I wanted to touch back on something that I meant to mention regarding the non-retraction retraction issued by Catholic News Service regarding its erroneous ranking of Brokeback Mountain as an "L" film ("limited audiences") rather than an "O" film ("morally offensive").
Here is the text of what they wrote:
Editor’s Note: "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O — morally offensive. 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.
The part in red is how the L rating is normally explained, and it’s fine. That’s what the L rating means.
But the part in blue is a misinterpretation of the L rating that reveals something interesting.
Note that in blue the editor says that L restricts films "to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie."
If that’s what L means then y’know what? EVERY movie should be rated L.
NOBODY should be watching a movie if he is unable to correctly assess the moral issues raised by it. If you’re going to get suckered into thinking something immoral in a movie is really moral then you SHOULDN’T be watching that film.
I don’t care whether it’s The Incredibles or Silence of the Lambs. If you can’t accurately handle the moral issues a film raises–whatever those may be–then that film is not for you.
This reinterpretation of the L rating completely steamrollers the need for all other ratings–including O. I mean, if you’re a moral theologian and can correctly "assess, form a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie" and that’s a sufficient reason NOT to give it an O then guess what: No films need to be given an O since SOMEBODY (at least the film critic who would have otherwise given them an O, and if not him then the pope) will be able to assess the moral issues they raise.
So ALL films really should have an L.
Clearly this is not what is meant by the ratings system or there would be no other ratings. No A-I, A-II, A-III, or O.
The conventional (in red) description of what L means is correct: These are films that have a limited audience because they contain material that many adults would find troubling.
"Many adults would find troubling" is a different criterion than "morally offensive according to the teaching of the Church." There are a lot of things that many adults would find troubling that aren’t in themselves morally offensive. Showing gruesome murders, for example, is troubling to many, but the mere showing of them isn’t morally offensive as long as the film contains a moral structure that doesn’t ENDORSE the gruesome murders.
Same goes for showing immoral heterosexual and homosexual relationships. That can be troubling for many adults, but it isn’t morally offensive if the film doesn’t ENDORSE these relationships.
So if a film shows evil but does not endorse it, that’s reason to go L.
But if it shows evil AND endorses it then that’s reason to go O.
One of the things presupposed by the distinction between the L and the O rating is that L films are NOT morally offensive. If they were then they should get an O.
As I’ve pointed out before, if the central theme of a movie is morally offensive (e.g., an endorsed-by-the-film homosexual relationship that is what the film is all about–or an endorsed-by-the-film extramarital heterosexual one that is what the film is all about) then the film is morally offensive. (And if the central theme of a movie being morally offensive doesn’t qualify it as a morally offensive picture then I’d like to know what on earth COULD.)
It doesn’t matter whatever aristic merits the film may have in presenting its central theme. If the central theme is morally offensive then those artistic merits simply serve to help the film in delivering an immoral payload to the audience. They’re sugar for the poison pill, and there is all the more reason to slap an O on it so that the faithful can be warned.
Note, incidentally, the elitist attitude of the non-retraction retraction: We who are the cognoscenti and are able to "assess" the moral issues raised by Brokeback Mountain are able to "handle it" and so it is only an L, but because of complaints from the masses, who are too ill-informed to "assess" the moral issues it raises, we’ve got to slap an O on it even though that’s not what it really deserves.
So the non-retraction retraction is not just resentful (blaming the audience) and disingenuous (appearing to classify something as morally offensive but indicating that it really isn’t) and hypocritical (giving something a rating that one doesn’t believe it deserves), it’s also elitist (viewing the audience as too stupid to handle the truth).
Thanks to Harry Forbes bringing his fresh eye from NBC, CBS, and PBS, and most extensively, for PBS itself. He’s a gem!!
http://www.catholicnews.com/forbes/
That’s an excellent and clear explanation, Jimmy. Have you written these guys yet?
I don’t know how many people criticizing this movie as being “morally offensive” have actually seen it; but to say that the film endorses homosexuality is false. The film is much more nuanced and ambiguous as to how it treats its protagonists. Does the film openly condemn them? No. But does the film openly endorse their sexuality as the summit of all that is good and noble? Absolutely not. And I do not think it is accurate to claim that a film which allows the audience to come to their own conclusion of the morality of its antagonists is a morally offensive film.
So I say this: If you have not seen the movie you cannot properly assess whether or not the film was neutral towards its protagonists and if you cannot properly assess that, then you cannot properly decide if it is more deserving of an L or an O. It’s not elitism; if you think that the L rating is an indication that the church endorses homosexuality because you find it troubling that the film does not outright condemn the protaginists, then maybe you really shouldn’t be seeing it.
The fact there are two homosexual characters in this film, and they are in a relationship, makes it, ipso facto immoral. Catholics sin gravely watching such a film.
Michael:
Jimmy has already answered your objection. The film does not deserve the O rating simply because there is a homosexual relationship that is not condemned. I believe Jimmy was clear in his earlier comments that the mere existence without condemnation of a homosexual relationship would not warrant the O rating. But when the homosexual relationship is the core of the movie and no condemnation is made, then it becomes offensive by the standards that the Church ought to be holding a film to. Since those facts don’t seem to be in dispute, then one does not necessarily need to see the film in order to come to that conclusion.
Michael-
How would you feel about a film that depicts the brutal lynching of blacks in the South, but presents it as morally “neutral”?
Would you then assert that people should withhold judgement? What if it were really well produced?
This is an empty argument.
CD, I strongly advise you not to categorize other peoples’ sins. That’s hardly your place. You can say what’s immoral and what’s not, but individual culpability is God’s to judge.
There are many legitimate reasons to watch a film like Brokeback Mountain. Mr. Greydanus did it so that he could write a Catholic review of it. Others might do it for the same reason. Or so that they can better understand the homosexual movement in order to better combat it. Also, are you honestly saying that movies shouldn’t have any characters who lead immoral lives? If so, I suggest you avoid the Bible, which contains many prostitutes, adulterers, murderers, and thieves.
Yes, I heartily agree that Brokeback Mountain is deeply immoral and should be avoided by the viewing public.
The fact there are two homosexual characters in this film, and they are in a relationship, makes it, ipso facto immoral. Catholics sin gravely watching such a film.
CD, this is clearly false.
I know a book that has a whole TOWN–in fact TWO towns–full of homosexual individuals, but I’m betting this book is right at the TOP of your recommended reading list.
The mere inclusion of homosexual individuals–or any other kind of sinner–in a work does not mean that the work is automatically off limits.
If it were, we could never read or watch anything because everything (except stories featuring *exclusively* Mary and Jesus) has sinners in it.
CD, I strongly advise you not to categorize other peoples’ sins. That’s hardly your place. You can say what’s immoral and what’s not, but individual culpability is God’s to judge.
And yours as well? You are categorizing CD’s (alleged) sins quite nicely here.
“You are categorizing CD’s (alleged) sins quite nicely here.”
How so, Mary? Did you read Sean’s entire post? If so, then you realize that he’s not pointing the reasons why one might see a film like Brokeback Mountain, not CD’s sins.
CD pontificated that “Catholics sin gravely watching such a film” because “there are two homosexual characters in this film, and they are in a relationship” – therefore the film itself is immoral. But, as Jimmy points out, CD’s logic does not fly.
Do you know what book Jimmy’s referring to, Mary?
How would you feel about a film that depicts the brutal lynching of blacks in the South, but presents it as morally “neutral”?
Tim,
I am right back from watching Trainspotting, and I think it’s fair to say that few films contain as much vileness and utter malignity as this one. Drug abuse, violence, sexual degradation, and especially the worst of them, betrayal. Betrayal of friends, of family, of *children*, and in the end of oneself.
The movie makes no effort whatsoever of condemning all these tremendous acts. The various characters, in the end, are not punished for their acts, nor do they repent in any way.
Yet it would be crazy to claim that Danny Boyle directed a morally offensive movie. What the film does is simply making us face the reality of such behaviour. It’s much like a news reportage about a murder case – merely describing the facts doesn’t make it an immoral reportage. It is *expected* of the discerning watcher to realize on his/her own how deeply wrong it all is. Ideally, it should cause in you the same reaction you’d have to meeting and living with lawless, backstabbing heroine addicts for several months – if you don’t experience revulsion and pity, the problem lies in you and you shouldn’t be watching this film to begin with.
I found Trainspotting (and other films of that ilk) to be deeply unsatisfying, not because it is morally neutral (it isn’t), but because it offers no alternative to the dead-end drug culture it lays bare.
Okay, so we learn (through nuanced character development, rather than ham-handed preachiness) that drugs are a bad. We get an honest look at heroin addiction from the inside, but of what value is it? What is it that Renton, Spud and the rest of them are supposed to live FOR, if not for the next fix?
Given that society is as sick, and life as empty as Irvine Welsh portrays it – heck, why NOT heroine?
Moral ambiguity has long been considered “artsy”, but the best it can offer is a sort of resigned meaninglessness.
I suspect that is the most one could hope for from Brokeback Mountain.
And don’t forget! Though Danny Boyle and others insisted that Trainspotting did not glorify heroine use (which may be true enough), the film did help to usher in the era of “heroine chic” that swept the world of art and fashion at the time.
That’s better.
