The USCCB, Brokeback Mountain and The Passion of the Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
The USCCB, Brokeback Mountain and The Passion of the Christ

An arm of the USCCB has once again reminded us of the nature and depth of the problem for orthodox Catholics here in the United States. In a recent movie review, a USCCB movie-reviewer conveyed adulation for a movie that promotes homosexuality, adultery, drug use and more. At the end of the review, the reviewer chose to give the film a rating of “L”, which means it is suitable for adults, even though there may be aspects to the movie that adults “may find troubling.” (“Troubling”, is that all sodomy and adultery have become?) However, due to the almost immediate response (i.e. pleasant surprise from the pro-homosexual lobby and anger from orthodox Catholics), they changed the rating to “O”, the lowest rating, which denotes “morally offensive”. Nonetheless, this arm of the USCCB kept the review itself intact (below).

Below, I have pasted the USCCB review of Brokeback Mountain and followed it with their review of The Passion of the Christ and also a statement by a committee of the USCCB about the Passion of the Christ along with an article I wrote in response to it. I invite you to determine for yourself which movie these individuals at the USCCB seem to be more concerned about. I also invite you to consider the disrespectful way the Gospels are treated in favor of modern historical criticism.

Additionally, note the way that criticism of Brokeback Mountain is offered by the USCCB reviewer. I have underlined some of these passages that caught my attention below and added commentary, where I thought it helpful or necessary.

I make another heartfelt plea to the USCCB: Please, please stay away from rating movies if this is all that can be managed. This is truly and deeply scandalous.

more…
 
Very interesting.
Over-the-years love story between two emotionally fragile cowboys (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) who begin an intimate relationship during a solitary sheepherding assignment (My note: this kind of positive euphemism: “an intimate relationship”, is akin to “pro-choice” in relation to abortion. It hides the true, ugly nature of what is occurring)…
Click to expand...
Ennis resolutely insists he’ll sleep outdoors, but the cold drives him into Jack’s tent, where the two awkwardly, then roughly, have sex. Incidentally, that scene — short and with the men mostly clothed — is the only onscreen gay sexual encounter in the film. ***(My Note: Again, the writer turns the fact that it is “not as bad as it might have been” into a veritable virtue. While he feigns “criticism”, he is actually DEFENDING the movie. Note also that there is no negative comment, at all here, about the fact that the two men sodomize each other. He manages to give us a couple of adjectives: “awkward” and “rough”, but can manage no more than that. Compare that to the reviews on the Passion of the Christ: “brutal”, “exceedingly graphic”, “savagery”, “horror-genre”, “macabre”, etc. etc…)
Click to expand...
In the morning, both are too embarrassed to talk about what has transpired, but a bond has formed, and we are led to understand that the relationship has deepened (My note: again, the writer, who finds many places to offer his reaction, has NO REACTION about this? No attempt to contend against the idea that sodomy leads to a deepened relationship? Again, compare this to the criticisms of The Passion of the Christ) .
Click to expand...
The author is starting to get at the reason some are so displeased with the rating and review system in question.
 
USCCB needs to replace this author for someone who’s better represent true Catholicism. Obviously, this author is incompetent.
 
40.png
cathgal:
USCCB needs to replace this author for someone who’s better represent true Catholicism. Obviously, this author is incompetent.
Click to expand...
The USSCB needs to be abolished.
 
40.png
UKcatholicGuy:
The USSCB needs to be abolished.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…they do seem to do more harm than good as a body…the analysis of this review was spot on…and leads one to believe that USCCB reviews are often worthless. Better to look at the elements that result in the rating and make a judgment call on your own…Is their reviewer in any way better equipped to make a moral judgment than the rest of us ? Does the review carry an imprimatur? If so, they are only dabbling in an artistic field…as they seem focused on the merits of the film as art.

USCCB could also consider not wasting their (our) resources producing statements on issues that Catholics can disagree abut (niz. the death penalty). And all the debates only to agree to defer the issues? Jeesh!
 
I think you all are looking for a review that would look like this:
“Two disgusting homos who should burn in hell had a sexual encounter. They are sub-human and therefore could not have a caring relationship for one another. They could not hurt because of their feelings for one another and how society views their kind of love because they are sinners plain and simple and should not be painted as human beings with feelings.”

I really can’t believe how people who haven’t seen the movie have such strong opinions about it.
 
I’m confused about what the USSCB actually is. Who runs it, is it the bishops? Lay people? Why are liberals allowed to run it? The person who wrote this review should be fired. The message of this review does not convey the level of concern needed when addressing a film that endorses sodomy and adultery. This is a scandal. Read between the lines, look at the tone of the review, the reviewer loves this movie. It is glowing.
 

It seems the Church* is* a democracy after all. In a properly monarchical Church, Catholics must put up with the reviews that the bishops allow to be published - the bishops are in charge, not the laity. Rome put the bishops in charge; the laity did not.​

People seem to want those who are their rulers to do as they say. IOW, they are not real Catholics, but have an agenda of their own, and should leave the Church, which they continually criticise anyway: they can hardly complain at being given such advice, since they frequently give it to others. Harsh ? Certainly - but no more so than conservatives, self-styled “true Catholics”, often are. Not nice to receive one’s own medicine, is it ? 😦

Either they can be conservatives - or, they can complain of the decisions made by their rulers. What they cannot do, is choose both. If they are conservatives, attacking the bishops is not an option - they must obey them instead. To do otherwise, as now they do, is to be a Congregationalist in one’s notions of the Church, & not a Catholic.

