USCCB Changes Rating on Brokeback Mountain to Morally Offensive

[pnewton]

coyote:

Each adult person still maintains the priviledge to choose for him/herself what sorts of entertainments to indulge in.

Of course. It is called free will. The fact that we have a choice though does not change good and evil, right or wrong.

We can chose to indulge in any sin we want.

 

[bapcathluth]

joyfulmess:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children. Ephesians 5:1

Were you acting as a child of God when you made the decision to go see this controversial movie? God clearly says that homosexuality is wrong.

There are plenty of movies that show robbery, murder, etc. Many excellent and classic books–including Shakespeare show all of the above. Should I not see Shakespeare because God clearly says murder and suicide is wrong?

 

[fix]

GloriaPatri4:

This interview with Harry Forbes is interesting.

www.catholicnews.com/forbes/

Q. What is the overall tone you hope to bring to your position?
A. When friends and colleagues heard I had gotten this position, some expressed a hope that I wouldn’t be too censorious. I think there’s some lingering misunderstanding about the Legion of Decency, particularly in the old days when a movie was objectionable because of suggestive costuming like a low-cut dress. Today, though, if a film has certain objectionable elements, we’re going to point out every one of them, but if it’s a superior piece of filmmaking, we say so as well.

 

[Orionthehunter]

bapcathluth:

There are plenty of movies that show robbery, murder, etc. Many excellent and classic books–including Shakespeare show all of the above. Should I not see Shakespeare because God clearly says murder and suicide is wrong?

If I see a movie that has as its plot and subject matter adultery and fornification but the people participating in this experience only happiness and satisfaction, this movie would be “morally offensive” as it promotes a lie. However, if it shows the pain and suffering associated w/ this conduct, it would not be “morally offensive” as it is truthful to the final result.

I have no intention of seeing the movie for two reasons. First, I don’t need to see the introduction of homosexuals struggling w/ the old age struggle of fornification, adultery, and the consequences on one’s emotional well-being. There are enough movies using heterosexuality to make this point. Second, I do think that success at the box office will give the industry incentive to produce more movies dealing w/ homosexuality and they might not be done as “honestly” (honestly is defined here as showing the consequences to the actions).

Yet, in my mind, a movie is not morally offensive if the “bad guy/sinner” faces some temporal punishment for his sin. What is morally offensive is when the sinner is made to appear righteous (ala Million Dollar Baby or the protaganists in Pulp Fiction).

The only reason that this movie has been deemed “morally offensive” is because to have a “L” rating is confusing and appears to be a USCCB endorsement/condoning of the gay lifestyle. While I understand the change to the “O” rating so as to not send a mixed signal about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I wonder if now one can reach the conclusion that any movie that deals w/ an inherent sinful subject matter (suicide, murder, adultery, etc.) that isn’t given the “O” rating is now an implicit condoning/toleration of these sinful subject matters.

Under this new standard, there will now be so many “O” ratings that they will become meaningless and ultimately ignored. Even Lord of the Rings might be deemed “O” under this standard or the standards become totally subjective. If this happens, the USCCB will have less credibility regarding movie reviews and ability to impart information to the faithful.

Immediately under this post, Fix posts a portion of an interview w/ Forbes. I must be missing the point.