Meanwhile,
Did you read Sean’s entire post?
Why do you ask? I point out that he was categorizing CD’s sins in that part that I quoted. You can not nullify what you say by saying something else as well.
I didn’t accuse CD of any sin–but saying “If you see this movie, you sin gravely” is wrong. It’s not for him to judge the culpability of a person who sees a movie, and that’s a fact. It’s generally a bad habit to try to evaluate the guilt of others, as in, “sin gravely”.
Jimmy has already answered your objection.
No he hasn’t. My objection is that he hasn’t seen the movie. And I disagree that a film being morally neutral about an offensive topic is de facto offensive. There is enough nuance and brilliance in the narrative that the audience member can either come out condeming their homosexual relationship as the root of their tragedy or condemning society as that root.
How would you feel about a film that depicts the brutal lynching of blacks in the South, but presents it as morally “neutral”?
What do you mean? What is presented as morally neutral? The racism or the violent act? And how is it presented as neutral?
Lee is very blatant about their tragedy being the result of their secrecy and infidelity. Their relationship is portrayed as very unhealthy. In the fictitious film you present me, the lynching would have been portrayed honestly and as a horrible occurance. It would be the underlying racism of the perpetrators would be what was presented as neutral and one group of people would leave the theater thinking that, hey its really ok to be racist as long as you don’t lynch people and another group would come out thinking that all the problems stemmed directly from the racism, which is EVIL.
It is an important distinction.
Sean, to put this into perspective, Pope Pius XII ruled those who view, Gone with the Wind, sin gravely.
“…the audience member can either come out condeming their homosexual relationship as the root of their tragedy or condemning society as that root.”.
Michael-
This IS the problem – what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of relativism”.
In as much as people could come away from the movie with the idea that homosexuality is morally neutral, the movie perpetuates a lie.
It is extremely important that we call things by their right names. Waffling on, say, child pornography, would be about as evil as the pornography itself. It would be inexcusable.
As Isaiah states;
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…”
CD:
When did you become Pope?
I’d probably also need to see the source before I’d accept that quote…not because it isn’t true, but because the context is important. I doubt Pius XII was speaking infalliably.
This IS the problem – what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of relativism”.
In as much as people could come away from the movie with the idea that homosexuality is morally neutral, the movie perpetuates a lie.
Absolutely not. What you are implying is that for a movie to not be “morally offensive” it must condemn outright anything that is immoral. And I’m sorry but that is just wrong. If people come away with the idea that homosexuality is morally neutral they come away with an opinion based on what they’ve seen. The way that I view the retraction is that, when they gave this movie an “L” rating they were saying that it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a properly informed Catholic morality that the sin of homosexuality was a major contributing factor to the tragedy and if you are easily swayed by sympathetic characters and nuance, then you might want to avoid this movie.
This movie shows you the kind of homosexuals you are going to meet in your lives; homosexuals who love, have tragic things happen to them, etc., and any person with a heart or soul will feel bad for them. But your feeling bad for a gay man’s pain and anguish is patently not the same as approving of his actions. People who find this movie “morally offensive” area akin to the people who find it morally offensive for a Catholic hospital to administer medical attention to homosexuals and prostitutes. But you wouldn’t understand that if you didn’t see the movie.
The movie is not calling good evil and evil good; it is telling a story. And that story has nuanced elements, like life.
“People who find this movie “morally offensive” area akin to the people who find it morally offensive for a Catholic hospital to administer medical attention to homosexuals and prostitutes. ”
Whoa, Michael! Just who are these kooks you are referring to? I have never met, or even heard of, anyone who thought that hospitals should turn away “sinners” of any kind.
I also think that you are willfully ignoring the extent to which Brokeback promotes acceptance of homosexuality. What you see as “even-handedness” is simply the next step in moral acceptance.
You also said-
“What you are implying is that for a movie to not be “morally offensive” it must condemn outright anything that is immoral.”.
Not so. A lot of movies depict immorality of one kind or another, and that does not automatically make the movie immoral.
When immorality is the CENTRAL THEME of the movie, however, and is presented in such an ambiguous way as to make it seem morally neutral, then the movie is immoral to that extent.
This is why I don’t have to believe that because the Andy Griffith Show featured a drunk as a recurring character, the show’s writers were therefore intending to take a neutral moral position on drunkenness.
Dear sean,
The pope is authorized by his office to proclaim certain actions on the part of the faithful to be sinful.
For example the Pope could say , ” if anyone attends a rock concert by XYZ band, they sin gravely “.
asnd if you went tothat rock concert, you are thenguilty of mortal sin.
If I were to say that to you, I am not acting outside of my place as a Catholic. If I badger you about it, then I am.
Being a Catholic is all about being obedient.
To the moral law, to the teachings of the church and to the Pope is all matters, ( that require our obedience). Opposing the war in Iraq is one current example how how Catholics must obey and support the Pope on such matters, lest they sin gravely by opposing the Vicar of Christ.
As to the postings about homosexuality, this is simply a manifestation of the apostacy in our society today.
Homosexuality is( Romans )a clear sign of God having abandoned someone to unnatural lusts.
It is a outward sign of warfare with God and that is one reason such behaviour is highlighted in the bible as being a activity that brings the full wrath of God’s wrath on such persons.
My pastor says that if a Catholic is in any way symathetic or ” Ok” with the lifestyle of homosexuals they commit mortal sin.
CD,
You still have not demonstrated that Pius XII personally condemned Gone with the Wind. You have asserted it, but assertion is not proof. I know that the Legion of Decency warned Catholics away from the film; on the other hand the current USCCB Film Office rating of GWTW is A-II (Adults and Adolescents).
So, please enlighten us in what document Pius XII personally condemned that film.
“Opposing the war in Iraq is one current example how how Catholics must obey and support the Pope on such matters, lest they sin gravely by opposing the Vicar of Christ.”
This is false. I’m not knowledgeable enough to get you a specific source, but there is no obligation to agree with the Pope in all his opinions (and I’m sure others will back me up on this). John Paul II never bound the faithful to agree with him in his opinion on the Iraq War, and he acknowledged that the choice was indeed in Bush’s hands, because just war theory includes the fact that the legitimate civil authorities are those who hold the responsibility for evaluting the justice/injustice of a possible war. This is not a matter which requires our obediance. What we are required to obey is the just war doctrines on the Church, but Catholics can legitimately disagree on the applications of those doctrines to specific situations. John Paul II was (and is) a wise, holy man, so his opinion is worth hearing, but I’m not obligated to agree with him in all his opinions.
Which still leaves my question unanswered…even if everything you say about the Pope is true, and I shouldn’t watch Gone with the Wind (I haven’t, incidentally), that still doesn’t mean that YOU are the Pope.
Do you honestly think Mr. Greydanus committed serious sin by going to see Brokeback Mountain so that he could write his awesome review?
To expand on Sean’s comment:
When the Legion of Decency was in operation, and issuing ratings telling Catholics what movies they should avoid, SOMEONE associated with the Legion would have had to personally watch the film and review it according to Catholic principles. (Just as SDG did with Brokeback Mountain.) This would include Gone with the Wind, which, depending upon which online source you believe, received either a “B” (morally offensive in part for all) or a “C” (condemned) rating.
A Feeneyite who is an (obviously very selective) ultra-Montane: who woulda thunk it?
Publius,
I know what a Feeneyite is, but what’s “ultra-Montane”?
Surfing the web I found that Pius XII did write an encyclical about movies, television and radio, and strongly exhorted the establishment of national Catholic film review offices. But he makes no specific mention of a particular movie.
You can read the encyclical here.
Dear Sean,
There is never any ‘reason ‘ that a person HAS to sin. Shortly after the Legion of Decency was begun,the porn stopped.
“There is never any ‘reason ‘ that a person HAS to sin. Shortly after the Legion of Decency was begun,the porn stopped.”
Which has nothing to do with anything I said…
Dear Sean:
How can you call the war in Iraq, a war Catholics are free to endorse or reject, when you do not know the Catholic position or the reasoning behind the Catholic position.
You are left with your own emotional gut instinct combined with whatever you pick up from the two Neo Con FRONT MEN on the news, OReally, and Mr Vannity, who shares your first name.
and that is not real Catholicism, but
Neo-con-ism.
CD,
Would you mind answering my challenge to at least name the document in which Pius XII condemned Gone with the Wind, specifically and by name?
Thanks.
Dear Edward,
I read that about two years ago, and will try to find the footnote and source.
Catholic Defender
Whoa, Michael! Just who are these kooks you are referring to? I have never met, or even heard of, anyone who thought that hospitals should turn away “sinners” of any kind.
Exactly. They really don’t exist, which was sort of my point. Holding the position that Brokeback Mountain is morally offensive is akin to being crazily unsympathetic, with ill-informed morality.
I also think that you are willfully ignoring the extent to which Brokeback promotes acceptance of homosexuality. What you see as “even-handedness” is simply the next step in moral acceptance.
I can only assume you did not see the movie. I live in New York and am constantly inundated with lots of liberal bias and I was really expecting this to be nothing more than pro-gay propaganda and I was shocked at how well it was done. What the film does, the only thing the film does, is portray homosexuals as human beings.
