The review of Brokeback Mountain at the U.S. bishops’ Office of Film and Broadcasting has been heavily edited.
Most of the edits are in a positive direction. Many of Harry Forbes’ over-the-top gushy raves about the gay cowboy love story have been removed. For example, his opening remark that the movie "arrives at last" has now been snipped.
The review still gives the moral aspects of the film a back seat (not even getting to them until late in the review), but some of the deficiencies previously noted have been fixed. For example, the review’s discussion of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior now reads:
The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).
That’s a dramatic improvement over the original, which read:
As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.
The bottom line moral assessment of the film is better, but still a bit perplexing. It reads:
Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood – not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children — who give the film its artful substance.
However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.
The opening statement that "use of the film as an advocacy vehicle . . . does a disservice to its genuine complexity" is perplexing. Talking about "use of the film" in the passive voice makes it sounds
like homosexual activists will be "using it" contrary to the true
"complexity" of the film. This generates a "Huh?" reaction.
As noted previously, the film sounds eminently suited to be an advocacy vehicle–and an especially dangerous and destructive one because it is made by a talented director (Ang Lee) who has imbued it with artistic qualities that enable it to better deliver its morally offensive payload to the audience.
Also perplexing is the statement that "the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair" are what necessitate an O rating.
Earlier the review cited two morally offensive grounds: (1) the homosexual nature of their relationship and (2) the fact that they commit adultery with each other after having married women.
The review goes out of its way to assert that the adultery aspect is "just as offensive from a Catholic perspective" (an assertion that is quite open to question; St. Thomas Aquinas would not concur), and so it’s no surprise to see the adultery aspect showing up in the justification for the O rating. But notice what’s changed: Previously it was noted that both homosexual behavior and the homosexual orientation itself are problematic (as are any sinful behaviors and sinful orientations–regardless of what the sin in question may be).
This has been downgraded in the final assessment to just "the physicality of the men’s relationship" making the movie morally offensive. As if it wouldn’t be offensive if the film communicated the message that it’s okay for two men to have an intense, romatic relationship as long as it doesn’t get physical?
This sounds like whoever is editing the review is still foot-dragging.
It’s not the physicality of the relationship that is the source of the problem, it’s the homosexuality of it.
At least, though, we now have an unambiguous O assigned to the film, without the finger-pointing at the Catholic News Service audience and the hinting that the film really still deserves only an L and that the OFB is being forced to assign it a rating other than what it believes the film deserves.
As you can see, not all gushy remarks about the film have been deleted. For example, there’s still the sonorous remark that in the film "the universal themes of love and loss ring true."
There’s are also the remarks that "The performances are superb" and "Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time." The former may be true, and the latter probably is true–given Hollywood’s current tendency to reward iconoclastically morally offensive films at Oscar time (Cider House Rules [abortion], Million Dollar Baby [euthanasia], Boys Don’t Cry [transsexualism]).
It is not clear who is making these revisions, whether it is Harry Forbes or someone else. The OFB reviews do not carry bylines and the edited version of the review does not seem to appear on Catholic News Service (where Forbes’s byline was removed when the rating was changed from L to kinda-maybe-sorta O).
What is clear is that whoever did the edits has seen the film. In fact, there is new information in the review about the content of the film, including some that should have been given to the audience the first time.
The review is still flawed and still retains elements of Harry Forbes’ initial gushy rave review, but it’s a lot better than it was.
The problem is all of the local Catholic papers who carried the original review will probably not print the revision or a retraction. I think our paper printed the review because of the controversy.
Did anyone see the New York Times article on the subject last week?
I take issue with: “The film creates characters of flesh and blood – not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children — who give the film its artful substance.” because as SGD’s review makes clear, heterosexual men are portrayed as thoughtless brutes.
Which fits in nicely with the homosexual battle cry: “If you don’t approve of me, then you must want to kill me.” Which is a very dangerous line of reasoning because it has been successfully used by the gay culture to suppress religious freedom and freedom of speech around the world.
Is homosexuality so sacrosanct that a to criticize its immorality is equal to murder? The film intrinsically links these two separate ideas in a false leap of logic thus promoting secular hatred.
Thanks Ang Lee for importing some of that good ole fashioned Communist bile!
