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

[Libero]

If a bishop or any member of the clergy granted an interview with a reporter from Nambla on a movie about man boy love relationships and calling the movie “Very Powerful” would that not be in someway enabling?

That would be scary - I thought NAMBLA were pretty much defunct now.

A message can be powerful without it being a good, or an acceptable message.

The holocaust could be interpreted as a message, I would consider it one, a message of how corrupted the human can be, one that shows, as Golding would say “The darkness of mans heart”. The message of the holocaust is powerful, but that in no way shows that I support the “Final Soultion” - I do not endorse anti semitism and disgusting violence in branding the message powerful.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

GloriaPatri4:

If a bishop or any member of the clergy granted an interview with a reporter from Nambla on a movie about man boy love relationships and calling the movie “Very Powerful” would that not be in someway enabling?

That’s rather what I thought: why isn’t the bishop or someone working for him investigating (with a call or a google) the mag or periodical BEFORE he gives an interview to said mag/periodical? Even if bishop upholds every Church teaching to the utmost in an interview with Playboy, isn’t one left wondering why a Catholic bishop is giving an interview TO Playboy?

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Libero:

That would be scary - I thought NAMBLA were pretty much defunct now.

Last time I checked and thanks to the ACLU Nambla is still going strong nambla.org/ .

Libero:

A message can be powerful without it being a good, or an acceptable message.

Libero:

The holocaust could be interpreted as a message, I would consider it one, a message of how corrupted the human can be, one that shows, as Golding would say “The darkness of mans heart”. The message of the holocaust is powerful, but that in no way shows that I support the “Final Soultion” - I do not endorse anti semitism and disgusting violence in branding the message powerful.

Yes, but I think you would see it very differently if a Neo Nazi/White Supremist reporter writing for a Neo Nazi publication got that statement as a result from an interview he had with a bishop.

 

[estesbob]

Libero:

That is clearly your attitude. But ask yourself, would Jesus treat one who is in sin without love and respect. Would he treat them like a lesser being because they are flawed?

I would like to think not, and I shall not be changing that attitude. Jesus would not, and his representatives should certainly not.

The catechism is useful, but it is not that useful. It is a book, it is merely words on paper, it does not show the true love of Christ, and that is very necessary for one to change (sometimes) - when words fail to show this, then it is down to the bishops.

Its not my attitude-its the teachngs of the Church. And the greatest act of love you can show people engaging in homosexual behavior is point out to the inherent evil of what they are doing.

 

[estesbob]

MikeWM:

I’m not sure we should go down the route of whether homosexuality is ‘natural’ or not and whether that makes it a sin or not. It is a common, and understandable, point of attack by non-Catholics on Catholic teaching on this matter.

Nevertheless, I have never seen an official teaching of the Church that states that people aren’t born homosexual, but ‘acquire’ it somehow. I don’t believe there is one. I don’t think the Church has a position on it.

Mike

They dont. The Church says (correctly so, IMO) that it doesnt matter.

 

[goofyjim]

estesbob:

They dont. The Church says (correctly so, IMO) that it doesnt matter.

Agreed. I felt the SSA since early childhood but knew it was wrong to act on it just as it was wrong to for a heterosexual person to have sex outside of marriage. I’ve been turned off by secular society very much in my life. Can someone find me a cave to crawl in to?

 

[estesbob]

goofyjim:

Agreed. I felt the SSA since early childhood but knew it was wrong to act on it just as it was wrong to for a heterosexual person to have sex outside of marriage. I’ve been turned off by secular society very much in my life. Can someone find me a cave to crawl in to?

Dont know of a cave but i do know a great Church!

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

Cases of child abuse are usually unique, few are the same as others. I would not want to generalise or attempt to brand my own personal thoughts on to such a huge matter, we have to look at the issue from a number of different angles, including what affect the issue has had on the child. That aside, this is not the appropriate place to be discussing the matter of child abuse, should you wish to, start a new thread, or feel free to PM me

First it was the issue of consent; now it is the issue of uniqueness. You are completely missing the point. The issue is sexual immorality; the issue is serious and grave sin. I brought up the issue of sexual attraction to prepubescent children for the purpose of analogy, not to digress onto a different topic. The point being that you brought up the issue of consent as if that is the basis of whether a certain act is sinful or not.

A person who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children suffers from a disorder. A person who acts on their sexual attraction to prepubescent children is committing a gravely depraved act. Similarly, a person who has a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex suffers from a disorder. A person who acts on their same-sex attraction is committing a gravely depraved act. That is the parallel that I am drawing, so don’t use the issue of consent or uniqueness of child abuse or the risk of generalizing as a diversion.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

MikeWM:

Who is being coddled? The Catholic position is clear. That doesn’t mean we should only condemn those struggling with homosexuality, the same as we shouldn’t only condemn those struggling with any sexual problem - which 99.9% of us will have had at some time in our life, whether homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, paedophilic tendancies, anything. You make the position of the Church clear, but you also make clear that they are still loved by God and he, and the Church, is there for them.

Mike

And that is the point, the bishop didn’t make the position of the Church clear. And if you don’t think that there is coddling going on in the Church, then just look at the bishops that allow to operate within their dioceses ministries such as Dignity, New Ways Ministries, Rainbow Sash Movement, or other similar ministries who claim that the homosexual lifestyle is not immoral or invite speakers to speak to parishes or give retreats who are from these organizations or advocate their positions. Appalling!

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

To the first point, Mike appears to have addressed the matter well.