What it does not do is portray them as deranged perverts. Jack and Ennis are deeply troubled men who are deeply in love in a deeply troubling way. But what you call “even-handedness” is simply the films unwillingness to assert in an overt way whether their troubled relationship was a product of the objectively disordered state of their sexuality and psychology or whether it was a product of society’s unwillingness to accept homosexuality. I cannot see how anyone can call this film unwaveringly “morally offensive”.
When immorality is the CENTRAL THEME of the movie, however, and is presented in such an ambiguous way as to make it seem morally neutral, then the movie is immoral to that extent.\
Which is why I brought up racism v. lynching; homosexuality is not the CENTRAL THEME. The central theme is infidelity and adultery, and it is treated as immoral.
What I am hearing from comments here is that any film that does not preach unambiguously against immorality is automatically morally offensive and I simply cannot believe that. And neither does the USCCB. Any properly informed Catholic could go to this movie and see clearly that it does not endorse homosexuality and, in fact, can be read as a resounding condemnation of it. That other people will disagree is irrelevent. But that’s why it got an “L” instead of something less; because it does dealing with a morally troubling subject and in a way that makes it difficult for a Catholic to act properly. But that’s the way life is; the homosexual to whom you are going to attempt to minister is not a leather-wearing, fisting, watersports-loving, deranged child-molester. It’s the committed, loving couple next door who experience the same human emotions that you do, who are nice and polite and maybe even churchgoing. They are going to come across as very sympathetic.
And I will repeat it again, if you haven’t seen the movie you really have no sense as to what extent the treatment of the two gay characters is “neutral” and to what extent it is endorsed.
“…homosexuality is not the CENTRAL THEME. The central theme is infidelity and adultery, and it is treated as immoral.”.
Michael-
Are you saying that if Jack and Ennis had never married, but instead had settled down together in a long-term, committed relationship, that their homosexuality would then be okay?
Would you say that is the movie’s perspective?
Michael,
You write:
Films aren’t op-ed pages. They don’t “endorse” behavior, but they do present it in a certain light and can express a certain point of view regarding it.
Jack and Ennis’s “fishing-trip” / “high-altitude f***s” are depicted in idyllic terms, with pristine mountain vistas and serene guitar strumming. The low-altitude “real world” of human society, not to mention family, is depicted very differently. There are value judgments behind those depictions.
What audience members CAN do is beside the point. The point is, critically speaking, what POV seems to be at work in the film itself?
I’ve cited a fair bit of evidence that the film means us to see society, specifically society’s disordered ideas of masculinity, as the root of the tragedy. Can you cite any contrary evidence that the film means us to see homosexuality per se as in any way the root of the problem?
And WHY is their relationship secretive? Isn’t it very clearly because cultural norms won’t allow them to have this relationship in an open and honest way — and that the result of attempting to have such a relationship in an open and honest way is deadly homophobic violence (not to mention, even if you try to be secretive about it, you might still face deadly homophobic violence)?
Why does Ennis say to Jack right from the get-go, “This is a one-time thing we got going on here”? Why does he go on to marry Alma, and thereafter (because he cannot deny his bond with Jack) be unfaithful to her? Why did he not even consider breaking off his relationship with Alma and settling down with Jack?
Obviously, according to the film, because society wouldn’t allow it. From the film’s POV, it is the social restrictions on what masculinity is and means that leads to the untenable situation of Jack and Ennis’s secretive, unfaithful relationship.
This portrayal of every straight male character in the film reinforces this inference that that society’s problematic idea of masculinity is the real problem here.
That is the meaning of the film. Attempts to evade this conclusion, IMO, are pure spin.
Yes, it’s very nuanced, except when it comes to the portrayal of straight male characters. Anyway, to say that it’s nuanced is not to say that it doesn’t have a POV. It does, and to ignore or deny that its POV is radically different from that of the Church with respect to the meaning of masculinity in general and homosexuality specifically is just plain misguided.
I don’t know what “unwaveringly” has to do with it, but I think my comments, and my review, make a strong case that the film’s POV is profoundly inimical to, even hostile to, a Christian understanding of sexuality, and is thus offensive from a Christian POV.
Isn’t CD really neo-con spy?
And if so isn’t his approch inconsistant in that he puts the novel hetrodox opinions of Fr. Feeney above the clear teachings of Popes Pius IX, St Pius X & Pius XII etc on baptism of desire (which is a matter of Christian doctrine)…& yet we are not allowed to respectfully disagree with the Late Pope on the Iraqi war(which is a matter of prudent judgement not doctrine)?
Consistant? I think not. Irrational? Most definatly!
Of course if CD isn’t Neo-con Spy & he isn’t a Feenyite heretic then my criticism is meaningless ,
Father Leonard Feeney, S. J. ( RIP) +
was never accused of heresy. Fr. Fenney was the one who accused Cardinal Cushing of heresy.
Fenney was NOT excommunicated for preaching Water Baptism, or hell. He was excommincated for disobedience.
What did he do ?
He refused to go to Rome and attend a hearing. Why ? He asked Rome why he was being summoned, so that he could prepare any defense. Is that a reasonable request ? Yes.
Rome would not tell him why he was being summoned.
He was told to appear or be excommunicated.
Did he make a mistake by not going ? Maybe
If Fr. Fenney was wrong teaching Water Baptism or hell, ( John 3:5) his superiors never accused him of heresy.
the matter is settled.
It is not settled becasue two popes Pius IX and XII hinted BOD is enough for salvation becasue both of these Pontiffs reveresed themselves nd neither can contradict Dogmas.
Has Baptism of Desire ever been defined ? No.
Perhaps when the Gospa of Medjugorje ( 2nd biggest hoax of 20th century) does her thing, we might see one , maybe she will write it ! 🙂
The former Pontiff John Paul II, made clear his objections to the Iraqi war as a unjust war.
Those who disagree with the Pope , are no different than the dissenters like Francis Kissling or Fr. Curran.
Does it make a difference if you disagree with the Pope about contraceptin a unjust war or homosexuaity ? No.
Dissent is dissent = grave sin.
the reason the Fenneyite position is not a sin is because every church Father except 8, believed in Water Baptism as necessary for salvation, the Gospel teaches it, and it was infallibly defined by Eugene IV, in 1415. He proclaimed a person cannot be saved even if they pour out their blood for Jesus, if they are not CATHOLIC, first !
I am always puzzled by the Baptism of Desire crowd. Who is it they are so concerned about, getting to heaven, inspite of not being Baptized ?
It can’t be their protestant relative or neighbor since most all protestants have a valid baptism.
Given that this movement took hold in the 1800’s
is most interesting.
CD,
Make sure you apply your standard to disagreeing with the pope on Vatican II.
Pope Meets Curia, Surveys 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:00:00 AM GMT
…
In a lengthy talk to his Vatican colleagues, the Pope concentrated on the legacy of Pope John Paul II (bio – news) and the teachings of Vatican II, saying that the record of the late Pontiff, and the proper interpretation of the Council, provide the best guidance for the Church today.
…
Then Pope Benedict spoke about the 40th anniversary of Vatican II, and the proper understanding of Council teachings. One key problem, he observed, is the widespread and mistaken belief that Vatican II brought a “discontinuity and rupture” in Catholic teachings. That approach, he said, creates an artificial break, dividing the “pre-conciliar” and “post-conciliar” Church. In fact, the Pope insisted, Vatican II undertook a project of “reform and revival” in Church teaching, looking for new ways to express old truths.
Thus Vatican II should always be seen in continuity with the history of Church teaching, the Pope said. He added that “wherever this interpretation has been the guideline for the reception of the Council, new life has grown and new fruits have matured.”
Pope Benedict does not share your view that the documents are “poorly written” or “mundane”.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Benedict the XVI, one of the drafters of Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium,
introduced the expression which says ” the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…. because he ( Benedict XVI) wished to ‘affirm that the being of the church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church”.
Got it. ! Clear as day.
Source : Interview in German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine , year 2000.
This means the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are two different churches. Can it be any clearer !
The novel doctrine that the Church of Christ is something different from the Catholic Church is heresy.
This is one example of a Vatican II teaching, which goes against the 1900 year teaching of the church. It is best ignored.
I am not aware that Pope Benedict has renounced these beliefs since becoming Pope.
I have read the documents of Vatican II as well as the documents of other councils.
While it is a valid council, and some of its statments are indeed instructive, much of what is written can be best described as confusing and open to many interputations, exactly what the folks who wrote the new schemas knew, from the day they tore up the schemas of John XXIII and rewrote the schemas for the council they had hijacked.
We have to remember that CatholicDefender/Neoconspy lives in an alternate reality. In his alternate reality, everything he says is true, and makes perfect sense to him. He cannot be reached by any mere facts which contradict his positions, because, in the universe of his mind, these facts are not true. All we can do is pray to the One Who can reach him.
CD,
I just wanted to hear you admit you disagreed with the pope.
Thank you.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
It’s the committed, loving couple next door who experience the same human emotions that you do, who are nice and polite and maybe even churchgoing. They are going to come across as very sympathetic.
Common for sin to disguise itself.
Still more common for us to excuse the sins of those we identify with, just as we excuse our own.
But neither act is excusable.
Dear bill912,
So far as I can see, you have added nothing to this exchange, except ad hominem attacks.