I think I must agree with StubbleSpark in that when one says “If you don’t approve of me, then you must want to kill me” is one of the reasons why Canada ended up passing that rediculous law that threatened to silence clergy if they spoke up about homosexuality. To say “Is homosexuality so sacrosanct that a to criticize its immorality is equal to murder? The film intrinsically links these two separate ideas in a false leap of logic thus promoting secular hatred” I would have to concur. Secular hatred indeed.
Once again, the faithful Catholic laity drag the USCCB, kicking and screaming, closer to orthodoxy.
What’s wrong with this picture?
That we think we know more than the bishops.
The bishops didn’t write the review. A layman did.
In my view, the USCCB can be “morally problematic.” In fact, I’ll take Catholic Answers over the USCCB any day!
I agree with the foot dragging, kicking, and screaming. There comes a time when the chicken will come to roost. Is it just a matter of time when the USCCB will be held accountable to Catholic teaching?
I believe the Catholic blog-o-sphere will provide that answer.
Hi all,
Just wondering, has anyone actually seen the film? I found it deeply moving, with a message (“homosexuals are people too” – for the Christian, people made in God’s own image and likeness) apart from its approval of the ‘gay lifestyle.’ It’s not nearly the attack on all things sacred that it is percieved to be, and Jack and Ennis are far from perfect. Additionally, I would have to question the perception that gays think anyone who is opposed to homosexual behavior wants to kill them. It would be just as absurd to say that the rallying cry of the pro-life community is “kill the abortionists!” And finally, heterosexual men are NOT portrayed as thoughtless brutes. None of the developed heterosexual male characters are violent; one is emotionally abusive and an all-around jerk, one is a typical nice guy, and two are presented as generally distant and homophobic. Thoughtless maybe, but brutish? No.
I can’t speak to the movie since I haven’t seen and really have no desire to see it. But I read the short story and came away feeling deeply sorry for the men’s wives and children.
I felt it was similar to “The English Patient.” As you recall, that movie was incredibly beautiful – beautifully filmed, beautifully acted. But its bottom line was the exact opposite of that of “Casablanca,” in which “the problems of two little people don’t amount to a hill of beans” (I don’t remember the exact quote) when faced with the evil of Naziism. Hence Rick gave up his chance with the love of his life to join the resistance. In “The English Patient,” “love” (lust?) was more important than anything else at all – betrayal of anything, whether family or country, was just a glitch on the way to what “really” mattered!
“Brokeback Mountain” is beautifully acted and beautifully filmed, but to me the underlying and implicit message is just as immoral.
The devil often appears as an angel of light, dazzling but evil to the core.
J+M+J
“It’s not nearly the attack on all things sacred that it is percieved to be, and Jack and Ennis are far from perfect.”
“All” things? No, not all things. Just heterosexuality. That’s why the film shows the trysts of Jack & Ennis as, in the words of a homosexual poster in another BM thread on this blog, idyllic. That’s the romantic perfection that is desired in the film. The film seeks to put the names “Jack & Ennis” among the pantheon of lovers, star-crossed or not. I find it very interesting that the point in the Proulx’s story that both Jack & Ennis were abused in youth was left out of the film. Why were the filmmakers unwilling to include that bit of info? They certainly opened up the original story enough to fill 2 hours of screen time & could have alluded to that abuse. I find that very telling.
I also find telling the way in which BM is being sold. Has anyone seen the commercials for it on TV recently? It looks for all the world like a movie about 2 guys in cowboy duds & the women in their lives. And I guess it is – but it’s so much more. And those in middle America who do not routinely pay attention to cinematic controversies will yet again be duped into seeing a movie based on a *bait & switch* marketing plan. Remember how Million Dollar Baby was sold as a feel-good Rocky clone about a woman boxer a year ago? Those of us who were paying attention know how that one turned out!
Jimmy, why don’t you ask the OFB to further revise the review to just simply say, “This film is deeply offensive to anyone of Catholic faith, it has no redeeming qualities, and by NO MEANS should you see it”?
After all, if it is indeed so offensive to Catholics (and it may be), why spend all this time and effort parsing mentions of the film’s supposed merits, if they have no relevance to Catholics anyway?