To the second, I will not generalise on this matter - we have to look at the individual before making a decision. In the example you have provided, you mention an addiction - this would lead me to believe there is some form of psychological problem, which should be addressed, or otherwise that the person is clearly not happy in their marriage. These issues have to be addressed through help and support, not treating somebody like less of a person.

Falling into sin, does not mean that God no longer loves us, nor does it qualify a bishop to display a lack of love or encouragement in the messages he sends out to the children of God he is supposed to be helping.

Nobody should feel as if they do not belong in the community of God - and the church that represents him.

Wow! St. Paul needed sensitivity training.

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

We should resent the sin, God does not hate. I would not attempt to strongly show this “hate” of the sin, if that may comprimise the love that you show to your children. How is it going to look, if your first messages as bishop are ones of “hate”?

Does merely saying that the sin is “objectively disordered” show the sinner why? I think that the CCC shows a Catholic how to live, the bible is far more useful with why these teachings are so.

If the Catechism does not prove that useful to you, then try the Bible… and know that God hates sin. Why do you create such a dichotomy where there is none? Please do not tell me that God does not utterly despise wickedness. It is also clear that God loves us unconditionally and shows His mercy towards us; He stands ready to forgive, but guess what? His forgiveness is NOT unconditional. His forgiveness is conditioned on our faith and repentance.

BTW, I feel that you would say the same thing about the bishop’s second message, or his 30th, or his 100th… you get the idea.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Libero:

To an extent, I would not go as far to accuse this bishop of “passive tolerance” though. He has been in this position for what? Nearly a week, and so many have written him off for life. Such a shame…

He’s been bishop of San Francisco for nearly a week, but why use that as a point of reference. He’s been a bishop for longer than that, and a priest for even more.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

irenaeus1:

He’s been bishop of San Francisco for nearly a week, but why use that as a point of reference. He’s been a bishop for longer than that, and a priest for even more.

Good point.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JOHNYJ:

The movie was not made to be propaganda, The way it is being used might be. Because a movies subject matter is offensive to Catholics does not make the movie a bad movie artisticly .

Sergei Eisenstein was outstanding. But why should admiration for his brilliance as a film maker have to be interpreted as approval for Stalinist Communism ? “Alexander Nevsky” is a superb film - it is also Soviet propaganda to strengthen morale against the invading Nazis. In fact, who is there who does take admiration for the film or its maker as necessarily implying approval for Stalinism ?

Ang Lee is no Eisenstein, AFAIT - but if people can distinguish between:

• approval for the message of “Alexander Nevsky”
• respect for Eisenstein’s genius
• enjoyment of the film as a story

• why is the same distinction not possible between these elements in more recent films about, not Stalinism, but (as in the present instance) homosexuality; or, indeed, anything else - terrorism, torture, political or any other assassination - no less repugnant to Catholic morality ?

 

[UtahMaggie]

irenaeus1:

He’s been bishop of San Francisco for nearly a week, but why use that as a point of reference. He’s been a bishop for longer than that, and a priest for even more.

Probably because up until he became archbishop, homosexuality was not a huge issue here in Utah. Now that he has moved to San Francisco, it is an issue for him to address. And I’m sure he will address it. In Utah, the biggest issue was living in harmony with the LDS church which he was very involved in. Knowing that he was involved in that issue here leads me to believe that he will address the issue of homosexuality because it is a bigger issue where he is now. I just cannot understand why some won’t be patient and wait to see how he addresses this issue. He has plenty of time and, so far, has not condoned it. Everyone knows homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Niederauer has not said it isn’t.

 

[UtahMaggie]

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.

I think the reason his answer was not a simple no is because, at least to me, the question Gloria posed seemed like she was posing a situation that questioned Libero’s way of thinking. I agree with Libero’s answer.

 

[Libero]

Its not my attitude-its the teachngs of the Church. And the greatest act of love you can show people engaging in homosexual behavior is point out to the inherent evil of what they are doing.

But in the instance of a fictional film, having a huge rant about it is not going to make one more Catholic, it will merely make the bishop look like a bit of an agressive old man, who can’t handle that times have changed, and will merely damage his message to the congregation he has appointed.

I would agree with you if any good would come from the bishop complaining about this film just after his installation - but it wouldn’t. Not many people will be unsure of the Churches position on homosexuality - it is notorious, he is hardly misleading…

 

[Libero]

He’s been bishop of San Francisco for nearly a week, but why use that as a point of reference. He’s been a bishop for longer than that, and a priest for even more.

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.

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?

 

[Libero]

If the Catechism does not prove that useful to you, then try the Bible… and know that God hates sin. Why do you create such a dichotomy where there is none? Please do not tell me that God does not utterly despise wickedness. It is also clear that God loves us unconditionally and shows His mercy towards us; He stands ready to forgive, but guess what? His forgiveness is NOT unconditional. His forgiveness is conditioned on our faith and repentance.

BTW, I feel that you would say the same thing about the bishop’s second message, or his 30th, or his 100th… you get the idea.

God is absolutely perfect, he is also all loving. How can he hate. Hate is a human term, and a negative characteristic, it detracts from the perfectness of a being, thus, I would say that God does not hate, but rather that he resents. There are important differences. (I think that earlier I did say that the bible is better for understanding why God dislikes homosexuality - if not, sorry)

I get your idea, and I shall say this, I am a good Christian, but not always the best Catholic. Do you get my idea?

Really, my own faith and any issues I have with it should not come into question here (thus no discussion on it - please), it is about how an innocent man is being attacked, because his comments have been so greatly distorted.

Wow! St. Paul needed sensitivity training.

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

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?

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?