"B'Art"
Ah ha! I thought I recognized the bits of ultimately aimless rhetoric from some where!

"I did, and you chose, of your own free will (and perhaps to your delight), to answer the question in this combox."

You're not tracking me, B'Art, doubtless intentionally. We're done here. Have a nice weekend.

Then you could have asked the question and left it at that.
I did, and you chose, of your own free will (and perhaps to your delight), to answer the question in this combox. FWIW, I've actually not been examining "the correctness of [your] arguments against Catholic Obama advocacy", even if that's how you've viewed it. Rather, someone had asked you whether "your review work may be clouding your objectivity," and you responded, "You are free to entertain those speculations." Perhaps you're not as objective as you believe, and perhaps it has little to do with your movie review work, and perhaps we are not free to entertain those speculations (in this combox). To me, whether your opinion (on movies, Obama, whatever) is correct or not can be much like whether the wind is correct or not. It's an unusual question, but one that may be more polite (if taken personally) than to ask if it's blowing and how hard. It's a variant on the common question, "How's the weather by you?"
Or, to keep it in Ponyo terms, "Did Ponyo upset the balance of nature and threaten the co-existence of humans and the undersea population?" I'm sure Ponyo did not mean to do so, or did she? Or, how true is your love? Or, is this not the appropriate bucket?

"For me, further examination of the question 'Can it not be that your conclusion is incorrect?' was appropriate for the internal forum."

Then you could have asked the question and left it at that. As it is, my point was not to identify the appropriate forum, only to identify an inappropriate forum.

Further cross-examination of the correctness of my arguments against Catholic Obama advocacy should be deferred to the appropriate forum
For me, further examination of the question "Can it not be that your conclusion is incorrect?" was appropriate for the internal forum. Maybe you prefer another. I would not want your Ponyo movie discussion to be bogged down with discussion of the correctness of one-sided arguments on Obama, but nonetheless, may we rejoice and give thanks in all circumstances. Every joy and suffering, every event and need can become the matter for thanksgiving.
Thank you.
"You Who alone are good, may we give You all praise, all glory, all thanks, all honor, all blessing, and all good."

"Can it not be that your conclusion is incorrect?"

No, I don't believe so. Not if the Catholic moral tradition upheld and articulated by John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger and others is correct. But this is not the combox for that discussion. The whole question was barely ancillary to the already tangential question of boycotting Ponyo over the participation of Damon. Further cross-examination of the correctness of my arguments against Catholic Obama advocacy should be deferred to the appropriate forum. Thank you.

Any calculus that arrives at an incorrect conclusion is per se inadequate. Beyond that, I make no judgment.
That does not judge whose conclusion is incorrect and thus whose calculus is inadequate, yet your previous claim was that "his calculus does not adequately take into account foundational premises of natural law". Can it not be that your conclusion is incorrect? Just because someone else's conclusion apparently does not agree with yours, even if you argue yours "at length" (length is not a measure of adequacy or correctness), that does not mean his conclusion is incorrect or his calculus is inadequate or even that it's likely to be incorrect or inadequate.
The teachings of the Church are well known, that one cannot support someone (Obama) who takes an extreme position in favor of abortion when there is a viable candidate of significantly lesser evil.
What any candidate's position is and the future effects, short-term and long-term, of any candidate's election or support are not teachings of the Church. It's speculation, guessing, sometimes called "calculus", or whatever the favored term may be. If candidates are not outright lying, they may mouth empty words, dance about and flip flop, often like puppets on a string. People hold different opinions as to the significance. Perhaps you see voting or campaigning for X as supporting person X's opinions or allegedly promised acts, but someone else may see it as supporting a speculative chain of events that extends until the end of the world which is labelled as X (or Obama). In comparison, that voter may speculate that chain labelled Y (or McCain) is the greater evil, even if candidate Y's actions, if viewed in isolation, may be the lesser evil, because the chains being voted on are far more than just candidate X or Y's actions. Or, some voters may view their personal best guess is to be made based on their perceptions of the candidates' and/or candidates' parties' character. Just as different people may have different skills or gifts, so too may they use different methods to come to their conclusions.
Furthermore, any silence from the bishops cannot be construed to mean that they dissent from the Church and support Obama.
It can be construed just as I said, that the calculus of some number of bishops may differ from SDG's. The unknown is unknown. If you see "support Obama" as "dissent from the Church", that's your opinion. To someone else, "support Obama" may mean support for the chain, in which Obama is temporarily president, as the lesser evil, or support for whatever good may be seen in connection with Obama, or support of the political process in which no candidate is all deserving, or whatever it may mean to someone else. I "support Obama". Maybe you do too. For president, as president, however it may be. To do what is right.