The rating is clear. People know understand how truly offensive and meritless it is. Just move on, please.
Amazing film…I’m still a bit too overwhelmed to give a review. I still don’t see either character as gay, just two men that happened to fall in love with each other. They seemed to prefer the physical part of the relationship with each other, but didn’t refuse to have sex with the women in their lives.
Enis is much more complex than most realize…he has issues in life that have nothing to do with his sexuality.
Jack seems to be the one head over heels in love and desiring the physical relationship be a permanent one.
A different time a different place, perhaps the two would have been happy together.
I didn’t feel bait and switched at all in this film. It’s Ang Lee for crying out loud…he tends to make tragedies, not happy, feel-good films. 🙂
“It’s Ang Lee for crying out loud…he tends to make tragedies, not happy, feel-good films.”
True. I think Lee’s adaption of The Ice Storm is a brilliant film. I’ve seen all of his US-backed films & many of his foreign-backed ones. He’s one of the most consistent directors around today. But that’s not to say that I don’t think he totally missed the boat with this one. I’d rather see The Hulk again!
But it’s your reaction, JimHinCO, that concerns & confuses me.
“I still don’t see either character as gay, just two men that happened to fall in love with each other.”
So, what would you call “two men that happened to fall in love with each other” & acted out on it in the way Jack & Ennis do in the film?
“They seemed to prefer the physical part of the relationship with each other, but didn’t refuse to have sex with the women in their lives.”
Well, er . . . that’s the problem, isn’t it? Jack & Ennis entered into a disordered relationship which they continued after they each married, compounding their sin further by making them adulterers. You also point out “they seemed to prefer the physical part of the relationship” – which means they were only using each other for sexual gratification. You admit that you got no connection between the film between Jack & Ennis other than a sexual one. That’s quite a sad way for those 2 men to live their lives. Not to mention intrinsically disordered.
“A different time a different place, perhaps the two would have been happy together.”
Really? On the one hand you got from the film that the relationship between Jack & Ennis was a purely sexual one but now you say they would have been happy together in “a different time, a different place.” What place & time would that be? Did you find the film to condone both? How can that be? Is such an intrinsically disordered relationship, especially one that causes such strife in 2 families, be OK in any time or place?
Would you mind, please, explaining further?
I guess one could see the film & acknowledge the need for God in our lives & how, if we rely on ourselves & not God, we can really mess up our lives. But I couldn’t recomment any see BM in order to learn that & I do not believe that was And Lee’s intention, anyway. Besides, there are many other works that would be far more effective to drive that point home. The Bible, for example!
What? No hubbub amongst Christians over the OTHER Heath Ledger film currently in theaters… “Casanova”… in which he playfully beds one woman after another?
D’Alessandro,
Glad to see you are still reading Jimmy’s blog.
Sorry that it bothers you so much that as Catholics we expect a rating from the USCCB to give a Catholic perspective. Like Jimmy said this review is a step in the right direction. We know that the laity have to keep urging our Bishops to proclaim the Gospel boldly.
JimHinCO,
Enis is such a complex character in your opinion that when he commits sodomy and later adultery you consider that love? I would say that is very clearly a man choosing to commit sodomy and adultery out of lust.
Sodomy goes against God’s purpose for our sexuality no matter the time or place. A good director and beautiful landscapes will not change the fact that sodomy is sinful. When you are done being “overwhelmed” by the film maybe you will consider God’s design and purpose of masculinity and femininity.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
“Casanova” does not appear to be the subject of this blog.
Having spent a couple weeks on this board, I think there is only one conclusion: There are many people in the world who view “Brokeback Mountain” as a tale of two men leading immoral lives, causing others great pain, and espousing values that are completely inconsistent with Catholic teaching. There are many other people who view “Brokeback” as a beautifully filmed fictional story of two men who found love and happiness with each other, and struggled to be together in a society that forced them into false choices and self-hatred – with disastrous consequences.
Those in either camp are not going to change the minds of the other. So see it if you like. Stay away from it if you prefer. Understand that not everyone is going to feel the same way about such a film as you do. And that’s ok – nobody expects the entire world to share their values.
And since the OFB has been brough back into line, is there anything more really to discuss?
