JIMMY AKIN.ORG: The Brokeback Mountain Fiasco

« Christ's Unique Presence In The Eucharist | Main | A Warning To The Pro-Life Community: This Stinks To High Heaven »

December 16, 2005

The Brokeback Mountain Fiasco

(Jimmy Akin)

Controversy recently erupted over the U.S. bishops’ Office for Film and Broadcasting’s review and rating of the film Brokeback Mountain—a pro-homosexual "message" film known to many as "the gay cowboy movie."

THE REVIEW IS HERE.

Harry Forbes, the director of the OFB and the individual who reviewed the movie, gave it a gushing review with slight caveats thrown in as sops to those who would find the film objectionable.

He also gave it an "L" rating, which in OFB parlance means that it is suitable for a "limited adult audience, [this rating is for] films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling."

The rating that the film should have received was "O"—described by the USCCB website simply as "morally offensive."

When Forbes’s review hit the net, the controversy erupted, leading to stories like

THIS ONE ON LIFESITE NEWS.

The fiasco surrounding the review of Brokeback Mountain is simply the most egregious example of a problem that has been building for some time at the OFB.

When I first encountered their reviews a number of years ago, I was very impressed with how well they were done and how successfully they brought balanced Catholic sensibilities to the field of film criticism.

But in recent years the quality of the reviews and ratings has declined—to the point that I no longer consult them as they are of little use.

In the case of Brokeback Mountain, though, the OFB has gone beyond mere uselessness.

Let’s start with the issue of the rating.

Many films contain some morally objectionable content. This is unavoidable since filmmakers are sinners like everyone else. But the mere presence of morally objectionable content does not mean that a film as a whole is objectionable.

For example: Suppose that the latest Hugh Grant heterosexual romantic comedy featured a minor character who is gay (say, a friend of the female love interest in the film). And suppose the film tacitly approved of that character’s homosexual behavior.

The tacit approval given to homosexuality WOULD BE morally offensive by definition.

But because the character in question is a minor one this means that only part of the film is morally offensive, not the film as a whole. As a result, the film might deserve a rating other than "O" (assuming the rest of it wasn’t morally offensive).

But if the film, instead, was a homosexual romantic comedy where homosexuality was essential to the core of the film—and if it tacitly approved homosexuality—then the film as a whole would be morally offensive (even if it had other praiseworthy elements) and would deserve the "O" rating.

"O"s, in other words, don’t deal with minor elements in the film. They deal with the central core of the film.

Brokeback Mountain is not a homosexual romantic comedy. It’s a homosexual romantic tragedy. As a result, homosexual behavior is central to the theme of the film, and the fact that the film gives tacit approval to homosexual behavior (by Forbes’s own admission in the review) means that the film AS A WHOLE is morally offensive and deserves an "O" rating.

It may have elements that are not themselves offensive, but the film’s moral approval of its central theme (a long-term homosexual relationship) is morally offensive, making the movie itself offensive.

The fact that Forbes did not recognize this BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS fact set off the ensuing controversy.

In response to the controversy, on Friday, December 16th, the OFB unceremoniously changed the rating from "L" to "O."

Definitely a step in the right direction, but the way in which this was done left much to be desired. Specifically, the following text was appended to the review of Brokeback Mountain on the Catholic News Service site:

"Originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), ‘Brokeback Mountain’ has been reclassified O -- morally offensive -- by the USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating -- which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie -- is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church's -- or the USCCB's -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content."

Note what is NOT being said here. They are NOT saying that the original rating was in error.

Instead, they are blaming the audience their film reviews are meant to serve for "misunderstanding" the L rating, which would still be the correct rating for the film if only it weren’t "misunderstood by many." So the film is NOT truly morally offensive, even though it is now being rated that way.

Further, the change is being made "because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear that the church’s – or the USCCB’s – position on homosexuality is ambiguous."

In other words, other people are at fault and are wrongfully forcing the OFB to rate a film as morally offensive that really is not morally offensive.

This is a non-retraction retraction.

And it’s an erroneous one, because the film simply IS morally offensive—as is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS from a basic knowledge of its contents. To see why, let’s turn to Forbes’s review.

As others have noted, the review simply gushes. Forbes confesses that he has been awaiting this film (it "arrives at last"), and he can barely restrain himself from heaping praise on it in numerous ways. Examples:

"‘Brokeback Mountain’ . . . arrives at last, and the film itself -- a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection -- belies the glib description [of being a gay cowboy love story]."
"While it is the story of an intimate relationship, more to the point it's the relationship of two emotionally scarred souls."
[After one character has been separated from his homosexual paramour] "we see him crumple in despair as soon as he's alone. The first human connection he's had is coming to an end."
"It's the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship . . . that seems paramount."
"Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana's screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx's story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source."
"The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from ‘The Princess Diaries,’ giving her most mature work to date) are very fine."
"Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience."
"[T]he universal themes of love and loss ring true."

Despite the fact that he is in unmistakably enamored with the film, Forbes does throw in two mild caveats to appease those who would object to the film’s approval of homosexuality. The first caveat comes thirteen paragraphs into the twenty-one paragraph review:

"As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."

No note is made that the homosexual orientation itself is—in the words of the Catechism—"intrinsically disordered." Forbes’s review leaves one with the impression that the homosexual orientation may not itself be a source of concern and that only homosexual activity is "problematic."

A few paragraphs later, immediately before the content advisory at the end of the review, Forbes gives another caveat but immediately undercuts what mild force it has by giving his praise of the film the last word:

"While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true."

Also disturbing is Forbes’s attempt to downplay the fact that this is a pro-homosexual "message film." He argues:

"But the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families is not whitewashed. (The women are played with tremendous sympathy, not as shrill harridans.) It's the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship -- which, by the way, ends in tragedy -- that seems paramount."

This account seems intended to leave the reader with the impression that the pain caused to the two gay characters’ wives and children (they married women after they began their homosexual relationship) and the fact that their relationship ultimately ends tragically are supposed to detract from the idea that the film is broadcasting a message.

This is sheer spin. In fact, these elements are CRUCIAL to how the film hammers home its message. The story begins in 1963 and ends when one of the two cowboys is killed in what today would be called a "hate crime" for his homosexuality.

The unmistakable message that the filmmakers intend is thus:

"How sad that our culture was (and is) so ‘homophobic.’ If only people had been more accepting of homosexuality then Ennis and Jack wouldn’t have felt pressured into marrying women and having families. Their ongoing homosexual adultery wouldn’t have caused their wives pain. And they would have been cruelly mistreated and one brutally killed as a manifestation of the ‘homophobia’ that continues to plague our society today. So that things like this will never happen again, we should all learn a lesson from this that our society must come to embrace homosexuality as an equal, respectable alternative lifestyle."

In other words: The film’s core message is radically antithetical to Catholic teaching.

The fact that Forbes is so enamored with it, that he either misses or knowingly downplays the message aspect of it, that he treats Catholic teaching on homosexuality almost as an afterthought to how this film should be appraised, that he believes it to not really be morally offensive, and that he is willing to blame others for forcing him to call it morally offensive when it is not morally offensive in his opinion, all speak of the growing problem that has plagued the U.S. bishops’ film review service—and they speak poorly of Mr. Forbes’s capacity to do the job entrusted to him by the bishops.

The bottom line is that this film is not a "borderline case" where one could debate whether or not it is morally offensive. It is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that this one is morally offensive.

If Mr. Forbes cannot be counted upon to call a film morally offensive when it is as blindingly obvious as this one is then he does not have what it takes to do his job.

UPDATE: Late in the day on Friday the Catholic News Service site moved the non-retraction retraction to the top of the review to give it more prominence.

With the reclassification to "O," CNS also removed Harry Forbes's byline from the review. It is not clear at this time whether this was to insulate Mr. Forbes from being individually identifiable and thus accountable for the review or whether it was because Mr. Forbes violently disagreed with the reclassification of the film as "O" and no longer wished his name to be associated with the review.

At the time of this writing the byline reads "by Catholic News Service," indicating that Catholic News Service takes responsibility for the review.