The issue is the extent of the binding nature of Vatican II. This issue is like quicksand for so many people, because first they have not read the documents, and second they have not compared those documents to prior councils and prior dogmatic definitions. I have.
There is plenty contained with in the words of Vatican II that cannot be reconciled with the perenial teachings of the Catholic Church.
One such item is that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
To suggest the Church of Christ ” subsists in the Catholic Church ” is just not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
And the default cannot be , “you are misunderstanding it ” because those who drafted the decree told us what they meant !
Which means what ?
In a word, it is error. and if you have read the documents of the previous 20 councils, as I have, YOU would know some of these councils produced statements there were later deemed error !
The Catholic Church is a Divine institution, whereas ALL other faiths traditions and bodies are ALL manmade.
Lots of Catholics and others find that statement be extremely insulting, but it is not and that has been the teaching of the Catholic Church since Pentecost.
Few priests today will say that in a sermon, IME.
Here is one analogy I use in trying to explain how confusing this matter is.
A Father tells the child not to play in the street.
The Father leaves and the uncle tells the child, your Father did not REALLY MEAN you can’t play in the street. Now you can play if you decide you want to.
The kid is confused.
The Father ( i.e infallible authority) is being undermined by the Uncle, ( fallible authority) but the kid is still confused.
The proper thing to do would be to stay with the Father’s order.
If we see Vatican II as the uncle, in the sense that it was not infallible, and read the prior council documents that are sealed with the mark of infallible declarations, we are able to clear the confusion.
We live in a age where the kid has not only decided to play in the street, he has decided to get his mini bike and drag race through the neighborhood with all his neighborhood friends,
without a helmet, license or paying heed to traffic signs or speed limits.
If it sounds like a recipe for anarchy,it is.
Now, this could all be rectified with a Father who returned home to discipline the son, lock up the bike ( end the liturgical buffonery) and impose a degree of punishment for the disobedient behaviour.
If the Father does none of that, it sets the stage for a kid turning into a juvenile delinquent( apostacy ).
The reason a European Pope was elected is that the church realizes Europe is too important to lose to full blown apostacy. Been to Europe lately ?
Well, the Church is about 40 years late.
The Churches in Europe are basically monuments to a once glorious faith tradition.
Do not be fooled by the 500,000 people you see in St. Peters Square when the Pope gives a address.
Look at the parishes 20 miles outside of Rome.
Very few people going to Mass, in a country where the populaiton is 90% Catholic.
I think the faith is in eclipse in Europe, and the next Catholic stronghold that could fall is South America. The reason is communists are taking power in those countries. Brazil, Venzuela, and now Bolivia, run by communist presidents. They are denouncing the US and making deals with the Chinese communists left and right.
At the end of the day, this eclipse of the catholic Church throughout the world is due in large measure to a church hierarchy that has
failed to clearly transmit the faith.
We should pray that Pope Benedict XVI can turn the tide. History shows that Pope Pius IX made several midcourse corrections in his pontificate and strengthened the Church, when he saw how close the adversaries of Catholicism had come to crushing it.
CD-
So, what you are saying is that it is okay to disagree with the Pope, if the Pope is wrong?
My suggestion, Tim is to try and grasp the law of non contradiction.
This law DOES not apply to the Iraqi war, whcih is where you questin is leading to.
The parameters for a just vs unjust war come down to the issue of self defense.
The United States was not attacked, it was not threatened, and there was no intelligence that
hinted such attacks might happen.
Iraq did not attack a United States ally.
The facts are since 1996 plans have been created to change the regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
War is the only war to do that.
This constitutes a unjust war.
Period.
The matter of Lumen Gentium is that either 250 popes got it wrong, Or Father Ratzinger in 1964 document got it right.
There is no other box to check.
The issue for many is did Pope John Paul II
get it wrong when he condemned the Iraqi war as unjust.
No. He was 100% correct.
The Iraqi war is unjust, and that means that the promoters are guilty of war crimes.
There is no other option to consider.
Pre emptive wars have always been condemed as evil by the Catholic church.
Imagine if a person entered thier neighbor’s home, beating or killing his entire family, because, he ” thought the neighbor might ” one day beat up his family.
Think you might go to jail ?
How is the name we apply to that person any different from the war planners in our country
bombing and shooting up the country of Iraq.
The actions are the same.
CD-
Your analysis of the Iraq war is based on outdated notions of wars between nation-states.
The 21st century presents us with a different and more complicated reality.
I believe the Iraq war is justified, that is is ultimately a war of defense and that the Just War theory can consistently be applied.
Merry Christmas!
” The 21st century presents us with a different and more complicated reality.”
You cannot be serious
CD,
If Pope Benedict is wrong by what authority do you define and declare him wrong?
You CAN NOT point to a prior pope because if Pope Benedict isn’t the final authority neither were ANY of the other popes before him.
Everyone in the Dead Pope Society, who only give authority and obedience to dead popes, always amaze me how they consider THEMSELVES much more Catholic and infallible than the pope.
Here is an analogy for you CD.
Your son reads your father’s and grandfather’s dairies. He decides all these years you have been raising him wrong based on his wise understanding of the diaries. Now he just picks and choose when you have God-given authority to raise him based on his own understanding of the diaries (which is basically never unless HE agrees with what you said based on HIS interpretation).
He simply ignores the fact that not only did you receive the authority they had you were taught the family traditions by them.
To everyone else,
You don’t have to tell me I know…
CatholicDefender has spoken, his mind (not the matter) is closed!
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Tim J and Inocencio, I admire your patience and perseverence. Merry Christmas!
Dear tim, you wrote:
” ultimately a war of defense ” .
This is pregnant with meaning. How in the world can a war morph itself into a defensive war.
If the rogue cop is beating senseless a poor black guy who, once long ago, robbed a store, and claims he is ultimately keeping the neighborhood safe, he would be locked up.
Bush has done the same thing. This is called brutality in the first instance and a war crime when leaders do it and a major loss of life results.
The Pope was not alone in calling this war unjust. Every Attorney General in the world, except the Bitish AG, declared this war illegal.
As to innocencio:
You said:
“If Pope Benedict is wrong by what authority do you define and declare him wrong? ”
To begin with, you are phrasing this wrong.
When then Father Ratzinger declared the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church, he had no authority to do so. The issue is why did Paul VI promulgate this document. I have no idea.
Since it was only a pastoral council, those items that contradict defined doctrines are allowed to be ignored, because they are simply not Catholic teaching.
the issue some here cannot get a handle on is this: can the pope make a error in these matters, and the answer is yes.
How do we know.
Anything he writes that contradicts defined dogmas, can be ignored.
We have a safe set of doctrines with Lumen Gentium to work with, to be certain it can be ignored.
We have a solid foundation of Catholic teaching, on what constitutes a just war versus a war crime, to oppose the Iraqi war.
It is widely understood by most people such as General Wesley Clark, and other Generals who have talked publicly about the Iraqi war that America was basically pushed into this war. Even Colin Poweell realizes this whole war was a set up.
CD/neo-con spy is a troll & he is illogical.
First NO CHURCH FATHERS taught Feeneyism (i.e. the belief Baptism & Baptism by Blood are heresies which was Feeney’s view). That belief is a total novelty.
Second Feeney was technically excommunicated for disobedience (he refused to stop teaching his novelties when commanded too) BUT the Holy Office under Octavio
CONDEMMED both his heterodox understanding of EENS & his false views on Baptism.
All this and much more was pointed out to him by my wife Rosemarie (which she documented quite extensively).
Thirdly when CD/Neo-conspy defends Feeneyism he uses an argumentative fallacy of known as the FALSE EITHER/OR fallacy. He argues either you believe Water Baptism is necessary for Salvation OR you believe in Baptism by Desire (& somehow that means you don’t believe Water Baptism is necessary). It has been pointed to him over & over & over & over & over & over the Church ONLY teaches Water Baptism is NORMATIVELY necessary for salvation (a non-Christian can’t show up in Church tomorrow & say I desire Baptism therefore I am give me Communion). The Church has never taught it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation (if you can’t receive it through NO FAULT of you own you can still be saved). All this was explained to Him in detail over & over & over & over & over & over again.
Does anyone sense a pattern? As we can see so far when ANYONE points out a logical or factual error in one of CD/neo-con spy long winded tedious arguments he employs the SAME tactics. He ignores your argument. He changes the subject. He pretends your arguing something else entirely. He brings up irrelevancies of left field. Accuses his opponents of ad hominem when they draw attention to his illogical & illegitimate argumentative methods.
Notice he did this to Edward Curtis, Sean S, Jimmy Akin & of course bill912.
This is not the first time.
So why feed this troll? As you can see discussion with him is not productive. bill912 is correct the only thing you can do is pray for him. He is too irrational to comprehend basic logic or more likely he is just not serious about it.
PS
> the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church
> This means the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are two different churches. Can it be any clearer !
Again with the FALSE EITHER/OR fallacy. The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church(& vice versa) AND Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
My Immortal Soul IS ME. My Immortal Soul SUBSITES in my Person & my PERSON is me. Just because my SOUL and my PERSON are distinct does NOT MEAN there are two ME’S.