D’Alessandro is tired of this discussion. Instead of ignoring it, he insists we end it. D’Alessandro, read the posts if you like. Stay away from them if you prefer. Understand that not everyone is going to feel the same way about such posts as you. And that’s ok.
bill912
Good advice. Sayanora!
“What? No hubbub amongst Christians over the OTHER Heath Ledger film currently in theaters… “Casanova”… in which he playfully beds one woman after another?”
Having been liberally peppered with TV spots for both BM & Casanova over the last weekend, it did occur to me that Mr Ledger is certainly making a statement through the roles he’s currently choosing.
“There are many other people who view “Brokeback” as a beautifully filmed fictional story of two men who found love and happiness with each other, and struggled to be together in a society that forced them into false choices and self-hatred – with disastrous consequences.”
False choices & self-hatred? OK, I know you’re not checking this thread anymore D’Alessandro, but I have to respond. This statement ignores the fact that it’s the actions of Jack & Ennis that cause their problems from the get-go! They did not have to get married to those women & ruin their lives & their children’s lives. Yes, it’s so tragic that things ended up horribly & that they dragged everyone around them (probably including the sheep) with them.
But I have a news flash for you, D: that’s what sin does! When one person sins, it affects the whole of mankind. You think Jack & Ennis “found love and happiness with each other” – OK, then why didn’t they buy their own piece of land in the middle of nowhere, totally away from society, & be together? Please, even that was an option in the ’60s. They chose to make what you call “false choices” & they caused the disaster they made of their lives & those of the people around them. They are to blame, not “society.”
bill912, it’s not just that D has tired of this discussion, it’s that he can’t refute the very real morally problematic aspects of homosexual live the film brings up. So, like Jack & Ennis, he chooses to ignore them. Life imitates “art.”
Why is Brokeback Mountain being given nomination after nomination? Why is this movie resonating with those in power in Hollywood? The answer is Hollywood doesn’t view adultery or unprotected anal sex in a negative light. The emotional pain of the women and the potential diseases the women may be exposed to (syphilis, etc) is overshadowed by a story of two men pursing their desires. Unprotected anal sex and lying to your “loved ones,” these are minor plot points to those in Hollywood. I saw an interview of a major actor going to see Brokeback Mountain. The interviewer asked, “do you find anything morally wrong about the Brokeback Mountain story?” The actor was offended and replied in a challenging voice, “do you?” There is a profound disconnect between the “anything goes” attitude of the Hollywood elite and those who are on the other side of the movie screen in the theater.
The synopsis of Brokeback Mountain given by the studio is: “Two young men — a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy — meet in the summer of 1963, and unexpectedly forge a lifelong connection, one whose complications, joys, and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love.” Adultery and lying is a testament to the endurance of love? Engaging in unprotected sex that endangers the lives of your family is a testimony of the power of love? Only from the viewpoint of those who made this movie. They see the adulterer as the hero and protagonist. This is wrong.
You’ve GOT to be kidding me! Wrapping yourselves in religious hypocrisy. Shame on ALL of you. Do not EVEN quote ANYTHING catholic because if you go back in their history, you will find that the catholic church used to sanctify same-sex marriages. That’s not my opinion, do your research. People, know WHAT you believe and WHY!
Your sources, Jerry?
I’d be tickled PINK to read them.
Uh … when has the Catholic Church EVER sanctified same sex marriage?
And how are things on Alpha Centauri, Jerry?
Jerry,
Please provide your “documentation”, we can’t wait to see what you present as evidence.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
It’s probably “documented” in something akin to “The Da Vinci Code”.
It’s funny that Jerry didn’t try to defend the movie. My beef is that it isn’t a love story. It’s a story that profiles the mind and motivation of an adulterer. The main characters in this movie are selfish and cruel to their wives and upon close inspection, they are selfish towards each other. I hope love means more than that. Is this really a modern day love story?
The fact that Forbes’ byline was removed indicates to me that someone other than Forbes rewrote the piece; Forbes’ objected to the revisions and asked that his name be removed.
I didn’t realize this site was so dedicated to the promotion of scripture that it couldn’t look at things objectively…my apologies. I have similar complaints with certain issues…how can any person that supported slavery EVER be considered a man of god? How about any adulterer? What about any man that has ever lied? Even a white lie? How about those that get divorced? At what point will your judgement stop? For me, it stopped with the blood of Christ. For me, it stopped with “Love your neighbor”. For me, it stopped with 1st Corinthians defining what Love is.