"one cannot support someone (Obama) who takes an extreme position in favor of abortion when there is a viable candidate of significantly lesser evil."
That is not to say that one could support Obama when there is no candidate of lesser evil.

"I only say that they may disagree. I don't claim that they do or don't or how many. "
Well, then why say it? The teachings of the Church are well known, that one cannot support someone (Obama) who takes an extreme position in favor of abortion when there is a viable candidate of significantly lesser evil. Furthermore, any silence from the bishops cannot be construed to mean that they dissent from the Church and support Obama.

Any calculus that arrives at an incorrect conclusion is per se inadequate. Beyond that, I make no judgment.

His calculus does not adequately take into account foundational premises of natural law, as lucidly set forth in Evangelium Vitae, as I have previously argued at length.
I don't choose to judge his unknown calculus, just as you may perceive inadequacy and I don't choose to judge your inadequacy.
Portsmouth Bishop Gently Backs Away from “Thrilled” Obama Welcome
I don't believe his calculus changed.

"Apparently his calculus differs from yours."

His calculus does not adequately take into account foundational premises of natural law, as lucidly set forth in Evangelium Vitae, as I have previously argued at length.

"Of course, there's also Bishop Hollis who said, 'I have been thrilled by Barack Obama's victory and I thank God for it.'"

Portsmouth Bishop Gently Backs Away from “Thrilled” Obama Welcome

I only say that they may disagree. I don't claim that they do or don't or how many. Why should I speak for them? Fr. Reese described it as, "the most vocal bishops gave the appearance of speaking for all the bishops, and the others just kept silent." Of course, there's also Bishop Hollis who said, "I have been thrilled by Barack Obama's victory and I thank God for it. For me, it represents a rare moment of hope and optimism which shows American democracy at its best and it is of seismic significance and potential for the whole global community."

"As may the calculus of some number of bishops."
Evidence?

supporting a candidate whose... when a less objectionable viable candidate was available
Apparently his calculus differs from yours. As may the calculus of some number of bishops.

"Mr. Damon is a de facto promoter of abortion by supporting pro-abortion candidates"

Not quite. Mr. Damon is indeed morally culpable for supporting a candidate whose pro-abortion platform is antithetical to the root and foundation of all human rights, legitimate rule of law and social justice when a less objectionable viable candidate was available. Moreover, if Mr. Damon has any reservations about the morality and legality of abortion, he hasn't expressed them that I know of. To that extent, Mr. Damon is certainly guilty of unacceptable cooperation in moral evil. However, Catholic moral theology will not support calling Mr. Damon "de facto promoter of abortion" on these grounds.
That said, Terry, I'm asking you to please stop the haranguing tone of your cross-examination of JohnD, if indeed you must continue your cross-examination at all. JohnD's approach may play somewhat fast and loose with moral categories, but he seems to be trying to conduct himself with dignity and is not attacking other people. Let's all try to take the high road and elevate rather than drag down the level of discussion.

Making analogies to show a principle does not imply that I'm trying to make Mr. Damon out to be a racist or a neo-Nazi
That's fine. That's why I said you compared him to someone on the *level* of a neo-Nazi or racist.
Mr. Damon is a de facto promoter of abortion by supporting pro-abortion candidates
Oh, I see, "de facto". With the money put into the church baskets, the Church writes checks to people who support abortion or are pro-choice, and thus the Church (de facto) promotes abortion. Likewise, people who vote for a candidate like McCain who sought abortion exceptions (de facto) promote abortion. And because Sarah Palin supported her pro-fornication daughter, Sarah Palin was a (de facto) promoter of fornication. And of course, Jesus put Peter in charge knowing that Peter would deny him, and so Jesus (de facto) promoted denial. Is that what you mean, where everyone is a "promoter" in some sense? Thanks for explaining it.

Okay, so does that mean we have to discuss Cloris Leachmen? ;-P

I'm with the Chicken. I think JohnD has made himself sufficiently clear at this point, as have the points on the other side. Let's call it a combox (at least on this sub-topic).

