banal and repetitive films put out to appeal to our basest flights of fantasy and in so doing make a quick buck. You just don’t hear about those films anymore because, to put it simply, they aren’t Strangers on a Train or The Searchers. They aren’t good.