It appears that faith can move mountains and love never fails…yet very little evidence of that is coming out from the Christian (including Catholic) community regarding homosexuality. This leaves quite a few possibilities. Either we lack the faith, we have no clue how to love, it’s not wrong, or it is wrong and all of our faith to move mountains and unfailing love is for nothing…voiding those scriptures.
It is phenominally easy to cast judgement on somebody…it is much more difficult to love them. The Bible warns against judgement and admonishes us to love. Perhaps you are all reading a different Bible than I am…you certainly aren’t living the life that Jesus commanded.
“It is phenominally easy to cast judgement on somebody….you certainly aren’t living the life that Jesus commanded.”
I love it when people refute themselves.
The difference, bill912, is that we speak differently to those that have embraced scripture and those that are non-believers. Spiritual milk is great, if I’ve thrown out meat and you are choking, my apologies. I certainly thought you were mature enough to understand the difference.
You are casting judgment on me, Jim H.
Not to mention, name-calling. Is that what you call “mature”?
Jim H,
Relax, take a deep breath, and curl up with a copy of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. You’ll be surprised at how nonjudgmental it is.
And while we’re on that topic, if you’re going to complain about someone unfairly judging you, it’s usually better to wait until someone actually does it, and to refrain from doing it yourself.
For what it’s worth.
Firstly, until Brother Cadfael mentioned it, I didn’t see anyone as judging me, just the homosexuals over a fictional movie. So I don’t really need to relax and take a deep breath, but thanks 🙂 How exactly is a fellow brother-in-the-Lord holding us accountable to the scripture we preach “unfair”? Yet holding non-believers accountable to our beliefs is “fair”?
Secondly, bill912, the only name I’ve called you is bill912. Questioning ones maturity level based on spiritual milk versus meat is scriptural. There is nothing wrong with spiritual milk, but it denotes a level of maturity by definition, not malice. If calling you bill912 is offensive, my apologies. 🙂
Again, read the scriptures…Jesus and his followers (again, assuming you are striving for this, my apologies if you are non-Christian) spoke very differently towards non-believers and believers. One is a message of good news…the other is a message of becoming more Christ-like.
We, believers, used scripture to justify slavery in the past, we’ve used it to justify the oppression of women, we’ve used it to justify the slaughtering of the native americans, the burning of “witches”, and the physical abuse of children. Once science shows that our beliefs are flawed, we get revelations on how we misinterpreted the word of God…the unchanging Word! Be wary…science if very close to proving homosexuality is just a simple gene-flip away (they’ve already done it in fruit flies). If we cling to Old Testament law and New Testament interpretation of greek words that have no equivalent for our culture…it shows a shaky foundation. The Rock we stand on is one of love, not judgement.
“You are casting judgment on me, Jim H.”
Where exactly am I determining your salvation? That is casting judgement.
Jim H,
The Rock we stand on is one of love, not judgement
Actually, Christ established Peter and his successors as the Rock on which we should stand, and the Church which Christ established with Peter at its head is the pillar and foundation of truth.
And yes, that Rock is one of love, which is why the Church has always taught that homosexuals should be loved, but that homosexual acts are gravely disordered, contrary to the natural law, and can in no way be approved.
The truth is preached with love, but love separated from the truth is a poor imitation.
Thank you for clearing things up; until now, I didn’t realize that questioning someone’s maturity was not a judgment and was not name-calling.
There’s a big difference between judging the state of one’s soul and judging between right and wrong. I can and should make the judgement that engaging in homosexuality acts is wrong. But I should not judge the state of any particular person’s soul. Any assertion of right or wrong is a judgement. Can the only judgment be that judgments can’t be made? Should nothing be condemned but condemnation?
bill912…unless I label you as “immature bill912”, then I haven’t “named” your or called you a name. If I call you “happy”, that is your emotional state, not a name I’ve assigned to you.
“And how are things on Alpha Centauri, Jerry?” — bill912. Granted, you didn’t call Jerry a freak here…but you sure implied it.
