USCCB withdraws review of “The Golden Compass”

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely. I’m advocating that you specify that the money must be used for something at the parish if you choose to not support anti Catholic activities (if there are any in your Chancery office, or by your bishop).

If your bishop is in line with the teachings of the Church, then go ahead - but if not, you can specify that the money be used for the electric bill or the “building fund” or the altar guild (to replace or maintain altar cloths, etc) then the parish must maintain a separate account for money that is not going to be “taxed” by the bishop’s office.

I don’t put a nickel in the basket on Sunday - but I contribute money to retired priests, particular religious orders and truly Catholic organizations - not a nickel to the Chancery to support their homosexual agenda or to the USCCB, which pays Harry Forbes and John Thavis. I believe that would be a sin.
 
AW–thanks for the information. Here’s Forbes’ bio which is just the bio of another leftist at the USCCB (see Kathy Sailes Director of “Domestic Policy”);

“Harry Forbes attended Fordham University and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in communications from Hunter College. He is a member of the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, the British Academy of Film & Television Arts (BAFTA), the New York Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS), the Manhattan Association of Cabarets & Clubs (MAC) and the Drama Desk. He has had an extensive career in broadcasting, including heading program press relations at PBS, and other public relations positions at the New York flagship stations of CBS, NBC and PBS. He has reviewed theater on cable television and for The Manhattan Spirit, Time Out New York and Back Stage.”

AW—the “Time Out” link in your earlier post is nothing more than porn and vulgarity but as a former movie critic for Time Out, i still don’t see the connection with Forbes to those particular links. Now mind you, there is enough in his “bio” to ponder the question of his Catholic orientation given the homosexual and even anti-catholic agendas of many at PBS, CBS and NBC. You must remember the USCCB is mostly, not entirely, a left wing political organization and many there attempt to change the Church to meet their political agenda. I’m also interested in knowing more about how to avoid ensuring that none of my money goes to this bureaucracy—you should see its campus. Does our parish collection money get sifted away for the USCCB political causes? Or is it portions of our diocese contribution which goes there? Again, thanks…you ought to post your findings on other blogs too…many orthodox catholics are not aware of how this all works.
 
Angels_Watchin said:
Absolutely. I’m advocating that you specify that the money must be used for something at the parish if you choose to not support anti Catholic activities (if there are any in your Chancery office, or by your bishop).

If your bishop is in line with the teachings of the Church, then go ahead - but if not, you can specify that the money be used for the electric bill or the “building fund” or the altar guild (to replace or maintain altar cloths, etc) then the parish must maintain a separate account for money that is not going to be “taxed” by the bishop’s office.

I don’t put a nickel in the basket on Sunday - but I contribute money to retired priests, particular religious orders and truly Catholic organizations - not a nickel to the Chancery to support their homosexual agenda or to the USCCB, which pays Harry Forbes and John Thavis. I believe that would be a sin.
Click to expand...
I won’t ask what diocese you’re from 😉

Perhaps your diocese does things differently, but mine runs a separate campaign to collect money for the chancery. There is no “tax” on the Sunday collection.

As for the USCCB, many bishops are in agreement with you (at least partially). That’s why the USCCB budget has been reduced and it has been restructured to reduce the number of staff. Change doesn’t happen overnight.

I don’t know if you’re advocating shutting down the USCCB or not, but that will never happen. According to Canon Law, there is supposed to be a national conference of bishops (Canons 447-459).

I guess I’m more optimistic. Things are changing slowly, but they are changing, and I think they’re going in the right direction. As many of the “Vatican II generation” in chancery offices are hitting retirement, a younger, much more orthodox group of Catholics is starting to take their place.

I don’t think this applies to you, as you say you give money in other ways, but I’m always cautious when someone says they won’t contribute money to the Church because “the Church is too rich” or some other such excuse. It usually turns out to be a rationalization to excuse their own lack of generosity. Again, I don’t mean to say this applies to you, though!
 
CalmDownWisWins said:
NO organization should have the power to absolutely forbid display (censor) of a work of art, but ANY organization should have the capability to advise it’s members of things that could damage some portion of said organization.

When an organization’s capability to do that is compromised by persons who lack the knowledge of what DOES damage some portion of that organization who are responsible FOR using that knowledge to protect that organization, we have a problem.

I disagree with you profoundly that the review gave a fair and honest assessment of that film, because the reviewer did not know what is damaging to Catholic children.

It WAS an honest review, from the reviewer’s perspective. But it was not a fair review, because it is not fair of the reviewer to ignore the welfare of the audience as the audience understands their welfare to be.

Therefore, the reviewer needs to “go”, and those who chose that reviewer need some help in making better choices in the future.
Click to expand...
can you be specific about what in “the golden compass” (the movie, not the book) damages catholic children?
 
On one hand, I agree that movie reviewing was probably not what Jesus had in mind when He sent out the apostles.

That said, it seems to me that since Bishops have decided to do this and since parents who are too busy (making a living, etc) do rely on the Bishops reviews that it would behoove them to have someone with a true Catholic perspective to do the reviewing.:rolleyes: “millstone” is a word that comes to mind.:eek:
 
brigid12 said:
On one hand, I agree that movie reviewing was probably not what Jesus had in mind when He sent out the apostles.

