cowpokes: take two

By Diogenes (articles ) | Dec 17, 2005

So the Bishops of the United States, through their office, have rendered their opinion on the newest gay pic about your everyday 1960s cowboys Ennis and Jack, from Brokeback Mountain:

The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling) .

Oops! Scratch that.

The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive.

And by the way:

While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.

Here's a question. Which bishops saw two men engaging in homosexual behavior and concluded that its universal themes of love ring true, while the behavior was, if you insist, morally offensive?

Just curious.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 11 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Dec. 19, 2005 2:46 PM ET USA

    Who was it who said "The love that dared not speak its name now won't shut up?"

  • Posted by: - Dec. 19, 2005 2:08 PM ET USA

    Very strange, indeed. As an aside, when I used to work at a diocesan newspaper, I would occasionally thumb through an old card catalog of film ratings from back in the day, when films would be "condemned." I guess the bishops changed their system when they realized that under the old system, virtually every film released by a major studio would be condemned. Which is a good argument for reinstating the old code!

  • Posted by: Meg Q - Dec. 18, 2005 11:08 PM ET USA

    After all this ridiculousness, I think I'm going to go back to the opinion of our ancestors (and of current lavender icons like Oscar Wilde) - that there are Men, Women, and Acts. All of the rest is psychobabble. Anyone who knows anything about real cowboys knows that certain "acts" can occur when men are alone together. The movie sounds like it is a depiction of the destruction that same-sex attraction can wreak when it is not put - and kept - away. Everyone must repress some feelings in life.

  • Posted by: Eusebuis1 - Dec. 18, 2005 12:37 PM ET USA

    I now understand!! It appears as if the staff, bishops and cardinals in the USCCB have a different understanding of what constitutes a gay (e.g. actively homosexual) than us outsiders. It now makes perfect sense why the named successor to Archbishop Levada had no real problems with the new Vatican directive on not allowing homosexuals to enter seminaries or to be ordained. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is (e.g. active, gay homosexual). Old saying boys will be boys.

  • Posted by: - Dec. 18, 2005 1:15 AM ET USA

    Bring back the Legion of Decency, which wasn't morally compromised and pulled no punches. While we're at it, could we resurrect the Index as well? Bravo to those who brought pressure; it's shameful that the USCCB needed it.

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 11:34 PM ET USA

    That review is unbelieveable. And I just love the note as to the reason for the reclassification: "Because, in this instance, there are some who are using the "L" rating to make it appear the Church -- or the USCCB -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous...." Funny, I thought that the content of the review did that just fine all by itself.

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 10:55 PM ET USA

    This movie is Hollywood's Brokeback payback for last year's The Passion. The initial review was by someone at the USCCB who forgot they were on camera and not home on the range.

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 10:01 PM ET USA

    I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so I confidently guess that maybe the movie will lead to a more open public discussion of the havoc that our "gay culture" is wreaking on the modern family. I don't really want to watch the movie though.

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 8:24 PM ET USA

    The review goes to lengths to excuse and minimize the moral offensiveness it reluctantly admits is there. I'd sure hate go to confession minimizing and excusing my sins. Would the review have been different if the movie was a sympathetic portrait of an American mining company executive exploiting peasants in Bolivia, and how he was motivated by the tender love he felt for his family and fellow executives, and how he feared the prejudice of those who just don't understand P&L statements?

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 7:51 PM ET USA

    One of the last icons of American masculinity, the American Western hero is now under attack. Whoever heard of a gay cowboy? I know, lesbians are particularly fond of country music& The Indigo Girls, but that hardly counts. This movie is an obvious attempt to pervert the rich history of western movies with its traditional American themes. The gay culture mocks our religion, marriage, and now the western. "Oh goody, gay cowboys!" The effiminate NY activists pine. Not so in Wyoming!

  • Posted by: - Dec. 17, 2005 6:28 PM ET USA

    In the review for another "O" film, "Four Brothers", the USCCB reviewer says, "Apparently, Bobby [a character in the movie] never read Pope John Paul II's 1980 encyclical "Dives in Misericordia" ("Rich in Mercy") in which the late pontiff reaffirmed the church teaching that true justice flows from forgiveness." And the current reviewer of "Brokeback" [who is oddly unnamed] apparently never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is the USCCB's message, "violence, NO, homo sex, YES?"