And to quote you again, “Understand that not everyone is going to feel the same way about such posts as you. And that’s ok.”
Judgement in the scriptural sense is the act of judging ones soul…I have not done so. What is right for my life may not be right for your own. When I felt it necessary to rid myself of all secular music, including classical, that was for me, not for the world. I didn’t cast judgement on someones spiritual health based on what music they listened to. See the difference?
I’m not meant to have a wife and seven kids…other men are. That’s God’s perfect/permissive plan for them…but not me. Thankfully, they don’t hold me accountable to a bar they’ve set.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Jim,
I’ll probably regret wading in where I wasn’t invited, but I found the following exchange curious:
…unless I label you as “immature bill912”, then I haven’t “named” your or called you a name. If I call you “happy”, that is your emotional state, not a name I’ve assigned to you.
So bill912 doesn’t have a legitimate complaint that you have called him a name (immature) even though you implied that he was not mature, but…
“And how are things on Alpha Centauri, Jerry?” — bill912. Granted, you didn’t call Jerry a freak here…but you sure implied it.
…you have a legitimate complaint (in the same post, no less) that bill912 impliedly called Jerry a freak, when to my knowledge he never used the term.
I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason why that’s not a double standard, or why a double standard is justified, but I must admit it’s escaping me at the moment.
When I felt it necessary to rid myself of all secular music, including classical
By what did you decide which music was secular?
Brother Cadfael, please reread what I wrote. Review it a few times…someone young in the Lord, on spiritual milk, is not an insult. It’s simply where they are at. The spirit of my message and indeed my message were not to belittle, they contained no malice, and they certainly didn’t “name” him anything. Now, use that same dicernment on his message…please. Unless comparing someone on spiritual milk is the same as saying someone lives in a different planet (babylon 5) universe…
You can argue semantics all you want…it’s clear that you find fault in my message while not in his. It’s very interesting. Count the apologies, the smilies showing good will, and the non-sarcastic responses I’ve delivered…and then review his. Now, use some dicernment. Until then, enjoy…no need to visit the site any longer.
Jim,
Sorry, but I do think that Jerry is coming “from another planet” with his comment, which he could not or would not back up. Was bill912 sarcastic? Sure. Malice? Don’t see it. And there is not a person posting here who would not, in all seriousness, like to see Jerry’s references on that point.
Referring to someone else as immature and then claiming, essentially, “it’s just a fact,” no harm intended is, well, disingenuous to say the least.
Jim H: So, what’s your deal, dude? You’d have us remain silent on this issue? Or worse, advocate films that attempt to normalize deviant sexual behavior? I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Even if scientists ever did “prove” some genetic tendency toward homosexuality (which I doubt they will, but I could be wrong), it doesn’t change a thing. Firstly, we’re not as simple as fruit flies. There’s no “switch” that, when flipped, can alter our perceptions thusly. Secondly, it’d just be a tendency. Alchoholism runs in my family; so, I don’t drink.
Also, it doesn’t matter 🙂 how many 🙂 “smily faces” 😀 one loads 😉 into a post. The effect of your post to bill was that he felt insulted. Now, you (seemingly) accuse Br. C of being thick headed. I’d think someone as non-judgmental as yourself would want to clear things up with a pair of apologies.
😀
Thanks, Brother C. To quote Howard Cosell when he was “roasted”, he’s “throwing spitballs at a battleship.”
Or worse, advocate films that attempt to normalize deviant sexual behavior?
A film can be seen from many perspectives. You’ve expressed yours, and the filmmakers and public have a right to theirs. I advocate everyone’s right to express themselves and to share in that expression.
Penny: Are you Jim H? If not, then the question was not directed to you.
Penny, I missed the post where someone said that filmmakers and the public didn’t have a right to express their opinions. Would you please point it out?
Penny,
A film can be seen from many perspectives.
Granted.
You’ve expressed yours, and the filmmakers and public have a right to theirs.
OK, but I think we’re part of the public, not somehow opposed to the public as you have set it up.
I advocate everyone’s right to express themselves…
Everyone should (within socially acceptable limits) certainly be able to express themselves.
…and to share in that expression.
Huh?