Also, thanks to Mark Shea for posting the above review on his blog while TypePad was having technical difficulties.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Film and TV | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/24994/3865773

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Brokeback Mountain Fiasco:

» Brokeback Bishops from Redeem the Time
Joey posts satirical review of the movie Brokeback Mountain, a story about homosexual cowboys, here. My favorite line is: "It's not so much a gay cowboy love story as a gay cowboy love story with gay characters who just happen... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:43:07 PM

» Brokeback Bishops from Redeem the Time
Joey posts satirical reviews of the movie Brokeback Mountain, a story about homosexual cowboys, here. My favorite line from Joey's post is: "It's not so much a gay cowboy love story as a gay cowboy love story with gay characters... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:48:11 PM

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:50:34 PM

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:52:05 PM

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:53:59 PM

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 3:59:07 PM

Tracked on Dec 19, 2005 4:14:07 PM

» Brokeback Bishops UPDATED from Redeem the Time
Joey posts satirical reviews of the movie Brokeback Mountain, a story about homosexual cowboys, here. My favorite line from Joey's post is: "It's not so much a gay cowboy love story as a gay cowboy love story with gay characters... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 21, 2005 9:24:49 AM

Tracked on Dec 21, 2005 9:27:23 AM

Tracked on Dec 21, 2005 9:36:26 AM

» Brokeback Bishops UPDATED x2 from Redeem the Time
Joey posts satirical reviews of the movie Brokeback Mountain, a story about homosexual cowboys, here. My favorite line from Joey's post is: "It's not so much a gay cowboy love story as a gay cowboy love story with gay characters... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 22, 2005 9:10:21 AM

Tracked on Dec 22, 2005 9:23:08 AM

» Comment from The Thing Is
[Read More]

Tracked on Jan 23, 2006 10:16:17 AM

Comments

Jimmy,

Most Excellent!!!

I saw some of the previews of the movie and the film definitely is an OBJECTIONABLE and MORALLY OFFENSIVE movie. The previews came packaged with a recent DVD release of another movie.

Posted by: Realist | Dec 16, 2005 5:56:34 PM

Two gay cowboys? What, no pudding?

Seriously, the only place I go to for trustworthy reviews is SGD's decentfilms.com. I love the way the reviews are written so clearly and the accompanying barometers indicating how the film fares in various categories is also excellent. Even Protestants trust his work.

I also like Roger Ebert's reviews. It seems he has many of the same tastes as I do, but he's not Catholic so he tends to miss the mark when evaluating films that offensively exploit women (like Sin City) or films that push other commonly-accepted tenants of the Culture of Death. But when he dislikes a film, he can get pretty wicked and funny.

Posted by: StubbleSpark | Dec 16, 2005 6:46:07 PM

I also nominate Steven Greydanus for the USCCB movie review post! Which bishops appoint that position?

Down with morally offensive movies getting reviewed favorably!

Posted by: Devin Rose | Dec 16, 2005 8:24:07 PM

Did Christ tell anybody to be ridiculously intolerant?
Is that what he suffered for? So that we go on to restrict others from living the way they want to? If so, I really think he died for nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | Dec 16, 2005 9:16:05 PM

How is rejecting a movie review intolerant? Yes, yes, I know a hiding troll. I should know better. Hip-hip-horah for the begining of a retraction though. I sent my message in claiming the review is still too gushing though to the appropriate sources. I also give a big thumbs up to Mr. Greydanus for his outstanding site. I will note that the board also rated "The Crying Game" with the same rating so at least they are consistant.

Posted by: Nick | Dec 16, 2005 9:34:52 PM

Very, very disappointing to see the USCCB's OFB give this filthy film such a gushing review. But I can't say I'm all that surprised...

Posted by: Matt C. Abbott | Dec 16, 2005 10:42:40 PM

So that we go on to restrict others from living the way they want to?

I don't mind energy monsters. Especially when you can pratically hear pieces of brain falling out when they lob grapefruits over the plate like this. It shows the complete dearth of ideas in the opposition.

Posted by: Scott W. | Dec 17, 2005 5:22:01 AM

Another good site for reviewing movies is screenit.com. (Not to detract anything from decentfilms.) Screenit doesn't approach reviews from a christian perspective, but it does give very precise descriptions of movies, broken down by catagories. Some of the categories are "Alcohol/Drugs", "Sex/Nudity", "Disrespectful/Bad Attitude" and many more. For example, it tells you how many times profanity is used, "4 "F" words, 3 GD's," etc; for sex it will describe each sexualy explicit scene right down to cleavage, and even things which very sensitive people might find objectionable. It's a very good and reliable site.

To get reviews on the newest releases requires a membership, but if you scroll to the bottom of the homepage and click on "No Thanks" you can access any movie that has been released more than a week ago.

This aint a plug, honest. I have nothing to do with screenit. But I do rely on it to help me to decide if certain movies are appropriate to watch.

Here's a review of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe:

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2005/the_chronicles_of_narnia_the_lion_the_witch_and_the_wardrobe.html

and here's one for Syriana:

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2005/syriana.html#sn

Posted by: steve | Dec 17, 2005 5:29:54 AM

"So that we go on to restrict others from living the way they want to?"

Yes, precisely! That whole "go and SIN NO MORE" part of the Gospel for often ignored!

Posted by: Laura | Dec 17, 2005 6:43:48 AM

Hmm, server troubles again...

*so often

Posted by: Laura | Dec 17, 2005 6:46:06 AM

Way, way back in the 1980's -- long before I was a Catholic (or even remotely Christian, for that matter) -- I would read on occassion some tripe from the USCCB about "disarmament this" and "freeze that;" and I thought to myself: what a bunch of idiots.

I see that this has not changed.

Posted by: Clayton Barnett | Dec 17, 2005 6:49:24 AM

I think its time to do what the Orthodox Church did when someone tried to perform a gay marriage -- the priest was defrocked and they took a bulldozer to the Church and leveled it.

Time to Caterpillar the USCCB Film Office. That would send a nice message to everyone else.

Posted by: Plato's Stepchild | Dec 17, 2005 7:38:40 AM

Throw the bums out.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 17, 2005 7:48:14 AM

PS, I like your style, the John Wayne approach. Could we then turn the site into a cow pasture?

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 17, 2005 7:59:10 AM

While Jimmmy Akin kvetches on and on about the correctness of the OFB rating, he misses entirely the larger picture - that Brokeback Mountain is a beautiful and sensitive film. Go see it for yourself (as I did) then decide. Except for a few blind sheep, nobody actually listens to the Church's teachings on homosexuality these days. Watch the film and let the story speak for itself.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 17, 2005 8:28:01 AM

D'Alessandro, your anti-Catholic bigotry is easy to spot, even for a "blind sheep", like me.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 17, 2005 8:38:38 AM

D'Alessandro, I'm afraid you are dead wrong. A beautiful and sensitive film it may be, as may be Shakespeare in Love, they are both totally immoral. And morally offensive.

And your comments about the church teaching reek of 'Moral Progress', an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Its so ridiculous.

Posted by: | Dec 17, 2005 8:59:51 AM

Another troll? This must have struck a chord. Let's see...could we first define "a few" since there seems to be quite a few. Then blind, because they apparently read fairly well. Then, if we can get that far, we'll look at how something could be a review from a church organization without a church having any teaching.

Posted by: Nick | Dec 17, 2005 9:01:29 AM

Instead of kicking up a dust-storm about a 'controversy' that nobody cares about, simply don't see the film. It's a free country, right? There are plenty of good wholesome films to watch: 'The Sound of Music', 'All Dogs Go to Heaven'....even 'The Passion of the Christ'. These fine films won't stretch your mind one bit.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 17, 2005 9:30:41 AM

"It's a free country, right?" Yes, D'Alessandro, and even we "blind sheep" are free to express our opinions, even opinions with which you disagree. If you don't like them, ignore them. There are plenty of web sites you can go to that won't post anything which will challenge your prejudices.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 17, 2005 9:56:04 AM

We need to remember that the USCCB is not a political organization (much as they might wish to be), and that individual Bishops are not politicians.

More's the pity.