The Church Militant (i.e. the Catholic Church on Earth) is distinct from The Church Triumphant (i.e. the Church in Heaven). Both are the Church of Christ. But does that mean they are two different churches? Hardly.
But none of this will matter to the High Church Protestant Feeneyite. Since he is too irrational to comprehend basic logic or more likely he is just not serious about it.
Merry Christmas
Dear Jim Scott:
You claim the church has not made Water Baptism a absolute requirement. Well, Trent is clear that is it is a requirement. read Trent carefully ! John 3:5 calls for water Baptism.
Feeney never called Baptism of Desire a heresy.
He said it was a invention of Catholics, whom he termed ; dishonest liberals. I love that term and it is worn by boatloads of Catholics today.
Thank you for repeating what I said; Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. If it was HERESY he was teaching, that would have been the charge.
the FACT is the excommunication publicized against him ( the Boston Globe was the first to know about it !) was never recorded in the ACTA ,which is where ALL official documents are recorded, so there is great speculation if it was binding.
At any rate, getting back to the bigger issue of today, it is not true to say Ratzinger meant to say the Church of Christ is the Catholic church.
You are spinning this issue or should I say laundering the issue, because you see the problem. But his intended meanings are not for
sale to the highest bidder to change.
The fact is 250 Pontiffs had said the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, but that is not what Ratzinger meant and his words, which I quoted, are proof of that.
Ratzinger meant that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church, and he told us this is what he meant.
We have his testimony, Fair enough !
He knows what he meant, and the spin job you have put on his words won’t fly.
As to my intelligence, facts may not matter to you, but I can assure you my college transcripts reflect the grade of A in Logic and Calculus, two classes which require one to think through and solve some complicated formulas.
What this demonstates is you are mistaken. I am not posting illogical or ridiculous posts, but logical and factual rebuttals, without the use of a ad hominme attack, to prove my point.
It’s never been my style to try and make fun of a person.
Or insult the intelligence of someone who just might be alot smarter than I. Shalom.
BenYachov, I just got home form Christmas Morning Mass, and read your above post. Thanz and Merry Christmas.
Oops! Lousy proofreading. F-R-O-M, not F-O-R-M!
Also should have been T-H-A-N-X (that WAS deliberate).
Atleast I spelled “Merry Christmas” correctly! (More coffee, more coffee; get the brain going!)
bill912,
I can’t spell either.
Like I said CD/Neo-conspy ignores arguments because he is a troll and he can’t wean himself from his false either/or dialectic. I guess he thinks if he ignores it the problem will go away.
My wife in the past had already cited to troll boy the Council of Trent & the univesal ROMAN CATECHISM issued by the Fathers at Trent, both of WHICH CLEARLY teach the doctrine of Baptism by Desire.
I fail to see why I must repeat myself or what my wife has already said.
Notice how the Troll challenges me by acting like this first time he & I went toe to toe on the issue? Either he has a long term memory problem or he is just being a troll.
These dishonest tactics only reinforce what I said. CD is a Troll & is unworthy of being debated. Such disrespect is anoying but typical of him.
Anyway the normative requirement of Baptism is mandated by Trent but clearly NOT absolutely. A non-Christian CAN’T show up in a Catholic Church & say “I desire baptism therefore I already am give me communion”. However an unbaptised Catechumen who is on the way to the Church to be baptised & gets killed in a car crash would recieve Baptism by desire & go to heaven as Church as ALWAYS taught.
I don’t know how many times I’ve told troll boy you CAN’T seek Baptism by Desire you can only seek water Baptism but every time I did he ignored my argument.
It’s pointless to talk to him.
The man once called an Encylical of Pius IX a “private letter”.
He claims liberals added the teaching of BOD to the Catechism of St Pius X without his knowlege & that ST Pius X doesn’t really teaching BOD.
>the excommunication publicized against him ( the Boston Globe was the first to know about it !) was never recorded in the ACTA ,
I reply: And if we produce the documents from the ACTA that say Fr. Feeney was excommunicated Troll boy will dismiss it as a conspiracy or that liberals forged the documents.
Pray for him. Rational argument ONLY works on those who are willing to submit to reason.
CD simply will not.
Cantate Domino, 1441, Eugene IV, infallibly defined that those pagans and others who die without baptism are lost.
It voids Baptism of Blood.
But that is not really the point here, becasue I know from listeing to various tapes, that the liberal Catholics take this well beyond the Water Baptism issue.
They believe there are folks who are NOT Catholic in heaven.
They believe Protestants make it to heaven.
How about the Mosaic Rituals. Can we practice those as Catholics ? If not, why not ?
I don’t know why I bother with you CD/neconspy? You will just ignore what I will write, dismiss it without response & whine like a girl about being personally attacked. It’s getting old.
You have made so many factual mistakes but I’m sure you will pretend you didn’t make them & change the subject AGAIN(like I’m not gonna notice).
>Cantate Domino, 1441, Eugene IV, infallibly defined that those pagans and others who die without baptism are lost.
I reply: The text literally says
QUOTE”It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”END QUOTE
Nothing about the absolute need for water baptism. Nothing. You can’t even read plain English. You just restate heterodox Feeneyite propoganda & make nonsense up off the top of your head.
>It voids Baptism of Blood.
I reply: The text refers to those who refuse to enter or remain in the Church. Logically it CAN’T be applied to unbaptised Catechumens (who want to enter the Church) or the invincibly ignorant (according to the errors of the Feeneyite heresy). I explained this to you before as did my wife but you ignored us. I am DEEPLY offended by that. That is a sinful way to treat a fellow Catholic.
It also comes off as dishonest.
>But that is not really the point here, becasue I know from listeing to various tapes, that the liberal Catholics take this well beyond the Water Baptism issue.
I reply: I’m not a liberal genius. I can’t stand theological liberalism. I believe in orthodoxy alone. Heretics on the RIGHT or LEFT are wrong. It doesn’t matter if you jump over the port or starboard of the Ark. Either way you are out of the Church & will drown in the sea.
>They believe there are folks who are NOT Catholic in heaven.
I reply: Everyone who gets to Heaven becomes Catholic even if they where not so in life through no fault of their own. Why is this a bad thing? God can save who he wants & you nor I can say boo about it unless we want to wind up down in the hot place.
>They believe Protestants make it to heaven.
I reply: Some will, some won’t (Pius IX said so in his “private letter” which binds the faith of Catholics) however Protestants have a better chance at Heaven with the FULLNESS of true found only in the Catholic Church which is also what Pius IX said).
>How about the Mosaic Rituals. Can we practice those as Catholics ? If not, why not ?
I reply: As I recall you seem to believe so. You said you believed the good thief on the Cross went to heaven because he was under the Old Testament and did not need water baptism.
Which is bizzare since under the Old Testament souls went to limbo (not heaven)until Christ came.
Yet Jesus told the Thief they would be together in paradise. Christ does NOT dwell formally in Limbo chief.
This is your lame excuse to explain away the Good Thief getting to Heaven without water baptism. But to believe as you believe is to claim the Old Covenant in itself saves which of course begs the question why bother having a new covenant?
You may pretend to forget our past discussions but I haven’t forgotten.
Merry Christmas. God open your heart to the Catholic Faith & save you from the lies of Feeneyite heresy.
There is nothing more to say.
“You have made so many factual mistakes, but I am sure you will pretend you didn’t make them…” What you have to remember, BenYachov, is that He REALLY believes that he didn’t make any factual mistakes, and that what he posted is perfectly logical. He is NOT dishonest; he inhabits a reality all his own, one that you and I cannot enter.
I said the good thief went to heaven, WHEN HEAVEN WAS OPENED, which was on Asension.
Any Catholic in the 4th grade knows that. And to clarify the lies you are trying to acsribe to me, I said the reason he did not need water Baptism, was becasue the OLD LAws were still in effect when he died. Water Baptism became a requirement under the NEW laws , and that is the day of Pentecost.
But let’s answer my specific question.
Is it OK for a Cathoilic to participate in and practice the Mosaic rituals.
I am asking for a very specific reason. I am sure you know where my question is leading and I am guessing you will avoid answering.
A yes or no is fine.
bill912 is also free to offer a opinion on this matter.
>I am asking for a very specific reason. I am sure you know where my question is leading and I am guessing you will avoid answering.
I reply: You are now employing a change of subject because I nailed your ignorant backside to the wall by pointing out Pope Eugene IV said nothing about the absolute need for water baptism.
That is quite gutless.
>Any Catholic in the 4th grade knows that. And to clarify the lies you are trying to acsribe to me, I said the reason he did not need water Baptism, was becasue the OLD LAws were still in effect when he died.
I reply: Which would make the OT a saving Covenant which is Judaizing heresy. You are wrong YET AGAIN the OT laws WHERE NOT IN EFFECT since if you read the Council of Florence Session 11 (Pope Eugene IV’s Council remember) the Council says with the coming of the Messiah the ceremonal Laws of Moses became dead. So how can dead laws still be in effect?
QUOTE Council of Florence session 11 “It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, _____once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end_____ and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning.”END QUOTE
In your mad quest to defend Feeney’s human traditions at the expense of Catholic Orthodoxy based in part on your obvious theological ignorance & pride you fail to convince anyone but yourself. But I will indulge your change of topic because it amuses me to do so.