What were seeing here is the liberal “everyone has a right to express themselves, unless you are a Christian and/or conservative in which case expressing your opinion means taking away the freedom of others” attitude. It is not a conscious attitude, but it comes out again and again.
OK, but I think we’re part of the public, not somehow opposed to the public as you have set it up.
I didn’t set it up any such way. Did you miss where I said, “I advocate everyone’s right to express themselves.” That includes you.
What were seeing here is the liberal “everyone has a right to express themselves, unless you are a Christian and/or conservative in which case expressing your opinion means taking away the freedom of others” attitude.
Are you another who doesn’t understand what “everyone” means? That includes you too. And me. Maybe you forget.
Penny,
I never said that you were suppressing anyone’s opinion. What you did was more subtle than that, whether intended or not. You said that “you” can express your opinion (again, no suppression) but the filmakers and the “public” can also express theirs. As if the “public” had one voice and the “you” to whom you were speaking had another which is opposed to the “public” voice. And of course, the “filmakers” are on the side of the “public,” not on the side of the “you” to whom your comments were directed.
Penny, I missed the post where someone said that filmmakers and the public didn’t have a right to express their opinions. Would you please point it out?
What you missed Bill was the boat. I said I ADVOCATE everyone’s right to express themselves and to share in such expression by others, such as in the watching of a film.
By advocating the viewing or making of a film such as this, it doesn’t mean I encourage wrongdoing any more than an advocate for the accused in court is advocating wrongdoing. By advocating a film, I’m advocating that voices be heard.
You said that “you” can express your opinion (again, no suppression) but the filmakers and the “public” can also express theirs.
Brother, I didn’t say “but”, I said “and”, a non-exclusive and.
As if the “public” had one voice and the “you” to whom you were speaking had another
What reasonable person would think that? Why don’t live up to your title of “brother” and be a little more charitable in your interpretation. I included the word “public” after filmmaker so as to include all of the public, not *just* “you”.
And of course, the “filmakers” are on the side of the “public,” not on the side of the “you” to whom your comments were directed.
The “public” is not one-sided.
Penny,
I said “whether intended or not.” I thought that was quite charitable.
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.
Many of the USCB are gay
Ang Lee is talented
This movie is not that good
What did the Muslims do with this movie
Penny: Since the truth is what sets man free, speaking the truth is quite charitable. It is the truth that any film which advocates or directly aids in the normalization of incredibly (spiritually, emotionally, physically, societally) destructive behavior must be spoken out against. Even in this particular conversation, Br. C. et al have been more than charitable (if not downright academic) in his approach to you.
I just don’t understand what you want us to say to make it “better.” Shall we give up our creed in favor of relativism? If that’s what you want, just come out and say it. No one has squelched anyone’s viewpoint here. What would you have us say?
Jim H? Penny? Anyone?
Penny, I still haven’t figured out why you defended a position that hadn’t been attacked. Since you think I “missed the boat”, please explain it to me in clear, simple terms so I’ll understand.
It is the truth that any film which advocates or directly aids in the normalization of incredibly (spiritually, emotionally, physically, societally) destructive behavior must be spoken out against.
Jared, you’re welcome to your opinion as to the criteria, which film meets it and what “must” be done. You’re welcome to express your view. I advocate everyone’s right to share what they see, for a fuller understanding.
To me, it’s possible to advocate the movie as something to be seen, and without contradiction, to also speak against whatever content is seen to be objectionable. However, I find no requirement that I “must” speak out against a movie, no matter how objectionable the content may be, or even that it’s necessarily wise to do so.
Even in this particular conversation, Br. C. et al have been more than charitable (if not downright academic) in his approach to you.
Like always, you and Cad are welcome to your opinions.
Shall we give up our creed in favor of relativism? If that’s what you want, just come out and say it.
Is it against your creed to hear different views?
No one has squelched anyone’s viewpoint here. What would you have us say?
Whatever you have to say. As always, I advocate everyone’s right to say what they see.
Penny, I still haven’t figured out why you defended a position that hadn’t been attacked.
Well, Bill, you’re not going to be able to figure that out, because I wasn’t defending a position. I was sharing a position, my position.
please explain it to me in clear, simple terms so I’ll understand.
To understand my position as I see it, Bill, you simply need to stand with me. If you stand opposed to me, you aren’t going to see what I see. Is that clear and simple enough for you?