Posted by: Bubbles | Dec 17, 2005 10:54:31 AM

Not having seen the Passion of the Christ or All Dogs go to Heaven, I can not comment, but The Sound of Music I have seen. Saying this film will not stretch your mind is complete foolishness. The Sound of Music, in my humble opinion is one of the best musicals ever made. A noble man trying to save his family from the horrors of the advancing Nazis, willing to leave is beloved country behind so as not to live the life of a ‘blind sheep’. The blind sheep being those cowards that would rather live under the Nazi form of political correctness, instead of risking your life for what is right. Yea, that is pretty shallow. This is just one of the mind numbing parts to the plot by the way.
Just who exactly are the blind sheep here? Those of us that stand up to the immoral if it feels good do it crowd, or those that blindly follow pc culture all the while exclaiming that they have evolved passed the need for any sort of morality. The easiest path to follow is that which has no concern for the cliff that tumbles you into hell after you die. Believe me I have found myself on that path many times. Living a life faithful to Jesus is awfully hard, especially in today’s culture. Just look at all that society throws at us heterosexual males, scantly clad beautiful women everywhere we turn. And all the while I must try and keep pure thoughts, not a laughing matter and for me it is very difficult. How come we don’t get any sympathy? Where is the beautifully poignant film about the heterosexual male living a lifetime faithful to his wife and children?

Posted by: Ben Hammer | Dec 17, 2005 1:16:24 PM

Ben Hammer,

A M E N! From a brother in the trenches. Keep up the good fight until the end and remember you are not alone.

Take care and God bless!

J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 17, 2005 1:35:35 PM

D'Allessandro-

The problem is that so many "progressives" have stretched their minds to the point that they obviously just BROKE.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 17, 2005 1:40:34 PM

Some of the posters are missing the point, it is not about how well written or moving this particular movie is, it is about a group that is supposed to serve Catholics in the US have blinded themselves and is acting in a way they shouldn't.

A homosexual lifestyle is critical to the story and it is presented as normal. Homosexual acts are sinful according to church teaching, this group is supposed to represent the church. So therefore since they don't attempt to follow the teaching of the church it is hypocritical for them to try to represent her.

If even us "blind sheep" can see it is offensive how could these people who are supposed to have some crediblity not?

I am not condemning people with same sex attraction, it is not in this post to debate the nature of same sex attraction, rather it is to raise awareness of the hypocricy of a particular group claiming some moral authority in hopes that they will reform.

Posted by: IA | Dec 17, 2005 1:46:38 PM

Often Catholics are accused of being naive or sheltered or, in this case, having an unstretched mind. What has often not entered the minds of the accusers (note the irony) is that a great number of us Catholics are either converts or reverts (Catholics who fell away and came back.) That is, most of us have alot of direct knowledge of, or participation in, things like fornication, bad habits and vices, exposure to pornography and media chock full of depravity. We converted/reverted because God gave us the gift of wisdom to recognize those things as the empty graves that they are. We now order our lives in a different way and (gasp!) want reliable sources that will help us strengthen that rather than weaken it.

Also, it is about our leaders. In the first place, the faithful must be able to trust them and, just as important, those leaders will be held to a much more stringent accountability to God. Kicking up a dust-storm is for their benefit as well as ours.

+JMJ

Posted by: Scott W. | Dec 17, 2005 2:09:06 PM

"The Sound of Music, in my humble opinion is one of the best musicals ever made."

D'Alessandro is a liberal. He thinks that anything that doesn't promote the liberal agenda won't "stretch your mind." Its best to just ignore him- 99% of the time their ideas wont stand up to scrutiny anyways.

Posted by: | Dec 17, 2005 4:22:59 PM

Glad to see all of the hate that this bigoted crowd is expressing towards gay people. Jesus is proud I'm sure.

Posted by: Downtown Lad | Dec 17, 2005 4:36:55 PM

Glad to see all of the hate that this bigoted crowd is expressing towards gay people. Jesus is proud I'm sure.

Generally when someone takes an opposing view they support their statements. Give us a single quote that is an example of hate and why and we'll consider it. As it is I don't see it. Truth may be unpopular, and it may send offenders scurrying for the darkness, but it does not mean necessarily that the person speaking up for truth has hate. (Although I grant it is possible.)

Posted by: Scott W. | Dec 17, 2005 4:44:41 PM

Just who exactly are the blind sheep here? Those of us that stand up to the immoral if it feels good do it crowd, or those that blindly follow pc culture all the while exclaiming that they have evolved passed the need for any sort of morality.

Ben... I thought the verb to follow was more fitting of those who trust the teachings of a millennia-old Church than for those who trust nothing but their own fallible judgment.

Posted by: | Dec 17, 2005 4:48:04 PM

The above comment is mine, sorry.

Posted by: Nihil | Dec 17, 2005 4:49:13 PM

This is the first I've heard of this particular situation. I regularly check the USCCB movie ratings, but I automatically eliminate any "L" or "O" movie from any possibility of my seeing it, so I rarely even read the reviews of such movies. As far as I'm concerned, "L" and "O" mean the same thing - DON'T SEE IT.

Posted by: Buzz | Dec 17, 2005 4:59:51 PM

Except for a few blind sheep, nobody actually listens to the Church's teachings on homosexuality these days.

We may be blind sheep, but at least we're not goats (we hope anyways).

Posted by: BillyHW | Dec 17, 2005 5:22:36 PM

"Glad to see all of the hate that this bigoted crowd is expressing towards gay people. Jesus is proud I'm sure."

I must have heard the "You hate gays" line a million times. Unfortunately, the charge comes nowhere near the truth; I have no special hatred for gay people, but I am opposed to the "homosexual agenda."

If you want to put your liberal ideas on the table, do so in an intelligent, non-offensive manner. You come off like a squawking parrot. Im not interested in overused rhetoric, liberal bywords, or cliches. You should have said something thought provoking instead. Everyone has heard the "you hate gays" line already.

Posted by: | Dec 17, 2005 6:08:54 PM

I thought the verb to follow was more fitting of those who trust the teachings of a millennia-old Church than for those who trust nothing but their own fallible judgment.

Most of them are following the herd, not their own falliable judgment, except insofar as it is their judgment to follow the herd.

Posted by: Mary | Dec 17, 2005 6:15:28 PM

Glad to see all of the hate that this bigoted crowd is expressing towards gay people. Jesus is proud I'm sure.

The Jesus who told people, "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna."?

If this is true, warning people of what they risk is even more necessary that warning people driving toward a washed-out bridge.

Posted by: Mary | Dec 17, 2005 6:18:10 PM

You won't see Downtown Lad back up his accusation, because he can't. He took a gutless, lying, intellectually vacant cheap shot.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 17, 2005 7:17:15 PM

Returning discussion to the orginal topic, if I may:

I've known of the Bishops' movie reviews for about a year, about as long as I've known of SGD. After comparing the content and reviews of both, I decided to rely only upon SGD and perhaps check the bishops for curiousity's sake--not a second opinion.

If you should like to register your displeasure with the Office for Film and Broadcasting, suggest staff change, etc., the information is below (I couldn't find an email address, so we'll have to do it the old fashion way):

Office for Film and Broadcasting
1011 First Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022

(202) 541-3000

Posted by: Seth | Dec 17, 2005 7:55:15 PM

I challenge all of you blind sheep to find a Bible passage where Jesus speaks bad of a gay person. You cannot, because their is none. (Sorry, don't drag Leviticus into it.)

Why do you argue that homosexuality is so morally inferior or offensive? Because the Pope or your pastor told you? C'mon - think for a minute! You must know plenty of gay people. I do. Most gay people I know are not morally inferior people; they are good people who get a bad rap they don't deserve.

Wake up people! Do not let the Church hierarchy sell you a bill of goods about the inherent evil of gay people. This from the same organization that peddled plenary indulgences, managed the Magdelene Laundries and shuffled pedophile priests around from city to city. I'm sorry, but the Church no longer has any moral authority left to condemn anything.

Did you stop to think why the Church is actually shrinking in this country and closing buildings?

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 17, 2005 10:31:30 PM

This contact information, for the person who wrote the review, including an email address was given in the Lifesite article.

Contact the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting:
Harry Forbes
(212) 644-1880
ofb@msn.com

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 17, 2005 10:37:06 PM

"and the fact that the film gives tacit approval to homosexual behavior"

I need a bit of clarification here.

