Once Again: USCCB Movie Reviewers Praise Sex-Laden, Extremely Violent Films as “Morally Grounded”

Comments

1. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   ok – let me get this straight — Mr.Forbes acknowledges that the films mentioned have artistic merit but are really not for every audience (i.e.the Catholic audience). Did I get that right ? if that is true — what is the issue?– that he didnt condemn the artistic merit ? or the morally based theme of the film ? I believe he did miss the whole media point of the movie of Mr. Pullman's work. But if he has made a point of making the distinction of what type  of audience the movie is geared for, I think the "crucifixion" of Mr. Forbes needs to be re-evaluated.
2. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   I dunno. To me it seemed almost like a swipe: "Here are some really good movies, but you poor Catholics can't handle them, so here's my dumbed-down version of a list with you in mind."
3. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   So if the films don't "directly reflect Catholic and/or strongly humane values", then what DO they reflect and why on earth would we hold them out as something to be praised?  Art?  I'm sorry, what?  Art?  Oh, yes, that realm all unto it's own that does not have to stand before the judgement seat.  Oh well, then, let art take the stage and let us all praise it's merit!  ……………………..

   I'm sad to say that our diocesan newspaper took a full page for the opnions of these men.  No, I'm not "crucifying" them–just their truly poor judgement–theirs and the bishops for employing them.

    It's tough enough to raise kids in this pagean world we live in—-too bad the leaders of our Church won't take the strong, unpopular stance needed to fight against it. 

    

   Jesus, I Trust in You! 
4. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   What is the role of a critic ? I am beginning to think that the role of a critic is a very important one in a society that values free speech and expression. I would prefer a complete critique on a film (or whatever) as to understand the whole. If the work of a cinemaphotographer  makes a mountan range look like God's grandeur, should that be noted with the fact the movie's theme is less than admirable ? Or should it go unmentioned (ignored as it were) focus on what is scandalous ? I think the purpose of a rating system has its roots in this idea. Let's take Sweeney Todd as an example. The play has a moral center that says that all of us are capable of these criminal acts and can fall victim to living in the hell we create for ourselves creating irrevocable circumstances. Granted, the play's blood can be noted as a scratch while shaving, and the movie, well, its way over the top on that point. But the moral lesson is still the same. There are people who I would not ( as I said not) recommmend seeing it for a number of reasons — they may not undertand the moral story , they cant stand the sight of blood. Have I accepted senseless murdeing by seeing this film or play ? I may have made a statement by paying to see the film and that's what should be the issue. Tell me the whole " story" and inform me in such a way that I can make a valueable decision for myself and others I know and love. As a Christan community, we are in the world not of it. In a free society I think we will never stop what may be considered objectionable films from being made, but we do need people who will guide us to know what we ought to support. And their words must be carefully chosen so that the criticism is not taken out of context to fool to the uninformed.
5. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   Joe,

   The question is not "what is the role of a critic" but "what is the role of a critic for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops" which is what these guys are supposed to be doing.

   They have a primary duty to look at these through a Catholic lens and to help the faithful know whether to take themselves or their families to see them.

   It's not that hard, unless one puts more importance on fashion and trendiness than on the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what seems to be happening repeatedly with this office.
6. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   I think stacey has hit the nail on the head. The divorce of morality from art is a heresy.
7. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   Protect the Rock –

   I wrote that same letter to OSM and was published. My point here is this — the way this issue has been presented is  all or nothing argument. And with all things considered, anyone of us can recommened a performance and  not like the movie and not recommend to see it. And my last sentence was "And their words must be carefully chosen so that the criticism is not taken out of context to fool to the uninformed." We need to be informed as to what to be seen or not and for what reasons. And in this case the reasons being how they reflect Catholicism. That's his job, but as to start combing through all his reviews is a "witchhunt".

   Go with me on this for a minute — If I said name me a movie that has implied extra-maritial sex, sorcery  and self hatred in it, would " A Little Mermaid" come to mind ? Well, we really arent told who Triton's seven daughters came, Ariel hates who she was born as, and she turns to sourcery ( witchcraft) to change her life. Christian ? no. Did we all see it, probably. Did we like, most likely. Does Love conquer all ? well in this case her father changes her and sets her free to make her own way in a world she knows nothing about. Would you do that to your daugher if you had one ?   Anyway, from what I see, Mr. Forbes does have a responsibilty to be informed and to inform us on how a movie fits into a Catholic lifestyle. I agree sometimes he gets fuzzy on this.
8. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   Joe,

   Congrats on getting your letter published.

   I would be careful about measuring one's examples by whether or not we saw a movie, whether we liked it, and whether love conquers all in it. Those criteria are beside the point, except in as much as it is convicting us that we can easily fall for our culture's "what's so bad about that — I actually liked it" mentality. That is pretty much verbatim what a sixth-grader in my CCD class said a few years ago about the Golden Calf incident from the book of Exodus. And pretty much how we got ourselves in this situation.

   Your points about movie critics are fine if you were talking about a critic hired to write reviews for your local, secular Daily Bugle. But this is the movie critic hired to write reviews for the USCCB.  As I understand it, the office is supposed to inform Catholics about the value or fault of various movies from a Catholic perspective on behalf of our bishops. In that regard, it is all or nothing.   My family long ago stopped consulting USCCB movie reviews precisely because they routinely fail to accomplish this task.
9. 

   February 2, 2008

   Guest

   prior to these reviews of Golden Compass/Brokeback Mountain, I logged onto the USCCB's website.  In my happy little Catholic mentality, I fooliishly thought I'd get movie ideas that would, at the very least, not clash with Catholic morality, or at least warn me.  Foolish, for a Catholic raised in the "Spirit of Vatican 2" aftermath.  I should know better than to trust that generation.  Yes, you heard me right, and I'm not sympathetic to those offended by that.