Terry,
Making analogies to show a principle does not imply that I'm trying to make Mr. Damon out to be a racist or a neo-Nazi (I don't believe he is either). The only common thread would be a promotion of evil.
Mr. Damon is a de facto promoter of abortion by supporting pro-abortion candidates that include, yes, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Kerry. He went so far to offer $1,000,000 to see the latter in office, however I do not know if he made good on that.
If those pro-abortion candidates belonged to a different political party, my position would be no different.
Are you going to return to your heckling now?

Sigh... dare I ask? What "accusations" are you referring to?
To begin, your comparison of Matt Damon to someone on the level of a "Neo-Nazi" or "racist", and as SDG pointed out, "you seem to call Matt Damon an 'abortion promoter.' Do you have any specific evidence on this specific charge, or is the whole weight of the thing on his Obama advocacy?"
I'm not suggesting political parties or candidates.
Then where is your specific evidence apart from Matt Damon's political activity? SDG has been asking you since Saturday. Again, his question to you: "Do you have any specific evidence on this specific charge, or is the whole weight of the thing on his Obama advocacy?"
Could we cut JohnD some slack?
He's been cutting himself slack since Saturday.

Could we cut JohnD some slack? Similar thoughts about other things have certainly crossed my mind. He seems to understand the issues. He is at one end of a permissible spectrum.
The Chicken

Terry,
Sigh... dare I ask? What "accusations" are you referring to?
Nope, I'm not suggesting political parties or candidates.

JohnD, I wasn't trying to be funny. Your accusations (or what you call a "suggestion") prompted a closer look into the world of Devonian Teletubbies. If you're suggesting that I not support a particular political party or candidate, what political party or candidate is so exclusively deserving that society should not spend a penny on a rival?

P.S. Sorry, my exact wording was "might consider" rather than "may".

//Comments like "Should you rationalize morality away? NO. Just skip the movie"... do seem to me to suggest an overly scrupulous //
The comments was intended in the context of a person who did not want to associate with the hypothetical catalog movie due to evil associations. They were not intended to suggest that those who chose not to avoid such a hypothetical movie were therefore committing sin.
My very first post on this topic suggested that you *may* want to boycott (on a small scale) the movie in question. Hopefully, this would give away my position that this is a matter of prudential judgment, not a matter of objective sin.

SDG is correct. What we are talking about here is remote material cooperation with evil. A few years after graduate school while I was looking for academic work, I wound up doing some temp work for a major health insurance company. I left after a few days when I realized that my efforts could help fund someone's abortion. Did I have to leave? No. The cooperation with evil was too remote to require this. On the other hand as a witness to life, it was a good thing.
In the end, JohnD is certainly attempting to do something virtuous by avoiding the film for the reason he states, however, his actions are in the realm of prudential judgment and perhaps a sensitive conscience. One can certainly imagine a person not knowing that Matt Damon did the voice work for the minor character and seeing only the good points of the film. Even if one knows that Damon did the voice work, the cooperation with evil is so remote that it does not rise to the level of sin, ordinarily. If one's conscience says to stay away and one has done due diligence in understanding the moral theology, then, by all means, stay away. Each person is responsible to his conscience.
I have my own avoidance triggers for films as I am sure everyone does. There is nothing wrong with seeing this film from a moral perspective as long as one is not too sensitive about making Damon a few dollars richer. There are few films that star actors who do not have morally questionable stands. What can one do? I doubt, given the nature of Hollywood, that this will ever change. The whole "star" thing is a powerful temptation.
I certainly sympathize with John and if Damon were being paid more, had a larger role, and were more outspoken in supporting an immoral cause, things might be different and we all might be better off not supporting the film, but in this case, Damon's presence is more of an irritation than a blackening of the film.
The Chicken

