Posted on 12/17/2005 7:19:59 AM PST by dukeman
WASHINGTON - The Catholic Church identifies homosexuality as a serious moral and psychological disorder of unknown origin, one that is serious enough to make a man who suffers from it ineligible for priestly ordination.
Nonetheless, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a glowing movie review of the homosexual propaganda film, Brokeback Mountain, a story of two rugged cowboys who engage in homosexual liaisons and adultery.
The film's theme is a favorite of homosexual folklore: two lonesome cowboys, removed from the repressions of artificial social mores by their work in the great rugged outdoors. Freed from the constraints of female society, their passions erupt in what is depicted as some deep, natural, repressed well. The sex is depicted off screen in a way described by the author of the short story upon which the film is based as a manly act, "quick, rough, laughing and snorting."
The unnamed USCCB reviewer, in keeping with the now-standard tone of acceptance required of Catholic "progressives," walked a hair-thin line between Catholic teaching and wholehearted approval of the homosexual lifestyle. "The Catholic Church," the reviewer writes, "makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."
He goes on to praise the film saying, "While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true."
A Christian activist who has worked to debunk the propaganda of the homosexual movement was more forthright. Referring to the film's seven Golden Globe nominations including best picture and best director, Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual said, "What a sad day in America when a movie that glorifies homosexuality, adultery, dangerous and deadly unprotected anal sex and deception is up for Best Picture of the Year."
Bennett is a radio talk show host who, with his wife, works to expose the work being done by homosexual activists to undermine the family. He called the film and the awards nominations, "an all time moral low our culture has sunk to."
"When a movie based on a short story, containing graphic, explicit, dangerous homosexual anal sex by two men is elevated to Best Picture of the Year, America better wake up," Bennett said.
The Catholic reviewer seems to have missed the moral depravity angle. The review, which is featured on the USCCB's official website, is written in much the same glowing terms as those of New York Times' reviewer who called it a "moving and majestic" depiction of thwarted love. The USCCB's reviewer enthused about the film's depiction of "love and loss," calling it "a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection."
The film offends not only Christian moral sensibilities, however, but those of anyone who believes in the sanctity of marriage. The two characters separate and marry, have children and make themselves and their wives miserable by the life of "denial" so denigrated by homosexual activists.
Years later they meet again and revisit their passions, this time betraying their wives. The final sop to the homosexual mythology comes when one of the men suggests they leave their wives and set up house together. The other refuses not out of respect for his wife or for love of their children, but because of a traumatic childhood memory of a man beaten to death with tire irons for living with another man.
"Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience," the USCCB review says.
Bennett, in line with Catholic teaching that says the "gay lifestyle" can never be condoned, said, "With HIV and AIDS on the rise, and homosexual men dropping dead because of this dangerous, potentially deadly behavior, you better believe, I'll be sounding the alarm on this movie."
"I've buried too many friends who died from AIDS to keep quiet on this one," said Bennett.
The bishops' organization gave the film a rating of "L," warning of its "tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations." The "L" rating is two notches above the most censorious available in the bishops' system - "O" for morally offensive.
The USCCB's official review is not signed but another, almost identical piece by Harry Forbes appeared on the USCCB related Catholic News Service website. LifeSiteNews.com contacted the USCCB and was informed that Forbes is the head of the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting.
How can this be done? There's no simple solution for this problem. But the solution will begin with fasting and prayer.
So true. We should take a long hard look at ourselves. What became of the Catholic strictness and seriousness of my youth? And I was only an observer since I was (am) Jewish. Arch Bishop Malloy/ I heard about that school all the time on the handball courts. At the same high school Michael Savage went to ten years before
From the article:
“The Catholic Church identifies homosexuality as a serious moral and psychological disorder of unknown origin,...”
Unknown origin? How about Satan?
Does nobody notice that the "Christian activist" who comes against this movie is a former homosexual?
I don't have any reason to believe that God's Church referred to the Catholic Church. As with all religions, it was conceived by men and utilizes many Old Testament rites and rituals. God's Church (those who worship and accept Christ as the Savior) will prevail, but I don't believe it will be via a particular denomination.
God Bless
It exists to varying degrees in various parts of the world. It's a big church. But the situation in our country has certainly deteriorated since the '60s.
Vatican II was wildly misinterpreted, often deliberately, by the '60s generation. The movement finally seems to have begun dissipating.
All you have to do is study history.
If you mean by locally governed that there was someone in charge locally to handle matters, yes that's true. This person was the episcopos, whence we get our word "bishop". But if you mean that this bishop was out on his lonesome and that there wasn't any oversight from anywhere else, you may want to read Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, which was written at the tail end of the 1st century at about A.D. 96 or so.
Clement was the bishop of Rome in the 90s A.D. and he writes to the Corinthians as follows:
The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.Here we have a bishop of Rome, whom Eusebius calls the 3rd successor to St. Peter, involving himself in a dispute at Corinth. Moreover, the Corinthians seemed to have asked him to get involved in this local dispute. Clement answers by taking a group of schismatics at Corinth to task for trying to subvert the legitimate heirarchy that is there and tells them to respect the establishment there in humility.Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us
Also, Clement suggests that, far from a mere collection of a few believers, the Church in Corinth is a visible, fixed entity with an appointed hierarchy who were passed down from the Apostles. See especially his Chapters 42 and 44:
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."...Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
I also don't put money in the collection basket. But I do contribute to the Church, albeit by specific donations to particular churches and/or organizations.
Generally, I send checks to Mater Ecclesiae Church in Berlin, NJ of which I am an out-of-town parishioner. This is a all Indult Diocesan Parish. I also send money from time to time to the FSSP.
As an accountant, I can advise you that the one way to legally ensure that none of our money goes to the bishops is to put restrictions on the Memo line of our checks. So, for Mater Ecclesiae, I also put a note saying "Donation Restricted to Parish expenses or something similar." All of my FSSP donations are usually specifically for seminary costs.
Thanks for that tip. There are many little parishes simply scraping by that could use some help. My old parish was one of them. I used to be their one woman landscaping crew. Even though they were small and poor the Bishop emptied their little savings account without notice. Later I discovered what some of the money goes to.
I think it's an individuals responsibility to see that tithes go to proper purposes. I've lost trust in the Bishops to do right with money.
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.