>Water Baptism became a requirement under the NEW laws , and that is the day of Pentecost.
I reply: Florence says “once our lord Jesus Christ…had come” the text says nothing about “after Pentecost” or “the day of Pentecost” anymore than Pope Eugene IV said anything about the absolute need for water baptism at the expense of BOD.
You just can’t read the Queen’s English now can you? Making up stuff off the top of your head & passing it off as Catholic teaching is beyond silly. It is also quite immature.
>But let’s answer my specific question.
>Is it OK for a Cathoilic to participate in and practice the Mosaic rituals.
I reply: Florence said you can’t perform the Old Testament Sacrament of Circumcision even if you don’t believe it is necissary for salvation. Thomas Aquinas & Pope Pius XII said you could preform the Act of Circumcision for Health reasons. But the Sacrament itself is both dead & deadly.
In the strict sense no Old Testament sacrament can be preformed in the NT era. Lex orandi Lex Credi. As we pray so we believe. The Sacrements of the Old Law pointed to the coming of the Messiah. The Messiah has already come.
Mind you this would not apply to any religious ritual modeled on an Old Testament sacrament (like Priestly celebacy, the OT Priests ALSO had to be celebate while performing Temple sacrifices or Quasi-Passover Seders, Malabar Rite Catholics & Melikites have Quasi-Passover Seder rituals included in the Easter Celebrations that they have been observing for the past 2000 years. The Vatican has always tolerated it. Always.
Of course we must not confuse later Jewish rituals with specific Mosaic rituals. I don’t believe most rituals found in the Mishna which are modeled on the OT Mosaic rituals (which require a Temple which has been destroyed to be correctly observed) fall under the rubics of Florence Session 11.
The Vatican agrees with me which is why Catholics can go to Passover Seders since the modern seder is really a Mishna ritual & no longer a Mosaic one.
Why is any of this relevant to the Price of tea in China? What homemade doctrines have you cooked up in that dull piece of meat in your head you call a brain that you will use to condemn your fellow Catholics this time?
The last post was me.
I said the good thief went to heaven, WHEN HEAVEN WAS OPENED, which was on Asension.
Any Catholic in the 4th grade knows that.
Kindly cite some reference for that.
Dear Jim:
I wonder how many cradle Catholics even have a clue what the Mishnah is? 🙂
the REASON the good thief was saved was because
the OT Testament rituals were salvific until the time the Church was given the power to teach all.
Now Jim, you somehow left out a nice passage which shows your error. Let’s continue with the Council of Florence:
” Yet is does not deny that after the passion of Christ ( after he died !) up to the promugation of the Gospel, they( old testament rituals) could have been observed..”
Gee, how about that.
And the promulgation of the Gosepl is defined as the time the Holy Spirit filled the Apostles with the Spirit of Truth ! Pentecost.
Opps, you see most cradle Catholics know that already .
————————————————
The idea that the OT rituals can be practiced today because” the Mosaic rituals are different from the Mishnah rituals ” , and besides ” no temple is around ” to practice them in, is just pure invention.
But I am sure it convinces most cradle catholics.
The Catholic Church Fathers, all of them, condemned the rabbis for their determined insistence on adherance to Mosaic/ Mishnah rituals.
Now, there was no temple at that time, so
the idea a temple had to be standing, to practice the mosaic rituals is bunk. .
As to Passover, the fact is, Passover was fulfilled in the Mass, so why would Catholics want to return to the practice of a defunct Jewish supper ritual that merely prefigured the true worship God enjoins upon His Church.
The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ’s lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark. chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord’s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.
So there ya have it, young fella.
No mishnah rituals and no mosaic rituals can be practiced by any Catholic at any time.
shalom, Yom Tov
ignorant backside, theological ignorance, quite immature, dull piece of meat in your head you call a brain.
This is not the way a Catholic speaks to another Catholic. I wonder if the Prophets and Martyrs were insulted like this? I think they were. Today, we celebrate the first Catholic Martyr, St. Stephen, how appropriate.
CD,
You make doctrines up off the top of your head(But one example of many: Pope Eugeno said nothing about the absolute need for water baptism).
Then you try & pretend you didn’t do so & hope your opponent won’t notice. You insult me by refusing to acknowlege your grave mistakes & carry on with this pretense that you know what you are talking about when you are obviously clueless.
As an oponent I have no respect for you. I don’t mind innocent ignorance but weirdos who pretend they know what they are talking about when they don’t are just insulting.
Any let me correct you some more(until you finally bore me or Jimmy decides to end the discussion which He has every right too do).
>I wonder how many cradle Catholics even have a clue what the Mishnah is? 🙂
I reply: I doubt that many know BUT you are clearly clueless in matters of Catholic doctrine much less Judaism or Law of Moses. I might also add history, logic, respect, good manners etc…..
>the REASON the good thief was saved was because
the OT Testament rituals were salvific until the time the Church was given the power to teach all.
I reply: Yet the thief turned to Jesus at the Cross & he did not yell out to a Cohen asking him to sacrifice an animal in the Temple for his sins? If you keep repeating your made up human traditions that is not going to make them true buddy.
Still Florence says otherwise. It says (& I quoted it before) they where dead at the coming of the Messiah. Before the Passion they had to be observed but they did not convey salvation since good Jews before the harrowing of Hell went to Limbo not Heaven.
Going to Limbo is not salvation.
Show me where Florence or the Popes say “OT Testament rituals were salvific until the time the Church was given the power to teach all.” They HAD TO BE observed out of obedience or God would punish you but that is not the same has giving salvation. You are just making up doctrines off the top of your head again.
>Now Jim, you somehow left out a nice passage which shows your error. Let’s continue with the Council of Florence:
>” Yet is does not deny that after the passion of Christ ( after he died !) up to the promugation of the Gospel, they( old testament rituals) could have been observed..”
>Gee, how about that.
I reply: They where dead but not deadly you could observe them if you where a baptized Jew & you didn’t believe them necessary for salvation. But according to the FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ott the OT sacraments conferred an external lawful purity not an internal saving Grace like the NT sacrements. The Letter to the Hebrews called them weak.
Again you don’t know what you are talking about.
>And the promulgation of the Gospel is defined as the time the Holy Spirit filled the Apostles with the Spirit of Truth ! Pentecost.
I reply: No the “promulgation of the Gospel” happened at the end of the first century. It refers to the Apostles preaching the Gospel in every country that had Jews in it. Just ask Mr. Jimmy Akin (he told me this once on the phone many years ago). You are making up doctrine again. Jimmy maybe can give you a reference if he so desires & you ask him.
>Opps, you see most cradle Catholics know that already .
————————————————
>The idea that the OT rituals can be practiced today because” the Mosaic rituals are different from the Mishnah rituals ” , and besides ” no temple is around ” to practice them in, is just pure invention.
I reply: Your assuming what you have not proven (you do that a lot) that the Jewish Rituals of the Mishna are really Mosaic. They are not. For example the Passover as proscribed by the Law of Moses REQUIRES the sacrifice of a Lamb. The Mishna reformulation excludes the Lamb & replaces it with the shank bone since there is no temple for the Cohen HaGadol (High Priest) to sacrifice the Passover Lamb.
For it to be Mosaic it HAS TO FOLLOW the Law of Moses to the Letter 100%. It doesn’t. The Rabbi’s themselves admit they can’t follow the Law fully without the Temple.
>But I am sure it convinces most cradle catholics.
I reply: It would convince any reasonable person who is not an ideologue & a willful follower of a heretic priest.
>The Catholic Church Fathers, all of them, condemned the rabbis for their determined insistence on adherance to Mosaic/ Mishnah rituals.
Now, there was no temple at that time, so
the idea a temple had to be standing, to practice the mosaic rituals is bunk. .
I reply: Yes when you have no intelligent answer & can supply no counter evidence you
simply dismiss what your opponent has said & make simplist counter platitudes as an answer.
I’m not impressed.
Of course you have never even read the Mishna & CAN’T show me that the Jewish rituals found in there 100% conform to the Law of Moses and in fact have not been altered. Why is it you keep pretending you know what you are talking about when a more learned person can see right threw you?
Talk about pride.
>As to Passover, the fact is, Passover was fulfilled in the Mass, so why would Catholics want to return to the practice of a defunct Jewish supper ritual that merely prefigured the true worship God enjoins upon His Church.
I reply: Ask the Malabar Catholics or the Melikites or St Melito of Sardis, in his writings he has a rough outline of an ancient Christian Seder (different from the Mass) that uses three cups of wine (like Jesus in the Gospels) instead of the four cups found in the Mishna.
Ancient Christians (& their modern eastern rite desendants) celebrated the Jew liberation from Egypt & refered to it as a forunner to Christ liberating us from the Eqypt of Sin with a seperate ritual based on the Mosaic. I see nothing wrong with that. Just as I see nothing wrong with the use of Holy Water even though I have already been baptised.
The modern Church authorities allow it so I cannot legitimatly object. Unlike you I am not a law unto myself. I follow the living Catholic Church. You follow a make believe Church you think existed in the past of your own making.
>The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ’s lifetime, before being committed to writing.
