WASHINGTON, DC, December 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Bishops of the United States are being asked to fire the chief movie reviewer for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Harry Forbes, the Director of the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting, has reignited scandal by praising the film "The Golden Compass" which is based on an anti-Catholic novel.
My favorite bit from the Lifesite story is where Peter Vere, author of "Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children's Fantasy", demands that:
...future movies are reviewed within the context of the good of souls - which in our canonical and theological tradition is the supreme law - and not merely on their artistic merit.
Make sure to fill the kiddies with pious crap, in other words.
17 comments:
A reviewer for the CATHOLIC COUNSEL OF BISHOPS, gives an ANTI CATHOLIC movie two thumbs up.
His job is to PROMOTE/FOSTER CATHOLOCISM. In other words he's not doing his job. That's like a reviewer for the "Anti-violence for Children Coalition" giving two thumbs up to a violent slasher film in which kids are slaughtered.
To consider this the same issue (though to a lesser degree) as an English non-muslim school teacher being ordered to live by the strictest forms of sharia law, else get flogged is rediculous.
The attempt to draw such a moral equivalence is very telling indeed. It speaks volumes actually.
So just to recap. Canadian laws regarding identification must adapt to strict Sharia law,
and,
Catholics should be scorned for, well, being Catholic and fostering Catholocism within their own organizations.
Nope, no double standard here.
His job is to enforce conformity? Catholocism does not brook dissent? Is that what you're saying?
"heh" is "biff". gayle nailed you on the other thread but i wasn't sure it was you, but the way he spells "rediculous" is a clear giveaway. i always thought it was a dig at redtory (as in you're being "rediculous") but the idiot simply can't spell.
There's a big difference between something that is anti-Catholic, something that is neutral, and something that is "filled with pious crap". Learn the difference.
So, an anti-Muslim film should be accepted lovingly by Muslims? An anti-communist film should be embraced by the CBC?
"heh" is "biff". gayle nailed you on the other thread but i wasn't sure it was you, but the way he spells "rediculous" is a clear giveaway.
Good to know.
There's a big difference between something that is anti-Catholic, something that is neutral, and something that is "filled with pious crap". Learn the difference.
So the jury's in that the film is anti-Catholic? I remember hearing the same garbage about the Da Vinci Code. Fortunately not all Catholics are stupid enough to confuse fiction with real life, or faith with some corrupt, kid-fucking hierarchy.
By the way, what did the official reviewer think of Nuns on the Run? I thought it was very impious myself, and felt guilty for seeing it, but I flogged myself good and proper afterwards.
An anti-communist film should be embraced by the CBC?
Why don't you go burn down the CBC Broadcast Centre in Toronto and blame the commies for it?
Jeez, these nazis can't even learn from their own history...
Well, I don't know. If the Bishop's set up an Office of Film and Broadcasting to review films based on Catholic criteria, the Catholic Canon and Catholic dogma, and the reiviewer they hire gives positive reviews to films they believe violate Catholic teachings then SHOULDN'T that person be fired?
What if a Jewish religious group had a Film Office dedicated to reviewing films from a Jewish religious perspective and the lead reviewer gave an enthusiastic review to "The Passion of the Christ" based on it's "artistic merit". Wouldn't that be a problem? There's artistoic merit to 9 1/2 Weeks too. Should the film reviewer for the Catholic Bishop's recommend that too?
If you work for the Catholic Bishops in a job designed to recommend films in keeping with the Catholic Bishops' views of Catholicism, don't you need to, you know, do that?
No one's saying we need to take reviews from such a group seriously (of course, we shouldn't) but it's the Bishop's Film Office, and if they want to set up a Film Office to review films from a biased religious perspective, and they hire people to do that, aren't they free to do so?
Now I really want see this movie.
Here's the USCCB review.
LKO...there might be a legitimate dispute about what the reviewer is supposed to review...the film itself, or other elements, such as the creator of the work it's based on or other elements not found in the movie. If that, then it's a remarkably anti-intellectual and anti-artistic approach, which I think is rather un-Godly.
We all know how the catholic church likes to supress anything non-catholic. What about the free speech they like to claim while hurling slurs at homosexuals. Does free speech not extend to non-catholics?
If the Catholics had their way this film would be locked up in the same catacombs as the works of galileo, etc were/are. The same people who move pedophilic priests around to avoid prosecution.
Yeah their opinion counts alright.
The Catholic church needs to shut the fuck up and keep their religion to themselves. They are only bringing chritianaphobia on themselves with these stupid fundie witch hunts.
Ti-Guy, LK,
The review of BrokeBack Mountain at the site is especially interesting. While the reviewer (same guy as did GC) basically tags the movie as morally offensive, he is forced to admit that it was actually pretty good for all that.
Now, he apparently got in trouble for that review as well (see Lifesite story), but clearly the mandate of the USCCB reviewer is not simply to rate the movie as good/bad for Catholicism.
And Ti-Guy is right, its not even the movie of GC per se that Vere and the critics are concerned about. They essentially wanted a bad review of the movie because it might serve as "bait" to the books.
In a week in which a woman is jailed because of a teddy bear and a woman is sentenced to be flogged to death because she permitted herself to be raped, all in the name of Islam, and BCL posts about what again?
About "outrage" regarding a Catholic Bishop's movie reviewer being expected to review movies from a Catholic perspective.
Today's left.
So nuanced.
So centered.
Further to BCL pointing to England a thread or two ago and saying there's no Muslim issues there:
From the UK's Express Post:
"OVERWORKED nurses have been ordered to stop all medical work five times every day to move Muslim patients’ beds so they face towards Mecca.
The lengthy procedure, which also includes providing fresh bathing water, is creating turmoil among overstretched staff on bustling NHS wards.
But despite the havoc, Mid- Yorkshire NHS Trust says the rule must be instigated whenever possible to ensure Muslim patients have “a more comfortable stay in hospital”.
And a taxpayer-funded training programme for several hundred hospital staff has begun to ensure that all are familiar with the workings of the Muslim faith."
Meanwhile, back in Canada, the Catholics are under seige for promoting Catholicism within their own Catholic institutions.
Interesting times.
Hey, I also heard that a local Anglican preist, preached....gulp..Anglicanism.
Today's left.
So nuanced.
So centered.
...so "Biff."
Come on...knock it off. Adopt a persistent persona and I promise, we progressives will welcome you into the sphere of anonymous online public discourse.
By the way, note that "Fat-Ass" (aka Raging Ranter) isn't commenting here on an issue of art and cultural critique.
Now that Red Tory's gone on a two month hiatus from blogging ti-guy has to latch on to another blog - which explains why over 30% of the comments here are his. BCL - just some friendly advice - don't encourage this old coot, his presence just dumbs down the debate.
A movie reviewer for the American Bishops who praises a movie based on a book by an avowed atheist which dumps on the Church is called on the carpet. If that isn't the very definition of outrageous, I don't know what is.
Now that Red Tory's gone on a two month hiatus from blogging ti-guy has to latch on to another blog - which explains why over 30% of the comments here are his.
I was here long before I had even heard of Red Tory's blog. BCL has been my favourite because he took on KKKate with more cheer than I could ever manage with regard to that primitve hag.
So...er...go fuck yourself, or something, "Garth" (aka sock-puppet of some stalker-troll I'm already familiar with).
Who's "Garth", RR? Is he the guy you had toilet sex with at Carlingwood Mall last weekend?
Every time I vote conservative, I reject Satan.
Post a Comment