A film that gives explicit approval to homosexual/extramarital behaviour is obviously morally offensive. (eg., 'American Pie')

A film that gives tacit approval is obviously also morally offensive (in which case, 90% of Hollywood movies as 'O' since they give tacit approval to extramarital behaviour).

But what about a film that just tells the story of such a story? How do we know that the film is giving tacit approval, or if it's just telling a story? Is it simply wrong to tell such a story?

Francis

Posted by: Francis | Dec 17, 2005 10:46:01 PM

D'Alessandro,

Before you ask us blind sheep to reject the constant Teaching and Authority of the Church that Our Blessed Lord established.

Please point out to us where Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition does anything but condem homosexuallity.

And yes the "gay" people I know are morally offensive and proud of that fact.

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 17, 2005 11:01:27 PM

My point is that Jesus said nothing on the topic - so there is no basis to view homosexuality as morally wrong. No basis.

You are a bigot.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 17, 2005 11:06:55 PM

D'Alessandro,

Our basis IS the Word of God. Rather than just calling me names. How about reading the Teachings of the Church?

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

At least make an argument based on the actual Teachings of the Church and not what you have heard they teach.

You asked if I knew "gay" people who were morally offensive and I answered honestly. You only need to view a "gay pride" parade to know that I am telling the truth. I also know hetrosexual people who are morally offensive. Anyone who defines themselves ONLY by their sexuality is morally offensive and immature.

Please try to understand that as a Catholic I am taught to HATE sin and LOVE the sinner. The most loving thing I can do is to tell truth. I have tried to do just that and I accept if you revile me because of the teachings of Christ.

Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 17, 2005 11:31:53 PM

You guys are only happy with gay people when they are tied up and murdered like Matthew Shephard. Then you march over to his funeral and chant "God hates Fags".

But God forbid they make a movie about the struggle that gay people go through - yup - you try to censor that.

But when fags are murdered - that is gods will.

You guys are majorly fucked up.

Posted by: Downtown Lad | Dec 18, 2005 1:43:09 AM

These two anti-Catholic bigots certainly are in a lather! I guess that's what hate does to people.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 18, 2005 3:04:24 AM

By the way, DL, thanks for proving me right in my previous prediction.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 18, 2005 3:06:23 AM

"My point is that Jesus said nothing on the topic." "Don't drag Leviticus into it." Jesus is God. He is the Author of the Scriptures. That includes Leviticus. If telling us not to bring up anything that will prove you wrong is the BEST you can do, give up. You keep throwing hanging curves.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 18, 2005 3:15:31 AM

You guys are only happy with gay people when they are tied up and murdered like Matthew Shephard. Then you march over to his funeral and chant "God hates Fags".

But God forbid they make a movie about the struggle that gay people go through - yup - you try to censor that.

But when fags are murdered - that is gods will.

You guys are majorly fucked up.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support any of this?

Posted by: Scott W. | Dec 18, 2005 5:06:48 AM

Did Jesus ever say anything about 'bigotry' or 'homophobia'?

Posted by: Matthew L. Martin | Dec 18, 2005 8:05:22 AM

D'Allessandro-

Just to clarify, the term "pedophilia" does not apply to at least 80% of the cases in the priest abuse crisis.

What mostly took place was HOMOSEXUAL PREDATION of adolescent boys. Most of the monstrous priests that you are so angry at the Church for shuffling around were not pedophiles, but just garden-variety homosexuals.

And tolerance of the bishops who enabled these predators is wearing thin. Their problem is that they have been far TOO tolerant of homosexuality and gay "culture", in which sex with under-aged boys has a large roll.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 18, 2005 8:12:25 AM

Bill912,

Not only did Downtown Lad prove you right he gave us all a prime example of morally offensive behavior.

Downtown Lad,

If "gay" people struggle then they need our support and prayers. You have both. But if you seek to justify SINFUL ACTS you need to be told the Truth. God willing you will open you heart to His loving Word. Not because I have said so but because God loves each one of us. Being sinners we all need His mercy and forgiveness, but we must seek it.

D'Allessandro,

Is DL's language, pointless accusations, ranting and your name calling what we should expect from "gays"?

Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 18, 2005 9:01:54 AM

But God forbid they make a movie about the struggle that gay people go through - yup - you try to censor that.

But when fags are murdered - that is gods will.

You guys are majorly fucked up.>

Gosh, why would it make us happy if someone got tied up and murdered? And no, we do not believe that God hates anyone, let alone His lost sheep. God does not like sin, that is for sure. That was why Jesus came into the world, to save the lost sheep and to redeem us!

Just try to quell the knee-jerk tendency to get all shrill at us when we are trying to put out our points reasonably to you. You'll find that self-control is *gasp!* possible.

Honestly, read the comments just as they are. We do not fit into the mold you tried squeezing us into.

And read your own comments too. Yours and that of D'Allesandro reek of moral triumphalism. Oh, don't you think you came across sounding hateful?

So much for tolerance and open-mindedness.

Anne Louise

Posted by: Anne Louise | Dec 18, 2005 9:44:22 AM

Tim - there is no such thing as homosexual predation of young boys that is different from garden variety pedophilia. Pedophilia, according to science, takes both heterosexual and homosexual forms. In fact, research has shown that the vast majority of pedophiles - (a) prey on someone of the opposite sex and (b) are related to their victim in a familial sense.

Don't blame gays for the mess the Church created for itself.

As for the rest of you, you're entitled to believe whatever you like. But take a look at statistics of dwindling membership in the US Catholic Church and ask yourselves if the Church is losing relevance in a modern world.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 18, 2005 9:48:16 AM

Dwindling membership?

The number of American Catholics has been growing for more than 15 years and is projected to have the 5th largest increase in Catholic population continuing into the future. It is one of the reasons why there is a priest shortage.

Posted by: Benedict | Dec 18, 2005 10:05:04 AM

Another hanging curve. Benedict swats it out of the park. This is too easy.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 18, 2005 10:13:52 AM

Wha? Where are you getting those studies. Most are online at least in summary form now. Go ahead and site them.

Posted by: Nick | Dec 18, 2005 10:14:59 AM

Since when is "relevance" the yardstick by which we should measure the Church? Christ didn't say, "Go and be relevant to all the nations..."

Posted by: vitae | Dec 18, 2005 10:39:51 AM

As for the rest of you, you're entitled to believe whatever you like.

Wait a minute. Before we were hateful bigots which we are not entitled to believe in. (Let's leave for a moment that there was no supporting argument for it.) Now we are told we can believe whatever we like. Which is it?

Posted by: Scott W. | Dec 18, 2005 10:51:34 AM

"I'm sorry, but the Church no longer has any moral authority left to condemn anything. "

It scares me to think that we have so many people like you in the world today.

Posted by: Charlie | Dec 18, 2005 11:09:56 AM

D'Alessandro,

"Tim - there is no such thing as homosexual predation of young boys that is different from garden variety pedophilia."

Ding ding ding.. I don't think that you fully realized the truth of what you have just said. "According to science," the number 18 holds no significance. You need to fully understand the nature of these disorders before you comment, mixing legal, biological, and psychological categories. In morally ambiguous times, and assenting to the advice of secular psychologists, bishops failed to uphold the moral teachings of the Church. Your solution to this is to... have bishops abandon the moral teachings of the Church. Hmm... You know very well that the vast majority of abuse cases involving clergy were of post-pubescent males. You are right to state that pedophilia, as well as non-pedophilic abuse is a widespread cultural phenomenon, but can you use your own moral system to condemn either the abusers or the bishops? No, you have to rely on the "outdated" and "bankrupt" moral system of the Church.

Good luck..

Posted by: J A Baumgartner | Dec 18, 2005 11:51:51 AM

D'Alessandro,

"I challenge all of you blind sheep to find a Bible passage where Jesus speaks bad of a gay person. You cannot, because their is none. (Sorry, don't drag Leviticus into it.)"

Arguments from silence are not valid or honest. As for being a "blind sheep", I have been studying the Fathers and Church documents for over ten years. This led to a real change of heart. Have you studied the faith? Have you challenged the culture? Just asking.