That said, it seems to me that since Bishops have decided to do this and since parents who are too busy (making a living, etc) do rely on the Bishops reviews that it would behoove them to have someone with a true Catholic perspective to do the reviewing.:rolleyes: “millstone” is a word that comes to mind.:eek:
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The US Bishops must stand up and take responsibility for their actions and they must start doing their jobs.
 
If the reviewer is hired by the USCCB, then the buck must stop with them. Didn’t anyone at the top read the review? Did they have no knowledge at all of the books on which the movie is based? And the problem with having the USCCB’s review give a “thumbs up” to the movie is that the media then reports that while some Christians object to the movie, Catholic bishops approve of it. This week on the radio, I heard a nun say that, oh no, the Church does not think the elements of this movie are anti-Christian, why, the USCCB reviewed it favorably!

If the bishops aren’t going to read reviews and statements coming out of their offices more carefully, then perhaps they should stop releasing such things.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I won’t ask what diocese you’re from 😉

Perhaps your diocese does things differently, but mine runs a separate campaign to collect money for the chancery. There is no “tax” on the Sunday collection.

As for the USCCB, many bishops are in agreement with you (at least partially). That’s why the USCCB budget has been reduced and it has been restructured to reduce the number of staff. Change doesn’t happen overnight.

I don’t know if you’re advocating shutting down the USCCB or not, but that will never happen. According to Canon Law, there is supposed to be a national conference of bishops (Canons 447-459).

!
Click to expand...
If the “separate campaign” you’re talking about is the PSA - then sorry, that is regularly in ADDITION to the 10% of the weekly collection. Call your parish finance committee and the chancery finance committee to get the full story, but **assume that it’s **
10% PLUS the annual PSA “assessment”. That’s pretty standard. Some pastors don’t even know about this - speak to the person who writes the checks to get the accurate info.

Re: the national conference
I believe the canon approves of it, and regulates it, but does not require it.
Can you re-read it with that understanding and let me know if I’m wrong (and give me the line from the canon)

Thanks.
 
Our diocesan website has a financial section. It doesn’t give much detail, but gives a general idea of where funds come from and go. One notes that there are diocesan assessments besides the annual appeal.
 
Angels_Watchin said:
I don’t put a nickel in the basket on Sunday - but I contribute money to retired priests, particular religious orders and truly Catholic organizations - not a nickel to the Chancery to support their homosexual agenda or to the USCCB, which pays Harry Forbes and John Thavis. I believe that would be a sin.
Click to expand...
my parish is constantly asking me for money to pay for church repairs, the archbishop’s annual appeal, new vocations in eastern europe, etc. do you simply opt out of all of this in order to make your point to the bishops’ conference? how do you explain this to the parish priest, whose salary i would imagine comes from the sunday offering (as well as the money to pay electricity bills, etc.)?
 
Angels_Watchin said:
If the “separate campaign” you’re talking about is the PSA - then sorry, that is regularly in ADDITION to the 10% of the weekly collection. Call your parish finance committee and the chancery finance committee to get the full story, but **assume that it’s **
10% PLUS the annual PSA “assessment”. That’s pretty standard. Some pastors don’t even know about this - speak to the person who writes the checks to get the accurate info.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what PSA stands for, but that’s not what my diocese calls it. I am fully aware of the way my diocese operates in these matters, and this simply is not the case for us. We run an annual campaign and each parish has a goal. Anything that parish raises beyond the goal gets returned back to the parish to use as they see fit. I don’t doubt that it’s different in other dioceses, but, at least to my knowledge, there is no national standard for how the diocesan office collects money.
Angels_Watchin said:
Re: the national conference
I believe the canon approves of it, and regulates it, but does not require it.
Can you re-read it with that understanding and let me know if I’m wrong (and give me the line from the canon)

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You may be right on that. But I think that all developed countries with a strong Catholic presence have such a conference, and are probably expected to. There are many other canons that speak of the duties assigned to the national conference of bishops (canons 230.1, 236, 242.1, 276.2.3, 312.2, 402.2, 441, 496, 775.2, 788.3, 804.1, 821, 851.1, 854, 877.3, 891, 964.2, 1031.3, 1062.1, 1067, 1083.2, 1126, 1127.2, 1231, 1232.1, 1236.1, 1246.2, 1253, 1265.2, 1272, 1274.2, 1277, 1292.1, 1421.2, 1423, 1714, 1733.2). Granted, a national conference of bishops is not one of the marks of the Church or anything, but without it, I think the unity of Church in the U.S. would be even more fractured than it is at present.

I understand being frustrated with the USCCB, but I don’t think the solution is to totally disband it. That decision would ultimately be up to the Vatican:

Can. 449 §1 It is only for the supreme authority of the Church to erect, suppress, or alter conferences of bishops, after having heard the bishops concerned.

Another important canon I came across is 1262:

Can. 1262 The faithful are to give support to the Church by responding to appeals and according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops.

From this canon, it would seem that the laity are **obligated **to respond to the financial appeals of the USCCB. I’m no canon lawyer, certainly, so if you have an alternate interpretation, I’m open to it.
 