JohnD,
I'm not denouncing anything or anyone. I have no brief against anyone who chooses not to see any movie for any reason. I've heard from people who choose not to go to movies in which an actor and actress kiss, or for whom the presence of a particular actor or actress arouses such negative associations that they avoid all movies with that individual.
I have no interest in movies costarring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, due of their long-time extramarital affair. I'll watch 'em separately, but I don't want to see them together. I think in my whole life I've seen one Tracy-Hepburn movie, and I'd be happy never to see another. I would specifically avoid a movie for no other reason (I don't know if it would absolutely prevent me against any counter-consideration whatsoever, but it's a definitely a factor against it.)
OTOH, I don't mind watching Bogey and Bacall, even though Bacall was Bogey's third wife and thus the Church would regard them as living in sin. On the one hand, adultery is adultery, but somehow plain old adultery is more repellent to me (and somehow it matters to me that Tracy was Catholic).
I have no argument with anyone who wants to say I'm being inconsistent. I have no argument with anyone who chooses not to watch Bogey and Bacall movies, or who chooses to watch Tracy-Hepburn movies. From a moral theology perspective, none of these decisions involves any significant entanglement with grave evil. The question is best looked at as a sort of morally charged aesthetics, or aesthetic implications of morality.
I would thus not call for a "boycott" of Tracy-Hepburn movies, nor would I suggest that others share my aesthetic scruple on this point (I'm using the word scruple here in a non-technical sense). I might mention to others how I feel, but to suggest that others consider taking similar action would seem to me too close to real scrupulosity.
Similarly, the decision to avoid a movie in which one knows one of the actors campaigned for a pro-abortion politician is a perfectly legitimate one, with which I have no quarrel. Nor do I quarrel with you for mentioning how you feel.
However, from a moral theology perspective, it is simply not a question of significant entanglement with grave evil, and to regard it as such would indeed be scrupulous. Comments like "Should you rationalize morality away? NO. Just skip the movie" and "lifting a half ounce sword in the battle against the culture of death" do seem to me to suggest an overly scrupulous assessment of the moral implications of this very, very remote form of material cooperation.
FWIW, my comments about the probable counter-productivity of an organized boycott were prudential considerations, and had nothing to do with questions of scrupulosity, which were more in the area of moral theology. Likewise, any prudential rebuttal you might make about the possible counter-productivity of marches, etc. would not go to questions of scrupulosity.

SDG,
I regret agreeing to name one movie. You keep bringing it up in quite an irrelevant way despite my previous rebuttals that I was not advocating for a replacement movie scheme. I didn't name a movie to serve as some sort of model for all movies. I just named one because you seemed to indicate that you'd be satified and that you wouldn't judge. But you've been laying judgments on my selection ever since.
Please avoid chasing straw men. I'm not "digging" as far as I can to find evil associations. If one confronts me, I avoid it, especially when it's so easy. If you don't want to join me, fine. But don't call it scrupulosity, and please refrain from denouncing it.
I can use the same hammer as you. One could argue that marching for life might conceivable backfire (look how radical those folks are!) or at least not directly affect the good in a meaningful way since the news is so biased or because politicians are so closed-minded, for example. That's still not a reason to denounce that measure or to falsely accuse those who march for life of being involved with scrupulosity.

P.S. Again you seem to call Matt Damon an "abortion promoter." Do you have any specific evidence on this specific charge, or is the whole weight of the thing on his Obama advocacy?

"One could argue that the good acheived is remote."