Jesus spoke to a primarily Jewish audience. Consequently he did not preach about those things that were understood (e.g. homosexuality or specific sexual sins). St.Paul, however, who was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" did speak out against sexual sins--including homosexuality.

God Bless. Susan

Posted by: Susan | Dec 18, 2005 11:53:35 AM

Y'know, D'Alessandro may be right: The US Catholic Church (the Hunthasen/Weakland/ McBrien/We Are Church/Call To Action Church) IS dying! Fortunately, The Roman Catholic Church is growing in the U.S., just as Benedict pointed out.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 18, 2005 12:44:29 PM

Jimmy,

I can't read the comments on the previous articles in this blog. Please fix the Comments section of the previous articles.

Posted by: CC | Dec 18, 2005 1:26:56 PM

D'Alessandro,

If the Church is losing relevance then nothing we say or do should bother you. So ask yourself why does it bother you?

To add to the point Susan made. Let us look at what our Blessed Lord did say about sexuality.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."-Matt 19:4-6

and just a few verses later:

"...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Our Blessed Lord is teaching us how to be holy by living our vocation, either as married (man and woman) or celibate for the kindom of God. It is quite clear that unnatural relations are not part of the plan of God.

If you had read the paragraphs which I posted from the CCC you would have seen the basis for the Church Teaching that homosexual acts are "as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142

The footnotes point out the references in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
141 Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10
142 CDF, Persona humana 8

At the very least read why we believe what we believe. Before accusing us of hate and bigotry.

Take care and God bless you are in my prayers.
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 18, 2005 1:50:53 PM

D'Alessandro-

You said- "research has shown that the vast majority of pedophiles - (a) prey on someone of the opposite sex and (b) are related to their victim in a familial sense."

Exactly. Am I missing something? The facts you cite only prove the fact that the major portion of these abusers WERE NOT PEDOPHILES. The vast majority of their victimes were MALES (not members of the opposite sex) to whom the priests were NOT RELATED. They were also not young children, but adolescents.

Why is it impossible for you to admit that these abuses were overwhelmingly commited by homosexuals? Those are the facts.

Posted by: Tim J. | Dec 18, 2005 2:00:23 PM

Most gay people I know are not morally inferior people; they are good people who get a bad rap they don't deserve.

Everybody is morally inferior. Only God is good. See Eve Tushnet on the lie that "[favored person] is basically a good person."

Posted by: Kevin Jones | Dec 18, 2005 2:03:13 PM

Francis asked a question a ways up that seems to have been overlooked:

"I need a bit of clarification here. A film that gives explicit approval to homosexual/ extramarital behaviour is obviously morally offensive. (eg., 'American Pie') A film that gives tacit approval is obviously also morally offensive (in which case, 90% of Hollywood movies as 'O' since they give tacit approval to extramarital behaviour). But what about a film that just tells the story of such a story? How do we know that the film is giving tacit approval, or if it's just telling a story? Is it simply wrong to tell such a story? -Francis"

Does anyone (of the faithful Catholics) have a good response?

I think one thing to keep in mind is how does the film make us feel about the behavior? Do we like the characters that are behaving in this way? What kind of music is playing during it? Do we come out feeling that it was a good choice for them? If they were good characters, do they regret it later? Do good results come of it, or bad? (If bad, did the bad results seem to follow from the action, or from others' misunderstanding of the action...)

If I find myself feeling like I'm working against the movie (or having to work hard, constantly reminding myself) to see things in light of true morality, then I can suspect that the movie is portraying bad things in a good light, or good things in a bad light.

With the power that movies have on the human psyche through their imagery, dialogue, and music, I think it is hard to "just" tell a story without trying to make people feel a certain way about it, even if they don't realize that's what they're doing. But I may be wrong on that point--I'm no professional movie reviewer.

Posted by: Louise | Dec 18, 2005 2:26:48 PM

One more thing (sorry):

Francis asks, "Is it simply wrong to tell such a story?"

Well, when my Catholic friend told me about the movie "Brokeback Mountain" and what it was about, etc, that doesn't seem wrong because he was portraying it in a true moral light.

But as a storyteller, to tell a whole story about immorality and not mention that it is immoral, that would seem wrong. (even assuming they could somehow do it neutrally). What is the point? At best, we are being entertained by tales of immorality, with no "moral of the story" (or no true one).

Posted by: Louise | Dec 18, 2005 2:31:47 PM

Anyone read the fiction of the great Catholic Flannery O'Connor? Her work is full of death, racism, apparently senseless violence, sex, you name it, all set in the early 20th century South.

The difference between her art and "Brokeback Mountain" I would posit (since I'ven't seen the movie) is that the suffering in O'Connor's work is redemptive--for the story's characters, or the reader, or both--and Christ's grace is either explicit or implied.

The USCCB review doesn't suggest any sort of redemption or grace in "Brokeback Mountain." If anything, this tragic movie (and the filmmakers' message quoted above by Jimmy) seems to seek to connect empathy with the characters' pain and acceptance of the characters' lifestyle in order to change hearts and minds so that the social and moral stigma of homosexuality is removed and and real homosexuals, not fictional movie characters, can live a gay lifestyle in the real world without guilt, shame...or redemption.

Senselessly portraying immorality can certainly sometimes, but not necessarily always, be morally offensive, especially if redemption follows from it. Using immorality to advance an agenda and distroy a morality system is most definately morally offensive. Always.

If that's the intent of "Brokeback Mountain," than it doesn't matter how beautiful the cinematography or how powerful the acting, the movie is still morally offensive.

Posted by: | Dec 18, 2005 5:40:45 PM

Anyone read the fiction of the great Catholic Flannery O'Connor? Her work is full of death, racism, violence, sex, you name it, all set in the early 20th century South.

The USCCB review doesn't suggest any sort of redemption or grace in "Brokeback Mountain." If anything, this tragic movie (and the filmmakers' message quoted above by Jimmy) seems to seek to connect empathy with the characters' pain and acceptance of the characters' lifestyle in order to change hearts and minds so that the social and moral stigma of homosexuality is removed and real homosexuals, not fictional movie characters, can live a gay lifestyle in the real world without guilt, shame...or redemption.

Certainly senselessly portraying immorality can sometimes, but not necessarily always, be morally offensive, especially if redemption follows from it. Using immorality to advance an agenda and distroy a morality system is most definately morally offensive. Always.

If that's the intent of "Brokeback Mountain," then it doesn't matter how beautiful the cinematography or how powerful the acting, the movie is still morally offensive.

Posted by: Seth | Dec 18, 2005 5:45:31 PM

Louise, thanks for replying to my question (I almost could not find my post in this blizzard ).

Your reply made me remember that for us Catholics, art is a tool to lift the spirit towards God. Viewed from that perspective, then I would see Brokeback as a beautifully filmed 'secular art' at best, a morally offensive one at worst, and therefore I have no real dispute with either version of the USCCB review.

But that's easy for me to say, since I have no intention of seeing the actor Jake Gyllenhaal in anything but his inspiring role in October Sky.

As for Seth's reply, I would need to see the movie to know if I agree or not. But I don't plan to see it.

(Now, hopefully King Kong is not morally offensive!).

Posted by: Francis | Dec 18, 2005 9:13:59 PM

Wow.

If I wasn't already sympathetic to Mr Akin's POV, after the sheer a**-hattery of the folks who disagree with him, I would be now.

Sometimes, it makes sense to judge someone by who is against them.....

Gotta love it when someone spews hateful bile and calls *you* hateful.

Posted by: Sailorette | Dec 18, 2005 10:20:01 PM

After seeing some of the f-ed up stuff that goes on in the real world, TV and Movies just don't seem that shocking.

Does anyone else realize how horribly inoffensive a couple gay cowboys are when compared to some of the horrible things that happen in REAL life? After seeing how worked up some people get over a movie, I'm starting to wonder. How do these people not have heart attacks every day? The real world isn't rated PG.

Even assuming homosexual behavior is a sin, sinning is just something that happens. If you're gonna have a little fit everytime you see a sinner, maybe you should jut lock your doors and hide under your bed.

Jesus didn't hide under his bed.