Have those here who are criticizing the USCCB review of “The Golden Compass” actually read the full review (even though the review has been pulled, you can still find it through the google cache)?

I read it and it seemed to me that they did bring up most of the questionable aspects (albeit perhaps not is language as strong as most here would hope for). They mention that the book is anti-Christian, but the movie is more watered down. They mention that any sequels likely will be more explicitly anti-Christian.

I think the rub is that they attempted to review the movie by itself (apart from the book and apart from the sequels).

Most people seem to want them to condemn the movie based on the book or the potential anti-Catholicism that the movie sequels probably will have.

Plus, with such a huge uproar about the review, they actually pulled it from the website. Doesn’t that count for anything?

I know I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I agree that people should stay far away from the Golden Compass (book and movie). I guess I’m just trying to balance out the extremely negative criticism the USCCB has taken because of the review 🤷 Perhaps an interesting thread would be to see what others would have included in the review in place of what the USCCB said.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I think the rub is that they attempted to review the movie by itself (apart from the book and apart from the sequels).

Most people seem to want them to condemn the movie based on the book or the potential anti-Catholicism that the movie sequels probably will have.
Click to expand...
no one here seems to understand or accept this.
Plus, with such a huge uproar about the review, they actually pulled it from the website. Doesn’t that count for anything?
Click to expand...
no. it just emboldens them to think they were right all along and opens the bishops up for more criticism. see post #10 in this thread.
Perhaps an interesting thread would be to see what others would have included in the review in place of what the USCCB said.
Click to expand...
probably no review at all or an unequivocal condemnation of the movie based on the books and/or the author’s atheism. which would save the bishops the cost of a movie ticket because you don’t need to actually see the movie in order to write such a “review”.
 
tomarin said:
Quote:
Perhaps an interesting thread would be to see what others would have included in the review in place of what the USCCB said.

probably no review at all or an unequivocal condemnation of the movie based on the books and/or the author’s atheism. which would save the bishops the cost of a movie ticket because you don’t need to actually see the movie in order to write such a “review”.
Click to expand...
There WAS indeed no need to see the movie, as the very fact that it came FROM Pullman should have been condemnation of ANY work OF Pullman.

They should have considered any reference to Pullman as not worth giving. There should have been NO review or mention of him or his works whatsoever. The Catholic “grapevine” would have sufficed to put Pullman in his well earned place.

The USCCB should have simply said, “Please ask your Catholic friends for information regarding any fantasy-esque movies this season.”
 
In all seriousness, I urge the USCCB to hire Michael Medved as their movie reviewer

(for those of you who don’t know it, Michael Medved is an observant Orthodox Jew–and one of the best friends Christians have in Hollywood)
 
I’m listening to his show right now! 👍

He is one of two resources I count on for reviews - the other I already mentioned is Steven Greydanus. The one advantage Steven has is that he is a Catholic. While Medved’s morality views mostly matches the Catholic Church, I don’t know that it would be 100%. Maybe they could hire them both! 😃
 
tomarin said:
my parish is constantly asking me for money to pay for church repairs, the archbishop’s annual appeal, new vocations in eastern europe, etc. do you simply opt out of all of this in order to make your point to the bishops’ conference?
Click to expand...
YES!! ALL THESE PROBLEMS COME FROM THE BISHOPS and then the “trickle down” theory takes effect. They know this. That’s why problem bishops have homosexaual vocations directors.
tomarin said:
how do you explain this to the parish priest, whose salary i would imagine comes from the sunday offering (as well as the money to pay electricity bills, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, everybody else (who hasn’t got a clue) will keep donating. Just make your money only available for actual parish needs. Go to your parish finance council and ask them how to write a check (or make a donation) that no part of will end up in the bishop’s office.

This is done all the time. Especially in dioceses with questionable bishops.

If the archbishop/bishop and his crew are not in line with the teachings of the Church - don’t give.

Write a check to Human Life International, Archbishop Burke’s vocations office, Bishop Bruskewitz’s vocations office, a good holy order of nuns, or directly to the electric company in care of your parish.

The homosexuals will leave if they stop getting paid. The good and holy priests will stay - because they didn’t get “into this business” for the money, the lifestyle (read my post on the luxuries of the Bishops’ conference earlier in this thread) or the easy targets (altar boys, single moms and seminarians). They’re in it for God and His children’s souls.

You can tell them from the rest by the way they speak out publicly against sin, depravation, and anti-Catholicism. GOD BE WITH THEM!!
 
Okay, hold on a second while I take my foot out of my mouth… 😊

Angels Watchin’s comments prompted me to look up a few things. Conveniently enough, our most recent issue of the diocesan newspaper contained the financial statement for the diocese. Sure enough, one of the line items is “Parish Assessment”, which is in addition to the diocesan annual campaign. Our diocesan campaign then accounts for twice what we get from the Parish Assessment, but it’s not the only source of income.

My apologies! Maybe next time I’ll check into the details before I post! :o

I still have no problem with giving money to the Sunday collection in my diocese, but I suppose I might think differently if I was in a different diocese.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top