I reply: You make stuff off the top of your head & then read it into whatever document
that you have in front of you. How sad. The Talmud is separate from the Mishna you are like the anti-Catholic fundie who confuses the Roman Inquisition of the 12th century with the one in Spain in the 16th. Silly.
>Mark. chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord’s pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.
I reply: In your fantasies & wishful thinking. But those of us who brains actually work rely on objective evidence not some ignorant person’s subjective un-proven opinion they read into the Bible.
>So there ya have it, young fella.
>No mishnah rituals and no mosaic rituals can be practiced by any Catholic at any time.
I reply: Forgive me young man if I am not moved by the special pleadings of an obvious incompetent. I require evidence the Mishna is the same as the Law of Moses. I know objectively that it is not.
I reply: No the “promulgation of the Gospel” happened at the end of the first century.
Opps, is that a tail I see !
No Catholic would ever say this.
Yachov = Jacob
Jacob means “supplanter” or “deceiver.”
welllllll, golly andy, think it might be true.
bored now………
>>I reply: No the “promulgation of the Gospel” happened at the end of the first century.
>Opps, is that a tail I see !
I reply: Pull up your pants son.
>No Catholic would ever say this.
I reply: No it’s only in every theological mannual made before the council. Acting like an overgrown child isn’t going to change that.
You said: No the “promulgation of the Gospel” happened at the end of the first century. It refers to the Apostles preaching the Gospel in every country that had Jews in it. Just ask Mr. Jimmy Akin (he told me this once on the phone many years ago). You are making up doctrine again. Jimmy maybe can give you a reference if he so desires & you ask him.
For the Record, the Catholic Church teaches the promulgation of the Gospel refers to the time of Pentecost.
Why ?
The Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, and came out of the upper room and began preaching the Gospel.
I am sure protestant sects see it different,
I am telling you the Catholic teaching.
You should of learned this in your RCIA class.
Ask your wife, since it seems you are depending on her for a goos part of your Catholic theology, as I see it.
I think your lack of a Catholic background is making simple dialogue a chore for you.
Should I all you archie, since you like calling people meathead ?
Shalom archie.
BenYachov, PLEASE stop feeding the man from the alternate reality!
No the “promulgation of the Gospel” happened at the end of the first century. It refers to the Apostles preaching the Gospel in every country that had Jews in it. Just ask Mr………..
Archie, I can read, I need not ask anyone.
What religion are you coming from ?
Is Seventh Day Adventist right? Did you finish the RCIA course ?
+J.M.J+
>>>For the Record, the Catholic Church teaches the promulgation of the Gospel refers to the time of Pentecost.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Judaizers” says the following about the time between Pentecost and the end of the first century AD:
Although the Apostles had received the command to announce the Gospel to all the nations, they and their associates addressed themselves at first only to Jews, converts to Judaism, and Samaritans, that is to those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. (Acts 10:14, 28; 11:3). At Jerusalem they frequented the Temple and took part in Jewish religious life as of old (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:20-26), so that, judged from external appearances, they seemed to be merely a new Jewish sect distinguished by the union and charity existing among its members. The Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be permanent indeed, but the time had not yet come for abolishing its observance. (emphasis mine)
(from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm)
If the “promulgation of the Gospel” is defined as Pentecost, then all observance of the Mosaic Law would have been “deadly” during the time covered by the Book of Acts. Yet the Apostles clearly continued to observe the Law of Moses during that time. Yet the above quote makes it clear that the time had not yet come for the Mosaic Law to be abolished yet. Therefore, the Promulgation of the Gospel must have come later.
>>>You should of learned this in your RCIA class.
FYI, my husband is a cradle Catholic.
>>>Ask your wife, since it seems you are depending on her for a goos part of your Catholic theology, as I see it.
No, he’s studied this particular subject on his own. It doesn’t interest me as much as it interests him.
In Jesu et Maria,
bill912,
I’ve had my fun with him & since you asked I will comply since he hasn’t posted anything even remotely challenging. Now he is just pathetic.
Still in the future I reserve the right to make a fool out of him again at my lesure.
One last thing…Ro, I love you sweetie!:-)
Oh, you two… PLEASE! Get a room!
Jacob means “supplanter” or “deceiver.”
No, it comes from the Hebrew Ya’akov, and means “Holder of the heel”. It is also the name of the third Jewish Patriarch, the son of Issac and grandson of Abraham. Jacob would later be renamed Israel.
Stephen:
I don’t know what “unwaveringly” has to do with it, but I think my comments, and my review, make a strong case that the film’s POV is profoundly inimical to, even hostile to, a Christian understanding of sexuality, and is thus offensive from a Christian POV.
“Unwavering” has everything to do with it. This is about the so-called non-retraction retraction, remember? Your review makes a case for the film’s POV being hostile to your worldview (I hesitate to use “Christian POV” because it is a loaded, political phrase), but I don’t think it is strong. The movie is told through the eyes of the main characters, in a very limited way. Every instance you gave of the movie showing a particular point of view I interpret as the world as seen through the eyes of the characters; they were happiest in the idyllic world of their secret love and therefore the movie will reflect that. But that does not, de facto, mean that the movie itself is inimical to your view of sexuality.
I’m sorry that you can’t see that everything, from the narrative to the cimematography is from the point of view of the Jack and Ennis.
Tim:
Are you saying that if Jack and Ennis had never married, but instead had settled down together in a long-term, committed relationship, that their homosexuality would then be okay?
Would you say that is the movie’s perspective?
Would I personally say that? Yes. Under any circumstances I think their homosexuality is ok. But the movie? No. I don’t think that the movie (if a movie can be about anything it isn’t) would necessarily say that. I believe the movie might or it might not. But then it would be a completely different movie. And I don’t think Ang Lee would have made that movie because I don’t think he was making a movie with the intention of saying that homosexuality was peachy. He was making a movie about sexual infidelity and the crushing effect our sexuality (whatever it may be) can have on us.
“Would I personally say that? Yes. Under any circumstances I think their homosexuality is ok.”.
Michael-
Thanks for proving my point.
You see no problem with the movie’s point-of-view because it meshes nicely with your own. You see it as even-handed because it takes your side.
The movie, by assuming from the outset that homosexuality is neither here nor there, serves to place homosexuality on the same moral plane as heterosexuality, and to that extent it propagandizes.
Amen, Tim.
Michael, on one hand you agree that the perspective of Brokeback Mountain is that it would be OK for Jack & Ennis to settle down & live together in a long-term, committed relationship & that their homosexuality would then be okay (as Tim J put it), but on the other hand you say that Lee wasn’t making a pro-homosexual film?
Really? How’s that wash?
I know that you know what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexual acts & that they are inherently, objectively immoral & gravely sinful. We’ve had many a conversation about this on Mark Shea’s blog. But you’re simply arguing both sides of the question here. You just can’t have it both ways, Michael. Either BM is a film about how society continually represses the happiness of homosexuals, or it’s about sexual immorality & the problems such can cause. There’s no *both/and* for Christians, here. You can’t tell me that a director of the caliber (in both meanings of a degree of mental capacity or moral quality & a degree of excellence or importance) of Lee – who has struck gold as often as lead but always makes thoughtful, well-crafted, & thematically deliberate films – missed so badly with BM that he made a movie that argues both sides of the question as you are! I’ve seen every one of his US-made films & a few of his foreign-backed ones. He’s one of the most consistent directors around these days. While neither The Hulk nor Ride With the Devil were bullseye’s for me, Lee’s directorial moral focus never waivered. But to say that BM at once advocates homosexual relationships while it argues against sexual imorality is ludicrous from a Christian worldview. (A phrase I do not find to be a loaded, political statement because it accurately dipicts a specific, moral POV that has existed for nearly 2000 years & is a product of the Church Christ founded on earth. Perhaps it’s one with which you are uncomfortable, but that in no way negates the accuracy of the phrase for me & many others who post here.)
So, one simply can not have it both ways, Michael, as you’d like to. In light of that, Steven’s review makes a very strong point about BM – one the USCCB’s critic totally missed, sadly – & the film’s depiction of what’s morally acceptable &, yes, hostile to a Christian understanding of sexuality.
Have you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, Michael? I know I’ve suggested it to you in the past. I know it would clear up quite a lot of your misconceptions of the Christian view of sexuality.
Michael, on one hand you agree that the perspective of Brokeback Mountain is that it would be OK for Jack & Ennis to settle down & live together in a long-term, committed relationship & that their homosexuality would then be okay (as Tim J put it), but on the other hand you say that Lee wasn’t making a pro-homosexual film?
No. I patently did not say that. Tim asked if they got married would their homosexuality be ok and I answered that *in my opinion* their homosexuality was ok to begin with. But I also stated that the movie makes no such claims.
This is not, Gene, a debate on whether or not I “properly” understand the Christian teaching on sexuality. This is about whether or not Ang Lee made a pro-gay movie.
But to say that BM at once advocates homosexual relationships while it argues against sexual imorality is ludicrous from a Christian worldview.
Well yes. Therefore, if you watch it with a “Christian worldview” you easily come to the conclusion that, while their homosexual world was portrayed in idyllic ways, it was a farce, a facade, that came crashing down because it was unsustainable. Jack didn’t even get to have his ashes spread on Brokeback Mountain. All it takes is a solid worldview and half a brain to figure out that this movie deserves an “L”, not an “O”.
