| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/23/2007 10:19:41 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Picking at the scab |
Posted on 12/21/2007 5:42:23 AM PST by GratianGasparri
What Part of Catholic Do You Not Understand?
Someone needs to ask the US bishops conference (USCCB) movie reviewer, Harry Forbes what part of the concept “Catholic” he does not understand. Mr. Forbes gave a glowing review to the film, The Golden Compass, and put all American Catholic bishops on record as supporting the work of an atheist! Subsequently, New Line Cinema attempted to do a full-scale promotion of the movie using diocesan newspapers claiming that the bishops’ movie office had declared the film to be “entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.” Just to set the record straight: this movie has been condemned or criticized by at least one Cardinal, several Archbishops and Bishops in the US and the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. In fact, the latter called it “the most anti-Christmas film possible,” referring of course to its deliberate release during the Advent season. Wisely, the USCCB removed Mr. Forbes’ positive review of the movie from their website as soon as the controversy started.
Mr. Forbes is entitled to his own opinion on any matter, but he is not entitled to give his own opinions in the name of our bishops. The bishops deserve better—Mr. Forbes deserves to be fired.
This matter goes deeper than just one incident. We can rightly tolerate honest mistakes and errors of judgment when they happen. We are all human, and we would all like that same tolerance directed toward us for our mistakes. What is less tolerable and cause for appropriate action is a pattern of malfeasance. Mr. Forbes has a track record of shaming our bishops with his upbeat reviews of films that do not remotely reflect the values of any Christian let alone the bishops.
In 2005, Harry Forbes gave such a positive review to the homosexual promotional film, Brokeback Mountain, that the bishops had to withdraw the shameless review and replace it with another. Still stinging from the priest scandals of 2002 and beyond, the review was not only morally wrong, it was imprudent, ill-timed and embarrassing. In his original review of the two homosexual lovers and their infantile problems, Forbes soft pedals the gross man-on-man sex scenes and ends by saying that the bishops’ rating of the film indicates that “some adults” may have problems with the moral content of the movie. That’s like saying that “some wives” may object to their husbands having affairs with other women.
Forbes’ track record does not stop there. It has recently come to light that in 2005 he issued another glowing review for a salacious homosexual movie called Rent based on a Broadway production of the same name. LifeSiteNews has recently documented the offensive commentary which was posted on the Catholic News Service website; suffice it to say that the bishops should not have to be on record as supporting that one either.
What we are expecting is standard practice in the business world: namely, that those who present their company’s (or church’s) views to the public represent the views of their employers faithfully. If they make a mistake they can be forgiven and the damage repaired; but if they misrepresent their bosses consistently and on fundamental matters, they should be fired to defend the very integrity of those who they speak for in public. Simple as that!
Join me in defending our bishops from further travesty; please respectfully petition the USCCB to give this Forbes guy a nice shove out the door.
To express concerns, contact:
USCCB President Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Archdiocese of Chicago 155 E. Superior Street Chicago, IL 60611 312-751- 8200 mfox@archchicago.org
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International
HLI ping!
The same question needs to be posed to the Bishops.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I certainly don’t think that Forbes’ comments puts the bishops on records as supporting something. He doesn’t even have an imprimatur! But it certainly does sew confusion, because people presume he acts as more than a mere movie reviewer. His column is a reference to consider the morality of a movie.
In Christ...Alone!
“It would seem to me that these type of problems (where man’s opinion differs with God’s) could be avoided if we would use the Bible EXCLUSIVELY for the basis of our opinion. Then, there would never be a contradiction of opinion.”
That reminds me of the arguments that the problems with homosexual priests are caused by the celibacy requirement.
There is nothing in Catholicism that endorses or condones sodomy.
Further, to insist on using the Bible exclusively is to impoverish one’s self, to tell God that a huge wealth of the blessings He wishes to shower on us are “not necessary.” As, indeed, protestants have done.
Wiley, are the Church of Christ folks right when they say that baptism is a requirement for salvation?
Are the Orthodox Presbyterians right when they baptize infants by sprinkling them?
Are the Assembly of God folks right when they say that the gift of tongues still exists today?
Are the Baptists right when they say that baptism is only a sign which follows salvation, that the spiritual gifts ended with the Apostolic age, and that only believers ought to be baptized, and that by immersion?
Because everyone I've named claims to "use the Bible exclusively", and they can't all be right.
Now, THAT was funny!!!
You've obviously never met a Christian or read the Bible....
How dare you. That is a personal attack!
You have no right to question my salvation. Your attack on me in this post is no less than me bringing out some Jack Chick. If the moderator doesn't rebuke this attack, then I will consider it fair game with Mr. Chick as well to bring the truth about the papal catholic church to light.
Which Baptists believe this? I are one and I don't believe that!
In Christ...Alone!
It was a personal attack, I'll give you that. But let's check your consistency. Would you say to a Catholic that they're on a false path, to say the least, because they "don't follow the Bible"?