No. You have been defending the right of everyone to express an opinion, as though someone on this thread stated that some people do not have a right to express an opinion. That is what I meant by defending a position that had not been attacked.
as though someone on this thread stated that some people do not have a right to express an opinion
Yes, Bill, that’s your view on the matter. Thank you for sharing it with us all. Just be careful not to imagine it’s the truth.
My apologies, Penny. I thought you had a point to make.
Penny,
“Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.” — G.K. Chesterton
Just be careful not to imagine it’s the truth.
Just out of curiosity, what is “truth,” at least to you?
Jared: Really, the accusations have to stop, now, please. I did not accuse nor even insinuate, hint, claim, coax, or think that Brother C was thick headed. That came from you. I believe you owe him an apology for that. Secondly, it’s obvious that the truth doesn’t set everyone free…I stated two apologies above, I also stated that Christians hold each other accountable to the messages we are preach and are meant to live, and that bill912 missed the boat on that, showing that level of immaturity is fine, but I certainly thought higher of this audience (though that opinion is changing quickly). If he’s that fragile, which I doubt, I recommend he refrain from blogs…the sarcasm and malice in his posts is pretty discusting.
“What’s your deal dude?” I’m past 3rd grade…I don’t have a “deal” and I won’t respond to “dude”. So, “What is your opinion, brother?” That we condemn the infidels and show hatred, intolerance, and judgement just as the radical Islamist groups do?
What seperates Christianity from other religions is the love of Christ. There are ways to seperate sin from sinner…the church needs to learn this.
Jim H,
it’s obvious that the truth doesn’t set everyone free
That’s not obvious to me. In fact, it’s obviously wrong to me.
You are correct that there are ways to separate sin from sinner, and we do not always go about it in the best possible manner. From what I have seen here, the vast majority of posters have the best of intentions, and have that as their sincere aim.
Having said that, you do seem overly sensitive to criticism, and you do show a tendency to criticize others for what you seem to be doing. I say that not to be offensive, but to explain, in my view, why you are getting the reaction you do.
And again, love that is separated from truth is a poor imitation of love.
“There are ways to seperate sin from sinner…the church needs to learn this.”
Good grief… the Church INVENTED this.
The primary way that sin is separated from the sinner is in the confessional.
The Church is open to all, but we are not welcome to bring our sins along with us, any more than we should walk into the house with our muddy boots on.
Problem is, some people not only won’t seperate from their sin, but insist that their sin be set up and revered as some special kind of virtue.
Perhaps Jim H means that preaching the truth will not always make a person free. This is true, especially when the truth is separated from love. Truth sets you free when you accept it as the truth and let it shape your life.
It is possible to deliver the truth in such a way that it drives people farther away from it, doing more harm than good.
However, in a culture where certain vices are hailed as virtues ad nausium it becomes neccessary to say that yes, sodomy is a grave sin, and yes, inclination to grave sin is disordered. This is not placing judgement on any individual, it is a truth that we must remind the world of. True love does not encourage the sinner to keep sinning by saying “well, we’re all sinners too and who am I to judge you, so everything is fine.”
Tim J.,
Good grief… the Church INVENTED this.
Great point.
Jim H.: Ahem… “Brother Cadfael, please reread what I wrote. Review it a few times.” Sounds like you thought he rushed to judgment and/or was thick-headed, as I said. No need for me to to apologize to him as my statement said nothing about him. I was talking to and about you, dude, er … sir. (I didn’t call you “brother” mainly because this has never been my mode of speech and I didn’t–and don’t–even know if you are a Christian.)
On the “dude” thing … I live in SoCal … I call just about everyone “dude,” even my wife on occasion. Sorry if this offended you as it was not my intent at the time I first wrote it. As to the “3rd grade” response, you’ve just reinforced the fact that you like to call others immature. That’s all right; I count myself in good company. And you clearly do have a “deal” or an “issue” with this as you came in to this commbox SIX MONTHS after the issue was dead and decided to revive the thing. I wonder: did you think no one would see it and respond?
As to the radical Mohammedan accusation … that’s such (false) cliche, that I won’t “dignify” it. I would, instead, point out Br. C’s above quote from GKC.