I'm not sure we're using the word "remote" in exactly the same way.
Remoteness in moral theology has to do with the directness of the relationship of a particular act and the end to which it is ordered. It is not a measure of total good achieved, but to the immediacy or degrees of mediation between the act and a particular effect or end.
I can elaborate further if necessary, but for now suffice to say that marches for life, letters to legislators and prayers to end abortion are all fairly directly (not remotely) ordered toward particular goals that, in turn, we hope will serve the cause of promoting the culture of life, or at least slowing the spread of the culture of death.
Marches and similar demonstrations are ordered toward the ends of raising consciousness, maintaining a visible presence, expressing visible solidarity with others of like mind, and collectively bringing to bear whatever pressure we can, however small, on our civic leaders. The size of the impact is not the point of immediacy; the relationship of the act and its end is.
By going to the March for Life, I have increased the effectiveness of the March for Life by exactly one person (or three people, if you count my daughter and my father). How effective that is, is beside the point. The weapon (attending the March for Life) is well-chosen for the end (making a statement about my commitment to life, expressing solidarity with other pro-lifers, etc.). The collective presence of all the marchers makes a clear statement that is as effective as we can make it.
Similarly, praying to end abortion is directly ordered toward the ending of abortion within the providence of God. The effectiveness of such prayer is a question we can only leave to God; we can only hope that life is promoted and abortion hindered by the prayers of the saints on earth and in heaven. In any case, the act itself is immediately ordered toward that end.
Although you mentioned "boycotting," I suspect you may not really have meant to suggest a publicly organized and promoted effort to encourage mass non-patronage of this film by way of publicly pressuring Disney into modifying its behavior (presumably by not employing Matt Damon or other Obama supporters in the future?) -- which is what a boycott properly so-called would mean.
If that really is what you meant, I suspect the vast majority of pro-lifers would agree that such an effort could only be counter-productive if it had any effect at all.
But perhaps you only meant that on a personal level pro-lifers might prefer to avoid this movie, thereby not contributing (even a small amount) to the (quite modest) domestic box-office performance of a film for which a (probably small) paycheck was given to Matt Damon, thereby (infinitessimally) contributing to a (quite large) personal fortune, some (not insignificant) portion of which could well go to fund some objectionable causes.
If that is what you meant, then I say that in a moral-theology sense the good to be achieved is too remote from the means (not just too small as such) to be a driving moral consideration, and that to be driven by such considerations is unnecessarily scrupulous.
Among other things, the teeny, tiny impact of my movie ticket on Matt Damon's political activism is irrelevant compared to several more direct positive effects. Not least, my movie ticket helps to keep local working-class theater employees (my neighbors) gainfully employed, and helps to stimulate the local economy -- impacts that are both far larger as well as more immediate than any impact on Matt Damon's political activism.
Perhaps you feel like there ought to be another movie I could patronize, or another family activity I could organize, that would have similar helpful impacts on my community without contributing even a fraction of a penny to Damon's evil agenda. Unfortunately, Therese isn't playing in our local theater at the moment.
Anyway, going to see any movie at all, or spending any money whatsoever in our corporate economy market, probably has some bad impact somewhere down the line. Theater chains, unions, corporate policies, advertising agencies -- dig far enough and you'll find some evil or other in which you have remote material cooperation. Very, very remote, but still material cooperation -- of a sort that Catholic moral theology permits.
We go to the zoo, the botanical gardens, the aquarium. Maybe some of our zoo ticket money goes to support environmentalist causes that I wouldn't always agree with. We eat out occasionally. I'm sure the restaurants we patronize are in some way entangled in causes I wouldn't agree with. When there's a good family film in town, we catch it.
I see no reasonable basis in Catholic moral theology for scrupling about Matt Damon's participation in a film like Ponyo on the grounds of his politics.

Terry,
My suggestion of not giving financial empowerment to an abortion promoter was the TIPPING POINT for you seeing the movie?
I know you were trying to be funny, but babies getting pulled apart is not very funny at all.

Tim J.
I've already addressed your question in my latest response to SDG. I do not begrudge you your right to prioritize how you battle the culture of death.

The attititude I'm receiving from my suggestion of boycott has been strangely and irrationally defensive.
JohnD, I opened my heart to your "strange and irrationally defensive" boycott suggestion and was thus inspired to host a group of people to see the movie. Like little children, we enjoyed the movie and listened carefully and patiently for Matt Damon to speak his ten words. Had we not been listening for it, had you not made such a fuss over it, perhaps we might have missed it! Indeed, we might have missed the movie entirely. What an inspiration you are!
P.S. Matt Damon thanks you too!

Pardon me for coming so late to the conversation.
JohnD, I certainly agree that if you feel the need to boycott these kinds of films, you are free to do so and may even be admired for your sincere effort. I don;t think anyone is arguing that you should go see the film when it would clearly offend your own conscience.
My question is, do you hold that all right-thinking Christians must agree with you in your boycott, or that it would be wrong for any Christian to see such films?
That, I think, is another issue. I don't think anyone is condemning your personal right to boycott whatever you see fit, do you condemn those who do not boycott?
There is a large measure of prudential judgment, here, that I think you may be dismissing.

SDG,
Let's apply your standards to these examples again:
*Suggestions to march for life on your state capital?
*Suggestions to write, call or e-mail your state representatives to let them know your opinions on the sanctity of life?
*Suggestions to fast for the end of abortion?
One could argue that the good acheived is remote. So what? That doesn't mean these activities involve scrupulosity! I can understand rationalizing that since the good acheived in these cases is "remote" (from one's point of view) one may refrain from joining in them, *but what I cannot understand* is the irritation caused by suggesting such measures, or falsely condemning them as involving scrupulosity, or otherwise denouncing these measures.