But of course you’ve seen the movie, Gene, and so you can tell me with confidence that I am wrong.
The Christian Worldview is the ONLY solid worldview; all others are hollow. And so I can tell you with confidence that you are wrong.
Here’s Archie ” Catholics can go to Passover Seders since the modern seder is really a Mishna ritual & no longer a Mosaic one.
Here is the official line:
Like many other Jewish customs the Passover seder consists of a core of authentically Jewish traditions and values, which were reformulated according to the concepts and vocabularies of different generations. As changes in culture and society made some of these observances strange and incomprehensible, Jewish tradition responded by supplying new interpretations.
It is through this approach of continually re-interpreting our past, that the tradition is saved from becoming obsolete.
The mosaic and Mishnah rituals are both traditions of the elders, and are condemend.
This includes any seder, regardless.
Please do not feed the man from the alternate reality.
+J.M.J+
Well, there is an answer to his last post, but I guess I should stop tossing the red meat.
In Jesu et Maria,
This is not, Gene, a debate on whether or not I “properly” understand the Christian teaching on sexuality.
I didn’t use the word properly, Michael, that was you. But it is a debate on the misunderstanding homosexuals have of how sexuality was meant to be! Both the film & the USCCB critic’s review get it wrong.
“This is about whether or not Ang Lee made a pro-gay movie.”
And with whom are our sympathies intended to lie at the film’s end? Jack & Ennis. Certainly not their wives; although sympathetic, it’s not through their eyes we see the story, as you point out yourself, Michael. The implicit cry at the film’s end is *this is all just such a brutal waste & it would be so very much better if Jack & Ennis hadn’t been forced by societal mores to share their love for each other in an idyllic & unsustainable setting* – right? C’mon. How is this film not pro-gay?
I keep comparing this story to Greene’s The End of the Affair. (I’ll save space & not go into all of the points that cross my mind here.) While Greene never implies that the relationship between Bendrix & Sarah was in any way a normal or positive thing, there is no way one can say the same for BM, is there? Michael, you used the term idyllic to describe the times Jack & Ennis spend together, & I find that very interesting. Idyllic (per Merriam-Webster Online) can mean “pleasing or picturesque in natural simplicity,” descriptive of an idyll, “a simple descriptive work in poetry or prose that deals with rustic life or pastoral scenes or suggests a mood of peace and contentment.” Bendrix & Sarah do not have that – no good comes from their affair. Neither do Jack & Ennis have it – except during their mountain trysts, which is essentially the affair itself. The film (can’t speak for the book, haven’t read it) obviously wants the viewer to side with Jack & Ennis, that their love is somehow more meaningful that the relationships they might have with their wives. The story takes what was traditionally a setting for great love stories of the past & subverts it by replacing a man & a woman with 2 men. The intent is very clear: we are to see Jack & Ennis as great lovers & we are to accept their relationship as valid. Romeo & Juliet, Cathy & Heathcliff, Jane & Darcy, Jack & Ennis. Some have been tragic, some have not. But it’s clear that Jack & Ennis are meant for that same pantheon of lovers.
In that way, yes, BM is very pro-gay. And, again, very hostile to a Christian understanding of sexuality.
And so I can tell you with confidence that you are wrong.
Actually my Sweet “lives in his own world” troll boy has CONCEADED the lion’s share of the argument to me even thought he is trying to pretend it’s a rebuttle.
So I really don’t need to answer anything. The Mishna Jewish rituals are not really Mosaic. They are “re-interpretations” & “reformulations” but not strick literal aplications of the rituals found in the Law of Moses.
I am vindicated by my own opponent.
VICTORY DANCE!!!!:-)
This is strange. To say Brokeback Mountain isn’t a pro-gay film is like saying THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST isn’t a pro-Christian film.
Weird view you got there Michael.
+J.M.J+
>>>So I really don’t need to answer anything. The Mishna Jewish rituals are not really Mosaic. They are “re-interpretations” & “reformulations” but not strick literal aplications of the rituals found in the Law of Moses.
True, Jim; especially when you consider that a typical Passover Seder today features chicken as the main course! The Book of Exodus clearly demands a roasted *lamb*, not a hen. That was God’s specification for that particular Old Testament sacrament – and for good reason, since it foreshadowed Christ the Lamb of God.
So the modern Seder differs from the original Passover Seder prescribed by the Mosaic Law in its most essential aspect: no Passover lamb! A Passover meal without the Passover Lamb is rather like Mass without bread and wine.
Jews will naturally say the modern lamb-less Seder is a “reformulation” and “reinterpretation” of the Mosaic Law. Yet it is still a drastic change from what God actually prescribed. As Mass wouldn’t be Mass without the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, so a Passover Seder without a lamb is not an Old Testament sacrament. It may be their attempt at a replacement for the Mosaic Seder, but, to borrow a term from sacramental theology, it lacks “valid matter.”
In Jesu et Maria,
Your beautiful when you do theology Babe.:-)
So the modern Seder differs from the original Passover Seder prescribed by the Mosaic Law in its most essential aspect: no Passover lamb!
And I have heard Jews hem and haw about rebuilding the Temple, including statements that anyone who rebuilt it would be claiming to be the Messiah, and others saying that the blood sacrifices have been put aside.
Actually, the Jews I have heard on the topic agree with the Christians about the canon being closed, and the end of the necessity of blood sacrifices. They haven’t had a reason why when I asked.
Mary:
There’s no absolute universal consensus among Orthodox Jews about this (I’m not talking about Conservative or Reform, who are sort-of like the “semi-Protestants” of Judaism). Many Orthodox rabbis do believe that Judaism is insufficient without a temple, and that one of the first things the Messiah will do when he comes is rebuild the temple.
OTOH, I once asked a Messianic Jew who is something of a Talmudic scholar, “How could the rabbis uphold Judaism now that there is no temple or sacrifices?” He said that the later writers of the Mishna and Talmud justified it by citing Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (which, ironically, Jesus Himself cited to the Pharisees during His ministry.) It’s almost as though the rabbis are latently borrowing from Christianity without acknowledging it, to prop up what’s left of Judaism.
Still, in the strict sense, Mosaic observance of Judaism is not possible without a temple and Old Testament priesthood. Comparing Rabbinic Judaism to Biblical Judaism is like comparing High Church Anglicanism to Catholicism. They may have similar outward rituals, reinterpreted according to Reformation errors, but only two valid sacraments (Baptism and Marriage).
Likewise with Rabbinic Judaism; were the Old Covenant still in force, they would have a valid Brit Milah (ritual circumcision) but since they don’t have the temple sacrifices their Passover seder isn’t exactly valid. Also the Haggadah (seder liturgy) they use now would not be valid under the temple sacrifice system because it omits the slaughtered lamb.
And with whom are our sympathies intended to lie at the film’s end? Jack & Ennis. Certainly not their wives; although sympathetic, it’s not through their eyes we see the story, as you point out yourself, Michael.
Of course your sympathies are supposed to lie with Jack and Ennis. But you aren’t even allowed to feel sympathy for gays?
The implicit cry at the film’s end is *this is all just such a brutal waste & it would be so very much better if Jack & Ennis hadn’t been forced by societal mores to share their love for each other in an idyllic & unsustainable setting* – right?
Absolutely not. And I staunchly maintain that if you haven’t seen the film you cannot say this with confidence.
At the end of the film, one thing is very clear: modern society has created this tragedy. But what exactly is the tragedy and how has society created it? Stephen Greydanus claims that the film is anti-masculine because of the negative portrayal of all the straight men. But people around these parts are wont to blame fatherlessness and abuse as the root of homosexuality. If you would take a step back for one second and pretend that this might not be a ‘pro-gay’ movie you might see that an equally valid reading of the film is a commentary on the essentialness of masculinity in our society. Jack and Ennis lack male role models; Ennis’ father is dead, Jack’s is a cold and heartless. When Ennis’s father was alive his idea of turning his son into a man was to show him the brutal way that one of the old queers in town had his genitals ripped off. Jack’s father is completely unsupportive of anything that he wanted to do. Both men cannot and do not relate to women because of the poor job their fathers did of raising them. As a result they sin and as a result the only happiness they get comes from sodomy, which is not endorsed but rather can be seen as the product of their poor upbringing.
When I went to see this movie I was expecting (because I believed the hype) that this movie would be solidly pro-gay and I came out of it with my mind muddled and lots of questions about what the movie was actually about. So while my view is that Jack and Ennis would have been better off in a world with gay marriage, that was my view coming in, rather than coming out.
And I repeat again, if you haven’t seen the movie, it is hard to believe that it isn’t pro-gay propaganda.
Michael,
Have you considered that you disagree with the “O” rating because “your view coming in” would also be morally offensive? A world with “homosexual marriage” is one that prefers sin to God’s plan for our salvation.
Just a thought.
So you know I have no plans to see a movie whose main premise (as you describe it) is that two cowboys with bad or no real role models (which you admit all heterosexual males are portrayed negatively in the movie) will not only commit sodomy in serenity of the mountains but see that as their ONLY happiness.
You CANNOT point to the essentialness of masculinity in our society by making movies about cowboys committing sodomy in idyllic mountain settings. Anyone who would is either being deceitful or deceiving themselves.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J