Did the underline not show up on you Commodore 64?
What happened to all the dudes who ate meat on Fridays back in the fifties and sixties? Are they still in Purgatory now, or did they get amnesty? That's what I want to know.
No, LOL. You don’t find that sentence problematic?
Harry Forbes; Fresh Eye for the Gay Guy
RM, this is an admitted personal attack. This is not an argument of doctrine but an attack on me personally. I expect a rebuke and retraction of this.
WileyPink
It is quite obvious, to me at least, that your statement “if we stick to the Bible” we would not have these contradictions is an obvious doctrinal statement of Protestantism, i.e. “Sola Scriptura”, and was made on a Catholic Post, which from what I could tell, did not get into any Protestant(s) vs. Catholic Theological differences.
So implicit in your statement, IMO, was an attempt to create a discussion on this thread (i.e. Protestant vs. Catholic debate) when the original post was only raising the issue about a movie reviewer who works for the USCCB and wrote a review about a movie that is in direct contradiction to Catholic moral doctrine.
So if someone responded back to you in terms you do not like, it was for the most part do to your own post.
Merry Christmas
I can see your point!
Who could doubt it if you interpret the Bible the way you interpreted my sarcasm.
I would dearly love to square off with you, but rest assured the religion moderator would not tolerate me dissecting you.
IT WAS A JOKE!!! DON'T YOU GET SATIRE??? I thought you people say we Baptist are slow!
Is there some way we can get a few or the bishops to join this clown in pursuing other career opportunities?
One of the ones you are not might believe in symbolic baptism.
I expect action to this poster.
Physician, heal thyself (post #24).
Well, it didn’t seem like it was a joke post.
Your hearing voices is the first credible thing you've said... As for the Bible vs Sacraments and pedophiles, you've already lost that contest.
Why is a guy with “Human Life International” writing as such, about Roman Catholicism?
Your point is a good one and understood. This is probably a simple matter of semantics but...The original post said that baptism was only a sign after salvation. I believe that water baptism is one of two sacrements given by Christ. The other being the Lord's Supper. (Not the Eucharist) Water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. The Lord's Supper represents the broken body and the shed blood of Christ.
Like I said, probably semantics.
Uh, because he’s a Catholic priest.
Southern Baptist Convention statement of faith:
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.That isn't what CoC people believe about baptism. Both groups claim to follow the Bible exclusively.
Oh please... if this thread were a fender bender, you would be the one clutching the back of his neck, leaping about, and bellowing “WHIPLASH!”
In Christ...Alone!
Religion Moderator:
I stand by my original post in #21 where I stated that the original purpose of this thead was to alert Catholics to write the USCCB about the Moview reviewer in question. Again, nothing in the original article posted dealt with Protestant(s) vs. Catholic Theological differences.
However, WileyPink’s original post was clearly, IMO, an argument for Sola Scriptura, which is not part of the Catholic Tradition. If WileyPink wants to debate Sola scriptura, that is his right, but he should start a thread that does so as this one did not!!! raise any issues regarding differences between Protestants, of whatever tradition, vs. Catholics.
Merry Christmas
Actually, the nonsense with Forbes goes beyond movie reviews as the USCCB is nothing more than a safe harbor for many socialist apparatchiks at USCCB. The place is a stink tank for leftist ideology disguised as theology.
Actually, he can offer Jesus as Food, Drink, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, and Eldest Brother.
But that's more Jesus that you want, I guess.
I guess that answers my question in #14.
Maybe now you can try reading the Bible.
In Christ...Alone!
If I were you, I’d reread John 6.
Wiley, do you think any orthodox, faithful, believing Catholics have "taken Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior," or does being a faithful Catholic make that impossible?
Second question: Aren't people who haven't "taken Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior" headed for hell?
Here is your cannibalism...
...and Eldest Brother.
The same "spirit brother of the Mormons with Satan as the other 'brother'?
Doesn't matter. They follow the Bible alone, and they disagree with you all over the place, which proves that "following the Bible alone" doesn't do what you want to claim it does.
Maybe now you can try reading the Bible.
I've been reading the Bible for about 40 years, Wiley.
Been there, done that.
It didn't work.
Scroll up to the top of this thread. Read the title and the article. It's about a film reviewer for the US Catholic bishops which makes no reference to any other Christian faith and which discusses his reviews of several recent films.
Congratulations.
You've managed to take this thread from that to a discussion of the Bible, baptism and pedophiles.
You win the "Thread Diverter of the Month" award. You also win a "Shot Myself in the Foot" bonus prize as a special award, for squaring up to someone, appealing to the Religion Moderator and having your own post promptly deleted as a result.
Can you be more specific??
Oh snap!
Congratulations on making the same charge against us that the Roman pagans made 1800 years ago. We're obviously keeping the faith!
The same "spirit brother of the Mormons with Satan as the other 'brother'?
See Romans 8:14-17 and 8:29, also Hebrews 2:10-18. I'm sorry you don't know your Bible better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