"ALL of these measures involve a great deal more energy and sacrifice than the very passive decision to avoid certain movies with gravely evil associates."

I guess the point of my garden-sword parable was lost.
What I object to isn't the expenditure of energy and sacrifice. (FWIW, this January 22 I drove six hours round trip to Washington, DC to stand in the cold with my eldest daughter and my father in a crowd of so many thousands we could barely move for over an hour, in order to march for life. When I lived in Philadelphia I routinely rose before 6am on (IIRC) first Saturdays to attend a Mass for life and rosary prayer march on a Planned Parenthood clinic, followed by Eucharistic benediction. I pray the rosary every day with my family, and regularly attend weekday Mass. So I'm not at all resistant to expending energy, on behalf of life or the Faith in general.)
Rather, what I resist here is the remoteness of the "good" to be achieved in this case. If I considered a movie significantly entangled with the culture of death, I would expend significant energy and sacrifice (in print, online, on the air) actively discouraging people from seeing it. Saying "This movie has a minor character who is dubbed in English by a Hollywood actor who campaigned for Obama, therefore fight the culture of death by boycotting this movie" seems to me the kind of overly remote connection-making that is typical of scrupulosity.
Scrupulosity does not necessarily mean expending a lot of energy. On the contrary, scrupulosity can easily lead to passive choices by discouraging people from engaging in basically harmless and wholesome activities for wire-drawn, remote reasons that have little moral impact, or whose moral impact is so divergent that it is not rational to single out one remote element to trump every other possible consideration.

"I wonder if your involvement with a movies via your review work may be clouding your objectivity. I wonder if the materialistic cultural norm of entertaining ourselves to the point of nearly constant distraction also is distorting this issue."

You are free to entertain those speculations. FWIW, I don't encourage anyone to entertain themselves to near constant distraction. Lots of things in life are more important than movies, and I routinely tell people that in my work.

//I call it scrupulosity//
HUH?! The attititude I'm receiving from my suggestion of boycott has been strangely and irrationally defensive.
Would you have a similar reaction to:
*Suggestions to march for life on your state capital?
*Suggestions to write, call or e-mail your state representatives to let them know your opinions on the sanctity of life?
*Suggestions to fast for the end of abortion?
ALL of these measures involve a great deal more energy and sacrifice than the very passive decision to avoid certain movies with gravely evil associates.
I wonder if your involvement with a movies via your review work may be clouding your objectivity. I wonder if the materialistic cultural norm of entertaining ourselves to the point of nearly constant distraction also is distorting this issue.

// so, we should reject the works of St. Augustine before he converted? //
Boy, I must really not be making myself clear! When I lend financial support to a person who *formerly* supported abortion, for example, I do so because I do not expect them to use that financial power to lobby for pro-abortion lawmakers, or give money to Planned Unparenthood.
Quite the opposite!

Spirited Away was quite possibly the weirdest movie I have ever seen in my entire life. No, leave off the "quite possibly" part.
I'm game. Is this new flick as weird as Spirited Away? Bring it on!

"...Cloris Leachman, Betty White..."
Don't all normal people have a problem with these two? ;-P

Outside the garden the world is covered with poison ivy.
Is this movie inside or outside the garden? You don't have to answer. Poison ivy doesn't bother me. If it weren't for some people's exaggerated so-called "immune" response to poison ivy, it would be seen as harmless. I hear there's treatment available for those who have a problem with it. Probably also treatment available for people who have a problem with Matt Damon, Lily Tomlin, Cate Blanchett, Cloris Leachman, Betty White, Tina Fey, Noah Cyrus, Frankie "Bonus" Jonas, Disney and even (or odd) me.

"As to my statement about an abortion promoter hauling in millions to tip the balance on life issues, I was talking in the context of a movie where an actor used their newfound wealth, or additional wealth to be an abortion activist through political activity."

Just to be clear, this is totally hypothetical then? Do you have anything against Damon other than that he thinks Sarah Palin is dangerously unqualified to be President and supported Obama in the last election? Is that the sum total of his entanglement with the culture of death, that he campaigned for Obama against McCain? Or is there more?