Posted by: | Dec 19, 2005 1:16:04 AM

Getting this worked up over a couple of gay cowboys is completely ridiculous.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have faith that God isn't going to crumble under the might of Jake Gyllenhaal...

Posted by: Ralph Gables | Dec 19, 2005 1:24:33 AM

Perhaps you two ought to try reading these posts again: the only people who were worked up were the 2 anti-Catholic bigots.

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 19, 2005 2:29:20 AM

One more reason why I look to Steve Greydanus (and not the USCCB) for the acceptability of a movie, and it's subsequent review.

Way to go Steve!

Posted by: Barbara | Dec 19, 2005 5:53:07 AM

I find the ratings helpful only in that they occasionally help me figure out which movies have content that I wouldn't show the kids.

I don't intend to see "Brokeback Mountain" as the story was sad enough in print. I think that's one of the problems with putting some stories to film; any nuances are lost and a lot of subtle content becomes hammerblows to the eyes.

Speaking of content, I see clearly that Jesus never spoke out against cannibalism, bestiality or setting fire to annoying neighbours' houses. And Old Testament restrictions don't count, so that means that those aren't sins, right? Yay!(*Heading off to roast and eat neighbours...*)

Sorry. Sorry. I just don't get the "If He didn't spell it out specifically, it's okay" crowd.

Posted by: Jean | Dec 19, 2005 8:59:55 AM

The one lesson this movies teaches is that there is a whole new reason for Willy to sing:

Matres, Non Permittite Infantis Vestri Adolescere Esse Armentarii!

gay cowboys! what a ridiculous film. what ridiculous liberals gushing over the value of the lessons this piece of trash can teach.

gay cowboys! euthanized boxers! hollywood sucks.

now, bollywood, on the other hand, that's where the action is!

Posted by: JD | Dec 19, 2005 9:30:22 AM

(80 posts later)

Did anyone get my "pudding" reference in the second post? I just want to know if I connected on that one or if I was wasting my time.
-----------------
To paraphrase an above post:

Don't you realize that Catholic theology and culture formed Western civilization and lay the foundation for the growth of all social movements which we today love and cherish?

Don't you realize how inoffensive Catholic teachings are compared to the real tragedies in life? Even assuming that Catholicism is a sin against Liberalism, Catholicism is just something that happens. If you are going to have a fit every time you are confronted by a Catholic, then you might as well hide in your room under you bed.

Jesus did not hide under his bed. He went out into the world admonished sinners and started the Catholic Church...
------------------
Final message to you haters out there:
Oh ye of the "If you don't condone homosexuality then you stand in the way of Progress and should be mowed under by fascist laws controlling speech and religion" crowd! Thank you! Thank you for making the Catholic Church the standard-bearer of all human faiths on this issue. Because the fact of the matter is, there is more difference of opinion between the world's religions on big sins like murder and stealing than on homosexuality. As Catholics, we agree with the Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Daoists, Mormons, Hindus, and Protestants on the sinful nature of homosexuality (which is in fact wrong) and are proud to be singled for scorn (better us than the Anglicans!). We did not renege on birth control, divorce, or abortion. So keep those arrows coming! It's kinda cool the way they just sort of bounce off us.

Posted by: StubbleSpark | Dec 19, 2005 3:35:37 PM

"Jesus didn't hide under his bed."

No, He didn't. He called sin for what it was & admonished His followers to be "perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." Jesus Christ calls us out of our sin! His will for us is that we should grow closer to Him & that our sin would be lessened. He never says anything remotely close to "sinning is just something that happens" & we shouldn't worry about it 'cos He'll just understand.

Sorry, it does not work that way. Jesus is the Word of God incarnate! One must take all His Word into account, not just the parts that make us feel better or allow us to rationalize our chosen lifestyles & remain in our sin.

Methinks the supporters of Bareback Mountian doth protest too much. They know what Truth is but are unwilling to accept it because they're afraid it will compromise the way they live their lives.

It's interesting that Christ had the same effect on the Pharasees.

Posted by: Gene Branaman | Dec 19, 2005 3:36:00 PM

Did anyone get my "pudding" reference in the second post? I just want to know if I connected on that one or if I was wasting my time.

I wouldn't say wasting your time, but I'm afraid that I at least didn't get it.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 5:10:53 PM

Don't worry Jimmy. The less you know about that one, the better.

Posted by: The Inquisitor | Dec 19, 2005 6:19:30 PM

That's what I kinda suspected.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 6:50:55 PM

I never suspected Cartman would show up on JimmyAkin. I swear, is he prophetic or what?

Posted by: JD | Dec 19, 2005 7:17:40 PM

Actually, StubbleSpark, you're wrong on your last remark, "....Because the fact of the matter is, there is more difference of opinion between the world's religions on big sins like murder and stealing than on homosexuality...."

The stubborn fact - that you conveniently ignore - is that at least other denominations are have a DIALOGUE on the subject of homosexuality. Look at all the controversy surrounding the appointment of gay Methodist clergy. Many don't like these changes, many do (hence the designation of "open, affirming" congregations). It's causing a lot of anguish, sure. But what is happening is that many religions are starting to wrestle with the issue, as messy as it is. And for a people of faith, there is no greater sign that their beliefs have relevance to the modern world, even if they end up affirming the same core beliefs.

Catholicism, on the other hand, has been peddling the same tired arguments about the sin of homosexuality, and the Vatican shuts down any hint of real dialogue or dissent (and trust me, there is plenty of dissent on this issue amongst the faithful). There has never been honest discussion between the hierarchy and the laymen about these or other topics. Having Ratzinger publish new dogma every so often is not dialogue. And so many parishioners play passive-aggessive on the issue - they listen to their pastor rail on about the sin of homosexuality, but they understand a completely different reality in their day to day life.

That's why Catholicism has slowly hollowed out as a belief system - people go for the rituals, and "pick and choose" what is relevant for them.

I can't argue that formal Catholic dogma looks favorably on gay and lesbian people. But don't even start with the lame argument that this is true for Christianity or Judiasm as a whole. Because you are so clearly full of crap.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 8:37:28 PM

After seeing some of the f-ed up stuff that goes on in the real world, TV and Movies just don't seem that shocking.

No raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.

Posted by: Mary | Dec 19, 2005 9:01:23 PM

Catholicism, on the other hand, has been peddling the same tired arguments about the sin of homosexuality,

"Tired"

Look, first of all you have to convert us to the view that one should be a slave of fashion among ideas, let alone clothing, and dismiss truth out of hand. Then you can apply it to a specific thought that you want to declare out of style.

Posted by: Mary | Dec 19, 2005 9:03:48 PM

D'Alessandro,
I believe this question was posted to you previously, but if Catholicism is irrelevant in today's world, and evidently to you, why do you care what Catholics think? Especially if we are as "full of crap" as you say we are (BTW, that was a really classy touch...)

Posted by: vitae | Dec 19, 2005 9:17:31 PM

D'Alessandro,

You do not understand Catholic Teaching on homosexuality or homosexual persons. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Please read the Teachings of the Church before attacking them. The Church is full of sinners who are called to FAITH, HOPE and CHARITY.

If you truly seek to dialog please try to understand the Teachings of the Church instead of asking that they be changed or ignored so you can feel good about yourself.

If someone is living a sinful life the most loving thing a person can do is tell them the Truth rather than leave them wallowing in sin.

It is very evident that you are full of pain and suffering. You are in my prayers, please keep me in yours.

Take care and God bless.
J+M+J

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 19, 2005 9:30:30 PM

Mary - I certainly don't expect the Church to abandon its core beliefs just because the secular world has different views. But any religion must adapt to the reality in the pews, or it has no relevance. And the reality is that the Church has no clear thinking on why gay people are supposedly morally inferior. And to the average parishioner who actually has more than one gay friend, the old dogma doesn't make anymore. The Ten Commandment are steadfast and don't change. The Gospels form the basis of core beliefs. But let's face it - the Bible was mostly written by human, fallible people (blessed or not) who were trying to make sense of their relationship with God through stories. And the mumbo jumbo about homosexuality no longer makes sense. Other Christian faiths are starting to wrestle with this - how long will it take the Catholic Church? (Probably as long as it takes them to ordain female priests....)