   The first movie recommended was so explicitly sexual and bleak it made me feel rather sick to the stomach.  Couldn't even watch it to the end.  The second featured gay characters with the obligatory modern moral plug for how normal they are.  Of course, you like the characters, and of course, their sex life is not and issue: just accepted. Not even mentioned in the favorable review.   So… theis latest controversy didn't take me by surprise.  I told my husband months before this that the movie section of the USCCB was infiltrated by psuedo-catholics, who God alone knows, are either outright heretics posing, or do-gooder old generation whose going to fix the Church and all her backward ways.  Either way… I've had enough.

   Stop making excuses for these reviewers.  They can go make a living in the secular world.  They will find lots of comfort there.  Stop taking my hard-earned money and corrupting me and my children from our Catholic heritage.  I want the real Catholic teaching… not your , compromised version.  And , please, stop bending over backward to accomodate this nonsense.  If you still don't get it after the ridiculous affirmation of Brokeback and Compass, I question your judgement.
10. 

    February 2, 2008

    Guest

    mmm… if your computer screen was struck by a hotwheel car wielded by a 2 yr. old, you might understand my grammatical errors.  The arguement, I still stand by. 
11. 

    February 3, 2008

    Guest

    ok — what is the solution since the USCCB is not listening to your request to fire Mr. Forbes?

     " Stop taking my hard-earned money …" — I am assumming withthis satement that you may read only one critic and when you go to the movies a gun is put to your head and told to pay for everyone on line ?: )

    " USCCB was infiltrated by psuedo-catholics, who God alone knows, are either outright heretics posing, or do-gooder old generation whose going to fix the Church and all her backward ways"  — sounds like you may be talking of the bishops ; )

    " My family long ago stopped consulting USCCB movie reviews precisely because they routinely fail to accomplish this task. " — and so have I — did you tell the USCCB of your decision and why ? If not, maybe you ought. I did. But I still think we ought to read more reviews from different sources and hit Hollywood where it hurts — in the pocket book.  We are fooling ourselves if we rely on one critic, but they still have the right to point ut the accomplishments of the film.
12. 

    February 3, 2008

    Guest

    Joe,

    Writing the USCCB is a good idea. That's why the addresses are at the bottom of the article.

    Looks like we are in agreement on much, but will have to agree to disagree on the point about a critic representing our Catholic bishops having the "right" to endorse morally objectionable films.

    PTR!
13. 

    February 3, 2008

    Guest

    I think when the word "endorse" is used, does it mean that it is recommened that everyone sees it ? Or just might be seen by a certain audience who would understand the film? I for one would never endorse "The Passion of the Christ" ( Mel Gibson's film) because of the admitted over the top depicted violence of the passion. Yet others might think that the overt violence is driving the point home and endorse seeing it. I never did see it or will because of what I heard and read of it.(BTW did you know that Mel used the proceeds to that film to erect a church honoring his father's erroneous Christain beliefs ?).

    I do think Mr. Forbes needs to take into account who will be reading the review and who the reviewer is represeting and make it clear on what and why he is endorsing or not. But he doesnt do that as often as we would like or expect. 

    As an FYI — Brokeback doesnt glorify in any way the life of the guys involved. Would I recommend the film and endorse it to the general Catholic populous -I dont think so. Why –because it is hard for us to seperate the sinner from the sin and most are not willing to try to understand that it is just a story of two men with a destiny that is doomed from the start. -that's it for me.
14. 

    February 3, 2008

    Guest

    Writing to the USCCB is a good idea if the right people read it. I've never gotten a response so I'm assuming that my messages are just forwarded to purgatory or worse.

    We've already established that some of the bishop's offices are of questionable Catholic character. It's possible that their P.R. or media liasion is someone formerly from the NY Times or the Boston Globe.

    I think Joe is correct in that we should just take them for what they are. The USCCB is not a democratic organization so they don't owe us what we want only what they think is in line with their thinking.

    None of that makes sense to those of us who consider ourselves orthodox and traditional. We're following faithful logic and can't seem to put it together.

    I've listened to those who know a lot more than I do in these matters. If things appear to be contrary to reasonable expectations just follow the money. I'll bet this Forbes guy is an asset to the Conference in getting contributions from the gay community and other leftist groups. He probably mixes with the other secular movie critics and is well accepted in these circles which give the bishops wider acceptance and credibility.

    Don't forget that a majority of the members of that Conference have given us scandals, bankruptcies and school closings. We conservative Catholics irk them.
15. 

    February 3, 2008

    Guest

    It would be nice if the condescension of some movie reviewers would stop.  Here, I agree with many of the things Michael Medved has said over the years.  This stuff is written to impress their friends, and no other reason.  Oh maybe except to degrade morality and make normal people feel weird.

    I would write my bishop and the USCCB.  If they can't police their own ranks, why should we follow them?  this is scandal, through and through.

    It's one thing to say that some parts of life these things do happen.  It's another to push them in our face.  we could see a decent movie, with some of these things left out.  Yes, they're not porn in the base meaning, that the entire movie is porn, but they have porn elements.  Catholics should be encouraged to see what is good and fill their minds with it.  It's exploitation, of the actors and audience.  Stop lauding it and promoting it and holding it up – kids shouldn't feel there are adult movies out there that are enticing.  I almost never see 'r' movies any more.  Heck, I almost never pay to see any movies, except the best.  My life, and soul and conscience, are better without them.  But how does the USCCB not want to be something honorable?