Dear JohnD,
I read somewhere (in a book, so the odds of finding it on-line are slim) that it was Catholic understanding that a "bad" man can produce a good work of art, since, a) only God can judge the heart, b) most people mature in grace as they age - so, we should reject the works of St. Augustine before he converted? c) unless this is true, one could not even read at least 1/2 of all of the academic works in history, including both arts and sciences, because of the author, d) a bad man today may be a saint tomorrow and the questionable work may be a touchstone on the path of his conversion and may edify others in a similar situation, e) unless this is true, we should deny the works of Mozart, say, because he had some infantile tendencies, f) to say otherwise is the genetic fallacy, g) a man is judged good or bad only after he is dead (one may judge the works, by all means, but one must separate the work and the man for judgment - only one is allowed to be judged on earth).
The Chicken

"A majority of the kind folks in heaven have likely never seen a movie ever during their journey through the world, but seem the pretty OK nonetheless (which would be an understatement). Are we so soft that we cannot lift a half ounce sword in the battle against the culture of death by engaging our decision-making faculties for a few seconds and maybe choosing alternate forms of art and entertainment?"

When the blade is well chosen and the stroke significant, certainly. When you're talking about hacking a messy path through a lovely garden of sunflowers and floxgloves and lilies for the sake of ever so slightly nicking (not significantly damaging) one remote tendril of poison ivy in a corner somewhere, I call it scrupulosity. The tendril of ivy was no appreciable threat to your children, and they would have been enriched by the sunflowers and floxgloves and lilies. Outside the garden the world is covered with poison ivy. Better to teach your children to appreciate the beautiful and fight the battles that really matter.
By my lights, the likes of Therese are too limited as gardens go for me to be entirely happy with restricting my children to play within their boundaries. I would rather give them more room to explore a wider world. Of course I shield them from gardens where poison ivy has grown to more than a tendril here and there. And as they grow older I teach them to recognize poison ivy for what it is, and deal with it appropriately. But keep them from Ponyo for the sake of Matt Damon, no.

David & SDG,
I think there are few misconceptions that can be cleared up right away.
1. As stated before, one aspect of the movie can be evaluated without evaluating other aspects of the movie, such as who stands to gain financially. SDG admitted that rating the associates of a movies was not his apostolate, but also admitted that there were cases where gravely evil associations would make him decide to miss a movie.
2. I am not advocating substituting missed movies for other movies. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the last unseen movie in a Christian or Catholic DVD catalog had as a major associate an abortion advocate. Should your head explode? NO. Should you rationalize morality away? NO. Just skip the movie. If you feel the need for an alternative, why must it be a movie?
A majority of the kind folks in heaven have likely never seen a movie ever during their journey through the world, but seem the pretty OK nonetheless (which would be an understatement). Are we so soft that we cannot lift a half ounce sword in the battle against the culture of death by engaging our decision-making faculties for a few seconds and maybe choosing alternate forms of art and entertainment?
***
As to my statement about an abortion promoter hauling in millions to tip the balance on life issues, I was talking in the context of a movie where an actor used their newfound wealth, or additional wealth to be an abortion activist through political activity.

Chicken:
"I have never heard of this director."

He won the Animated Film Oscar in 2002 for Spirited Away. You might also remember Princess Mononoke being in theaters in the late 1990s.

"Here's my question to anyone who has seen the film: there was a movement in the 1970's to "Westernize" Japanese music. Does that tradition hold in this film? Does the music sound impressionistic (which sometimes happens when some Japanese composers attempt to copy Western styles), has it fully assimilated the Western style, or has the music kept its Asian roots? Are traditional instruments used? Does the music track with the emotional subtext in a way which is recognizable to Westerners?"

Miyazaki has always been influenced by Western film conventions. As for the music, according to this article from Nausicaa.net on music in Castle in the Sky, the music for that film was redone (by the original composer) for Western audiences to be more pervasive and more directly match the characters and the action, so that definitely speaks to the points you've raised. Now that I know that, I need to go back and watch the Japanese language track again and see if it uses the original music track!

"I doubt I will have a chance to see the movie anytime soon (the last time I was at a movie theater was three years ago - I don't get out, much), but can someone give a description of the musical aspects of this film and Miyazaki's works, in general?"

Hm, well, you can listen to some it yourself.