Vitae - From day to day, I don't really care much about what Catholics think of homosexuality - or other topics, for that matter. Unfortunately, when the Vatican starts trying to pose its beliefs on the secular world (as it did in the 2004 Presidential Election), then the gloves come off. Believe what you like, but keep it within the Church. Nobody else wants to hear it.

And mostly, it's sad to see a discussion board full of people condemning a secular movie that they they'll never see, and trying to create an uproar that is not deserved.

If you don't want to see Brokeback Mountain, then don't. Just keep quiet about it.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 9:34:31 PM

so many parishioners play passive-aggessive on the issue - they listen to their pastor rail on about the sin of homosexuality,

Whoa! D'Alessandro! You CLEARLY have not been spending much time in Catholic parishes lately.

A major reason for dissent on this issue is that pastors DON'T talk about the fact that homosexual behavior is a sin, and a result people absorb the idea that it isn't from popular culture.

BTW, everybody, let's cut the potty mouth stuff. I've been lenient on that thus far in this thread, but enough is enough.

Let's also keep it civil.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 9:35:53 PM

If you don't want to see Brokeback Mountain, then don't. Just keep quiet about it.

This discussion is not about seeing Brokeback Mountain. This discussion is about whether it was correctly rated in light of the teaching of the Church by a man paid to rate movies in light of the teaching of the Church.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 9:38:16 PM

J+M+J - let's put your Church teaching to the test:

Consider this - your next door neighbor is a single 30-year old man who is a devoted and faithful son, hard worker, law abiding citizen, volunteer of his community, a member of his local Catholic Church. He's never even received a traffic ticket. He meets another man and forms a long-term loving relationship. They'd like to be married, but neither Church nor State will permit it (this year, anyway). So they live together and are faithful to one another.

Now pretend you are sitting down with this man, and explain your previous statements, in a way that will actually make sense to him:

1. This inclination (deep-seated homosexual tendencies) is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.

2. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

3. If someone is living a sinful life the most loving thing a person can do is tell them the Truth rather than leave them wallowing in sin.

Your challenge is to explain to this young man why he must forsake his relationship and not act on his innate homosexuality, when you'd encourage him to marry, if he were straight. Put the actual text down, and explain it in a meaningful way - so that he doesn't look at you like you're from Mars.

Seriously - assume this man is a God-fearing Christian and serious about his faith. But he needs to hear a better argument than dogmatic passages handed down from the Vatican.

I'm all ears.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 9:46:21 PM

Jimmy - if you haven't even seen Brokeback Mountain, then who are you to judge the correctness of its rating? Is there no room in your life experience for nuance? Or is everything black and white?

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 9:50:21 PM

If you don't want to see Brokeback Mountain, then don't. Just keep quiet about it.

I'd like to surface another issue that is present in this statement.

If I find a movie so offensive that I do not wish to see it, why should I keep quite about it? Why should I muffle my own point of view about it?

D'Alessandro: If there was a major motion picture getting rave reviews and likely to clean up at Oscar time whose central point was to paint homosexuals as depraved monsters from the pit of hell (which is NOT what they are--they are people who Christ loves and for whom he died, just like the rest of us--but for the sake of argument), would you feel that you should just not see the movie and "keep quiet about it" or would you feel that you should speak your mind and alert others to the problems with this movie?

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 9:54:01 PM

Jimmy - if you haven't even seen Brokeback Mountain, then who are you to judge the correctness of its rating? Is there no room in your life experience for nuance? Or is everything black and white?

You seem to be a newcomer here. I say that partly because I haven't seen your name in the comboxes before but that's not decisive because many people lurk for a long time before commenting. The decisive thing is the question of whether everything is black and white for me. It's not. I *regularly* comment on issues with copious amounts of nuance.

Ask the others on the blog if you don't believe me.

I also do not view people with homosexual temptations as monsters. They're not. They're *human beings* who God loves just as much as he loves me or anyone else, and for whom Christ died just as much as he die for me or anyone else. We are all equal in God's eyes, and we are all in need of his grace. Some of us are subject to different temptations than others, but we are all tempted and we all need God's grace and mercy.

While I must hold forth the truth of the fact that homosexual behavior is sinful and that the temptations that lead to this behavior are disordered, I also hold to the truth of God's love and compassion for all people, regardless of what their particular sins and temptations are.

Regarding Brokeback Mountain, I have not seen it--yet, anyway--though I may conclude that I need to see it simply to blunt the "You haven't seen it yet" objection.

Personally, I do not subscribe to the position that one needs to see a film before one can make a bottom line apparisal of it. If that were so then one could NEVER make a judgment that a film is not worth seeing without actually going to see it--but people make this judgment all the time. In fact, unless you watch every single film that you have the ability to watch, you have made this judgment.

Since Brokeback Mountain is currently only playing in something like five cities, I would be curious to know if you have seen it.

One does need to see a film in order to write a review of it, but that is not what I have done. I have used premises contained in Harry Forbes' review (namely, the premise that the film's central theme is about a long-term homosexual relationship and the premise that the film approves of the homosexual activity of those in this relationship) and drawn the conclusion that the film should be rated as morally offensive.

If it turned out that the review was erroneous and that the film is *not* about such a relationship OR that it does *not* approve of such behavior then my conclusion would be invalid.

If I am right about these two points then my conclusion is solid, whether or not I have watched the film. I'm simply using the premises that the review itself admits.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 10:03:29 PM

Actually, Jimmmy, such films are made, which paint gay people in very unflattering light. Some, like "Monster" with Charlize Theron, are Oscar material - and sadly - are occasionally based on true stories.

It's one thing to protest a film which seeks to demonize a people or paint them in an untrue manner (I think this is why Frank Rich protested "The Passion of the Christ" for its depiction of Jews as savages.)

It's quite another to protest a benign film like Brokeback which paints nobody in a bad light (well, mostly not), but simply doesn't conform to your beliefs.

Come to think of it, the OFB rating system you describe is half the problem. Instead of using a term like "morally offensive", the OFB should employ terminology such as "Incompatible with official Catholic Church beliefs". Because nobody who walked out of the "Brokeback" showing I attended found the film offensive - most were quite moved. Perhaps a movie that makes one feel empathy for two guys trying to have an honest gay relationship is not what the Church wants to condone. I have no quarrel with that. But to call it offensive is the height of hubris.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 10:06:21 PM

But any religion must adapt to the reality in the pews, or it has no relevance.

Ummm....no. We've seen what happened to the Episcopalians when they adopted that philosophy.

No thank you.

Posted by: Dennis_Mahon | Dec 19, 2005 10:11:42 PM

D'Alessandro,

If he is a serious Christian he would be concerned about not offending God and the state of his immortal soul. Being a serious Christian he would read the Sacred Scriptures.

1 Cor 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes

nor sodomites

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:24-32 "Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.

They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Being a Christian means following the way of Christ not society. Being a serious Christian means accepting that the Sacred Scriptures are the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

God is Love. We are made in the image and likeness of God therefore we must love as God loves. Our love MUST be life-giving. A homosexual relationship is against God's plan of life-giving love.

If a serious Christian commits mortal sin he is choosing his will over the will of God. God sends no one to hell. We choose hell because we love a creature more than the Creator.

I am called to proclaim the Truth in charity. I am trying to do that. I would say the same thing to a husband cheating on his wife or anyone abusing the God given gift of our sexuality. Because I DO NOT want anyone to reject our humble and loving God because of the lies of Satan.

Take care and God bless.

J+M+J = Jesus, Mary, Joseph pray for us.

Posted by: Inocencio | Dec 19, 2005 10:11:49 PM

Then it sounds like what we are talking about is a matter of sematics.

To Catholics (or at least theologically orthodox Catholics) a film that is fundmaentally incompatible with Catholic moral beliefs is morally offensive--just as a film that is incompatible with your moral beliefs (such as a "homosexuals are monsters" film) would be morally offensive to you. (The latter would *also* be morally offensive to *me.*)

Perhaps the matter can be cleared up by parsing the O rating as "morally offensive [to Catholics]" or "morally offensive [to Catholics who adhere to the teachings of their Church]" and recognizing that this is the audience for whom the rating is meant, rather than individuals who have a different set of moral beliefs.