What they want, in fact, is the advantages of the time before Vatican II, with the advantages of the time since - but, as LOTR - and the Gospels - should have made clear, sometimes good things have to be given up. ##
 
40.png
bapcathluth:
I really can’t believe how people who haven’t seen the movie have such strong opinions about it.
Click to expand...
That’s part of the issue though… why would I want to spend a huge sum of money watching two guys fall in love with each other and start a sexual relationship? There is no art in that. My belief on homosexuality has nothing to do with the fact that I find the act itself disgusting and I shouldn’t have to accept this as “good movie watching” nor should I have to accept the Bishops of my Church telling me that it’s a great movie, full of love, warmth, caring relationships when the actual relationship is inherently disordered and wrong. I believe human love is powerful… but to have homosexual love glorified on the big screen? No thanks.

What’s next? How about Hollywood start making movies on how a guy is raised in a hard home, beaten daily by his father, grows up with perverted thoughts on young girls, becomes a pedofile… oh yeah… he’s showing love towards these young girls and the warmth and caring he shows towards these girls is wonderful to watch. :confused:

If you start to let your guard down about what you watch, what you read, etc… you start to allow immoral beliefs to start to pervert the truth and you start to accept half truths and politically correct dictums. It’s not right. Junk in… Junk out.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## It seems the Church* is* a democracy after all. In a properly monarchical Church, Catholics must put up with the reviews that the bishops allow to be published - the bishops are in charge, not the laity. Rome put the bishops in charge; the laity did not.
Click to expand...

Has Rome approved of the review? Has each bishop approved of the review? Is the review binding on each person’s conscience?
 
Better watch how you read the Bible then eh? It’s got stories of adultery, rape, seduction etc in it. The problem is not the depiction of those things but how they fit into the story as a whole. Denying Christ is a bad thing but yet every Easter faithful Catholics act out doing just that, in their parish’s Passion play. Not the depiction of the act but how it fits into the story. Google “Vatican film list” or “Vatican 45 Films” and you’ll see some films that the Vatican puts forward the consideration of all faithful Catholics. These 45 films include scenes involving sex, violence, nudity, swearing… the Church has never shied away from portraying these things in art. That’s what the UsCCB’s reviews are about - evaluating a film on its artistic merit as well as any moral issues it raises or portrays. An individual Catholic doesn’t need a review to decide whether or not to go see a movie - he/she shd research it him/herself and then make their decision.
 
The Passion was directed by a schismatic…it deserved whatever negative reviews it got.
 
i dont care if the pope directed BBM and it starred the greatest actors of all time, it is still offensive.
 
40.png
frommi:
The Passion was directed by a schismatic…it deserved whatever negative reviews it got.
Click to expand...
There was a thread on this subject a short time ago and, if I remember correctly, no one knew for sure what Gibson’s status was. When making such a damning statement, you should offer proof.
 
The film and its review raises a question for me. What is it about homosexuality that is intrinsically disordered? Is it just the sex itself? Or is it broader? Is there anything wrong with two women in a loving, but celibate, relationship?
 
frommi said:
beliefnet.com/story/184/story_18404_1.html
Click to expand...

Suppose this turns out to be true…what bearing does it have on the messages inherent in the two films? It seems to me that The Passion of the Christ is still a moving, Gospel-based account of the last hours before our Lord’s death while Brokeback Mountain is an indictment of society for not being more “gay friendly.” Hmm, which one would I be more likely to permit my teenagers to view…
 
😦 And to think the US Bishops used to be leading the way in guiding the faithful through all the garbage in theaters. Bring back the Legion of Decency!

Vigilanti Cura (On Motion Pictures) June 29, 1936

Here are some pertinent passages from the above encycliucal by Pius XI:
  1. When you, Venerable Brethren, began this crusade, as it were, it was said that its forces would not be enduring, and that its effects would be transitory, since, your vigilance and that of your people being gradually relaxed, the producers of pictures might freely at their own choice return to those dishonourable plots which endeavour to excite ignoble desires, and which you have therefore proscribed. For, while the production of films which exhibit men’s actions in accordance with virtue demands a certain large measure of intelligence, labour, skill and sometimes expense, it is comparatively easy to attract certain men and certain classes of society to the cinema theatres in which such films are exhibited as incite to lust and stir up evil forces latent in men’s minds.
An unceasing and universal vigilance must, on the contrary, convince the producers that the “Legion of Decency” has not been started as a crusade of short duration, soon to be neglected and forgotten, but that **the Bishops of the United States are determined, at all times and at all costs, to safeguard the recreation of the people whatever form that recreation may take. **
  1. Everyone will agree that recreation of body and soul, in the various forms in which this age has made it available, is a necessity to those who are wearied by the business and troubles of life, but it must be consonant with the dignity of man and the innocence of morals, and its object must not be to excite and stir leisure hours to amusements which injure the principles of morality, dignity and honour. A people who, in time of repose, give themselves to recreations which, especially to the young, constitute occasions of sin, are in grave danger of losing their greatness and even their national power.
 
I found it amusing that the first banner ad that showed up when I clicked through to the link to belief.net was an ad for palm reading as a means to tell what would happen to you in the near future. Obviously belief.net believes in many beliefs. I have to admit I hadn’t yet read the article that was posted there, nor did I have much desire after encountering that ad. I can’t speak for the possible bias that the author may or may not have, but they did post on a webiste, that through their support of palm reading as a form of prediction, don’t quite jive with my beliefs.

Without yet reading that article, I would second someone else’s comments about the subject of the film. I would more willingly show The Passion of The Christ to my young niece, then any film like Brokeback Mountain. Purely for the subject matter, however strong the Passion might be for my eight year old niece, I would rather expose her to depictions of torture of the Lord, than to a movie depicting homosxuality in a positive light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top