JohnD:
"Have you checked out Ignatius Press's list of DVDs and independent films?"

Heck, I've contributed films to their catalog. But since you mention it, should Ignatius not carry The Fourth Wise Man or Inside the Vatican because Martin Sheen is a Democrat? Or The Bells of St. Mary's and Inn of the Sixth Happiness because Ingrid Bergman was an adulteress and starred in some morally questionable movies? How about The Song of Bernadette, given that Jennifer Jones went on to be a twice-married adulteress, and both she and Linda Darnell (who played the Blessed Virgin) starred in some controversial films? How about The Passion of the Christ, given that Mel is a radical Traditionalist who rejects Church discipline, is now living in sin with his mistress, and has also obviously made some dubious movies?

"A representative from the Vatican evaluating film's artistic value is not a command (magesterial or otherwise) to see the film, much less and an evaluation of the associates of the film or who stands to gain financially."

The Vatican list of "Some Important Films" was published by the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications. Of course it has no magisterial or pastoral authority. But it does represent a responsible Catholic verdict, with Vatican approval from the pontifical commission charged with this very subject, that these films are worthy of Catholic attention.
Also, you're ignoring the fact that, like I previously pointed out, popes have screened some of these and other movies, including ones made by filmmakers living scandalous lives.
For example, The Gospel According to Matthew was screened at the Vatican for the fathers of the Second Vatican Council, and was enthusiastically received. The film's director was a homosexual Marxist atheist (who dedicated the film "the beloved, joyous, familiar memory of John XXIII"!).
Should the Vatican have rejected this film? Should the Council fathers have spurned it? Should the Vatican list have refused to include it? Countless people have been touched by this film's portrayal of Jesus.

"An abortion-promoter hauling in millions of dollars to tip the scale into continuing to kill tens of millions of babies via more lobbying, ads, campaigns and other political action is hardly insignificant."

What are you talking about?

"Even if I thought the act of buying a ticket for a movie with a real-life Neo-Nazi actor would have little effect toward causing a second holocaust, I, as you, would still recoil in horror at the thought of doing so, merely on moral grounds."

What if all the other filmmakers were Catholic and the movie were a brilliant and reverent biography of, say, Maximilian Kolbe? I would buy a ticket for that movie if the director were a neo-Nazi.

"One movie? OK, I like Therese. Seems %100 irrelevant."

Heh. Okay, you win the Safety Award.

"It's not at all "almost impossible" to chose entertainment, activities, or yes, even movies that are free and clear of the culture of death and its financial empowerment."
That quote is out of context. What I said there was meant to illustrate the level of acceptance of abortion in this the culture. I mentioned films, entertain, etc., afterward.
"A representative from the Vatican evaluating film's artistic value is not a command (magesterial or otherwise) to see the film, much less and an evaluation of the associates of the film or who stands to gain financially."
So the fact that the Vatican made and published a list of films was thoroughly unrelated to promoting the purchasing/viewing said films? Why release a list, if not to affirm the worthiness of at least some of these films? Allow me to put it another way: if I made a list of films which perhaps included Ponyo, would you assume that I encourage others to see it?
P.S. I have some present duties to attend to, so if I can't make it back to respond further, I hope you will understand.

Now, I just feel like a bumpkin.
I have never heard of this director. Of course, I never paid attention to non-American animation, but I was originally thinking about doing my doctoral work in music on cartoon music. I studied the genre and even joined the Society for Animation Studies and had a phone conversation with Leonard Maltin about his book, Of Mice and Magic.
It never occurred to me to study Japanese anime. Of course, back, then, such films were not as well-known as they are, now.
Here's my question to anyone who has seen the film: there was a movement in the 1970's to
"Westernize" Japanese music. Does that tradition hold in this film? Does the music sound impressionistic (which sometimes happens when some Japanese composers attempt to copy Western styles), has it fully assimilated the Western style, or has the music kept its Asian roots? Are traditional instruments used? Does the music track with the emotional subtext in a way which is recognizable to Westerners?
I doubt I will have a chance to see the movie anytime soon (the last time I was at a movie theater was three years ago - I don't get out, much), but can someone give a description of the musical aspects of this film and Miyazaki's works, in general. If SDG knows, are Japanese films largely culturally-driven or do they keep in mind that larger, non-Western audiences will go to see the film?
The Chicken