Posted by: Jimmy Akin | Dec 19, 2005 10:13:47 PM

Inocencio -

Ooo, boy, I see why most people who differ with the Church simply leave it.

The young man is question is not a:
fornicator
idolater
adulterer
boy prostitute
gossip or scandalmonger
rebellious toward their parents

who is full of:
wickedness, evil, greed, and malice
murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite

I'll give you a couple points for quoting scripture correctly, but you mentioned nothing that would appeal to a young man who is none of those things.

And that is why the Church teaching against homosexuality rings hollow. Because you have to take all of the literally to follow His Word (according to Catholics, anyway). And an upright young man is simply not going to be swayed. He doesn't see himself as wicked and depraved - he sees himself as a good person, seeking moral clarity in a way that makes sense to him.

Posted by: D'Alessandro | Dec 19, 2005 10:22:12 PM

"He sees himself as a good person". If someone sees himself as a good person, that's his biggest problem. We ALL are sinners. We ALL need to repent. For those of us who realize we are sinners, it is a constant battle. That is why our Blessed Lord instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Someone who sees himself as a good person is not likely to see his need for repentence. His spiritual pride gets in the way. (And trust me, I know about spiritual pride; I battle it all the time.)

Posted by: bill912 | Dec 20, 2005 3:05:58 AM

"Actually, Jimmmy, such films are made, which paint gay people in very unflattering light. Some, like "Monster" with Charlize Theron, are Oscar material - and sadly - are occasionally based on true stories."

Really? They even portray the evil ones with sympathy. Poor example of gays being treated in "unflattering light"....

BTW, "Triumph of the Will" was also one of the best made movies of its time. Leni Reifenstahl was an unmatched film-making genius in Germany. I wonder how the Jews would feel if they were told "if you don't like it, don't see it, just keep quiet".

And another thing, because the damn film is a soaring work of art, are we disallowed from criticizing the darkness it peddles?

"I'll give you a couple points for quoting scripture correctly, but you mentioned nothing that would appeal to a young man who is none of those things."

Remind me what was "appealing" about such teachings as "eat My Flesh" and "drink My Blood" to reach eternal life.

If you still believe that the Church achieved 2,000 years of consistent existence because it made itself appealing to what men find fabulous, then it is not the Catholics here who are out of touch.

The Church doesn't give a flying monkey's butt if Her teachings are appealing to the base passions of Man. Her teachings are the Lord's teachings, and Man has the free will to take it or leave it. That's why the saying "God sends to Hell" is erroneous. Hell is a Choice.

Posted by: JonathanR. | Dec 20, 2005 5:38:05 AM

D'Alessandro writes, "Because nobody who walked out of the 'Brokeback' showing I attended found the film offensive - most were quite moved. Perhaps a movie that makes one feel empathy for two guys trying to have an honest gay relationship is not what the Church wants to condone. I have no quarrel with that. But to call it offensive is the height of hubris."

From a movie spoiler website, a detailed synopsis of the movie includes a description of this scene from the movie: "Jack drives away, his grief palpable. On impulse, he drives to Mexico, and goes to a gay cruising area. He picks up a guy who looks like Ennis."

So . . . not only can Jack not be faithful to his wife, HE CAN'T EVEN BE FAITHFUL TO HIS GAY LOVER, who's supposed to be his soulmate, love of his life, blah, blah, blah. It is this sort of behaviour that demonstrates perfectly why the Church considers homosexuality to be a disordered condition. When you truly love someone, are truly committed to someone, YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH OTHER PEOPLE!

Posted by: Susan | Dec 20, 2005 6:04:39 AM

D'Alessandro, if I knew such a young man, I would pray for his conversion. If he's committing sodomy without any pangs of conscience, then he is by no means a good Christian. I'm not saying I'm a good Christian, either--we're all sinners, as someone said above. Even Mother Teresa thought she was a bad Catholic. That doesn't mean that sin is "something which happens". We all bear guilt for our sin, and God calls us to constantly struggle against it.

Life is a constant struggle between the person we are and the person we should be. Persons with homosexual temptations (it's twisted to define yourself by your sexual orientation--it's like defining yourself by the condition of your liver) have an extra cross to bear in that respect, but ALL men are called to chastity, whether in marriage or single life. Homosexual relationships are always, and without exception, unchaste.

The purpose of Catholicism is not to affirm our okayness, as Mark Shea would put it.

Posted by: Sean S. | Dec 20, 2005 6:56:43 AM

D'Alessandro,

You said above, essentially, "Don't keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong. Tell me why it's wrong."

I think it's a fair question, although one that is hard to deal with in the space of a combox. The fact is homosexuality cannot be integrated into any consistent account of the meaning of sexuality. Here's an overview of the Church's thinking on the matter--

Firstly, look at sex from a purely biological point of view. Why is it there? What does it do? The biological purpose of sex is procreation, to make children.

Secondly, look at sex from a personalistic point of view. Most everyone, including you in your example, admit that it is an intimate and meaningful act between two people. It is an act which builds connection and relationship.

Well, combine these two aspects of sex -- procreation and relationship -- and what do you get? The family, which is built from the creative and relational aspects of the sexual act.

You cannot remove either of these aspects without destroying the meaning of sex.

Essentially, the Church views sex, procreation, and marriage/family as inextricable intertwined. They are links in a chain which cannot be broken without severing yourself from the truth about sex.

You'll see that this is why the Catholic Church opposes birth control, divorce, sex before/outside of marriage, masturbation, and, of course, homosexuality. All of these are actions which contradict one or the other aspect (procreative or relational) and thus contradict the meaning of sex.

Like I said, there's a lot more to it. I suggest you read Pope John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility" or any of the works of Christopher West for more information. Others here may have suggestions, too.

I'll be praying for you.

Posted by: Bear | Dec 20, 2005 8:08:41 AM

D'Alessandro,

You said above, essentially, "Don't keep telling me that homosexuality is wrong. Tell me why it's wrong."

Firstly, look at sex from a purely biological point of view. Why is it there? What does it do? The biological purpose of sex is procreation, to make children.

Well, combine these two aspects of sex -- procreation and relationship -- and what do you get? The family, which is built from the creative and relational aspects of the sexual act.

You cannot remove either of these aspects without destroying the meaning of sex.

Essentially, the Church views sex, procreation, and marriage/family as inextricable intertwined. They are links in a chain which cannot be broken without severing yourself from the truth about sex.

I'll be praying for you.

Posted by: Bear | Dec 20, 2005 8:09:56 AM

Oops, sorry about the double post.

Posted by: Bear | Dec 20, 2005 8:12:28 AM

D'Alessandro-

The Catholic Church does not force anyone to do anything, or to live in any certain way, but recognizes that all human beings are free moral agents.

Just don't try to attach the word "catholic" to whatever lifestyle you happen to want.

Your hypothetical friend is free (totally free!) to live however he wishes, but he is not free to demand that others acknowledge it as moral. I am also a free moral agent, and I will not be forced to apply the term "marriage" to a situation that is more like "playing house", regardless of the emotions involved.

Fully human decisions involve more than just the feelings of the people in question. We are frequently called to make moral decisions that go AGAINST all our prevailing emotions. That is often what makes it a real moral decision, rather than just a "mood". Anyone can be charitable when the mood strikes them.

I find this rule at work when dealing with my own conscience:

1)Always lean toward listening to your conscience when it tells you that what you are doing may be wrong.

2)Always lean toward questioning your conscience when it is letting you off the hook about something.

(Obviously, this would NOT apply to those who suffer from an excess of scrupulosity).

One of the surest signs of a true moral monster is that they are seldom troubled by their conscience. They go on assuming that they are perfectly okay, and that it is everyone else who is hung up. As I heard an alcoholic say once, "I don't have a problem with my drinking... everyone else does. They need to mind their own business.".

Posted by:

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Jimmy Akin's Blog

About

JA.O Bloggers

PermaPosts

Sites

Blogs

Categories

December 16, 2005

The Brokeback Mountain Fiasco

TrackBack

Comments