Comments on: A Catholic critic might lose his job over ‘The Golden Compass’

By: bhgf fzvasueim

bhgf fzvasueim — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:14:04 +0000

fgdnvjrsh bqky pqulvayno whny aiefqhz mljyao kxfm

By: James

James — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:44:30 +0000

What was wrong with his comments is that he made them in his capacity as a represntitive of the church when the church’s official view contradicted his. To use an ealier example its fine for some who works for Coke to drink Pepsi at home and even recomend it to his freinds. He would lose his job however if he began saying it at an official fuction when he was meant to be representing Coke.

By: Melody

Melody — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:38:27 +0000

You don’t seem to get what Forbes’ job actually entails.
His job is not simply to give his own opinion, it’s to evaluate movies based on Catholic teaching. The reviews appear on the website of the USCCB. If he wants to write Op-Ed pieces, then he needs to get different employment.
Secondly, there is the word “Magisterium.” In the real world this is the word used for the sacred tradition of the Church. Pullman calls the evil organization of his books by this name, undeniably identifying it as the Catholic Church. With this remaining in the movie, it must be considered anti-Catholic.
This is not the first strike for Forbes. He caused previous embarassment for his enthusiastic praise for “Brokeback Mountain”. I was very surprised to hear that they didn’t fire him back then.
To believe that Catholicism denies free thought is simply ignorance. I suggest several doses of Aquinas.

By: JohnK

JohnK — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:38:15 +0000

Some years back, dissatisfied and after much thought, I became a Libertarian. Do I now read every new pro-Dem or pro-Rep book that comes out. No, I have thought about my position, and failing clear evidence that some change as happened, I suspect both parties are still much the same. Do I defend my choice against anti-Libertarians. Yes. Were I publishing a Libertarian newsletter, would I write defenses against anti-Libertarian tracts? Yes, and I believe “free speech” allows me to do just that. If a staff writer consistently failed to defend Libertarian views, would I fire him? I believe I have a right to do that, too. Would I tell my children not to read an subtle but fallacious attack on Libertarianism because they have yet to take symbolic logic or epistemology, and wouldn’t be able to recognize the errors? I would. They might still do so, but I still have an obligation to *guide* them. Not every book is worth reading.
Most of the rants on this blog are utterly peurile.

By: Harry Forbes' moral outrage over Nacho Libre

Harry Forbes' moral outrage over Nacho Libre — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:25:08 +0000

That’s the point with Harry Forbes rating Nacho Libre “morally offensive”. The young seminarian didn’t fall in love with the young nun. He fell in love with what she was doing to help young orphans and wanted her on-side. There was no suggestion of romance between the two, so I don’t know where “Falwell” Forbes gets off spouting moral indignation at the movie.
He also complains that the film contains “vulgar costuming”. Why? Because the men dress in masks and tights? That’s the traditional Lucha Libre wrestling gear going back several generations. Harry Forbes finds this offensive, but makes no mention of Mimi’s strip club attire in Rent.
No wonder Hispanic Catholics are calling for the bishops to fire him. The guy’s a joke.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:50:34 +0000

To conclude: the problem with this system is that it proves the point of those who protest it. Think about it–the Church, accused of being a fascist, oppressive organization that does not encourage questions or free-thought tries to shut down a film and a book series and tell its followers not to read or view, thus proving to the public that they are an oppressive, repressive organization.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:33:48 +0000

The problem is many-fold, but I’ll focus on two points.
1.) The USCCB system is intended to dictate the film’s appropriate audience and legislate the Church’s taste. This often leads to inane children’s films labeled as appropriate for “adults and adolescents” (for example, “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”) However…
2.) The ratings are conditional. If a film promotes a current Catholic agenda (say “Bella”) the film’s content is downplayed in favor of praising it’s themes. If the film has a negative portrayal of the Church in either a historical sense (“Elizabeth The Golden Age”) or as an organization (and this consideration is extended to themes of questioning authority in general) the film is slapped with the L-limited adult audience rating. (The person who brought up “Nacho Libre” has a point, as the Church loves to hype the “vocation crisis” and here we have to clerics in training falling in love, never mind that marriage is a sacred vocation, so the film was dinged.)

By: Is this the same Harry Forbes who declared Nacho Libre morally offensive?

Is this the same Harry Forbes who declared Nacho Libre morally offensive? — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:23:01 +0000

Before we shed tears for Harry Forbes as some great voice for modernity among Catholic bishops, let’s keep in mind he’s no stranger himself to witch-hunting in the name of religion.
It wasn’t Rent, it wasn’t Golden Compass, and it wasn’t Brokeback Mountain. But guess what movie provoked ol’ Harry to the point that he vented line after line of Jerry-Falwellesque moral and religious outrage?
It was Nacho Libre, an innocent children’s comedy about a Mexican priest who takes up professional wrestling to feed a monastery full of hungry orphans. You can read Harry’s pontifications against a movie about feeding the hungry (as I think someone called Jesus commanded) here:
http://tinyurl.com/23f4ba
Granted, the movie wasn’t a masterpiece, but as a Catholic I didn’t see anything that undermined my religion. And neither did my kids. They thought it was great and it led to conversations about helping poor people.
The bishops should fire Harry and send his salary to poor orphans.

By: Double Standard

Double Standard — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:59:48 +0000

There seems to be a double standard here. When certain Catholics were boycotting or raising objections about the Golden Compass, a lot of the media was saying “The U.S. bishops approved it.” As in this was where the American bishops stood.
Now that Forbes’ job is reportedly being threatened, the same media is saying “Forbes was just publishing his opinion.” Can these media sources make up their mind who Forbes represents? The bishops or just himself?

By: To Concerned Citizen

To Concerned Citizen — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:20:53 +0000

You are overreacting. There is no “quelling of free thought.” Forbes is perfectly in his rights to write about his opinion of the film. But he does NOT have the right to say that his opinion is the de facto opinion of the U.S. Catholic Bishops… which is what the position entails. Before now, nobody cared who Forbes was, as he was never quoted in newspaper advertisements, never counted on to be one of those newspaper blurbs that sell a film. People look to the bishops to see what they have to say on these matters, and the problem is that Forbes was speaking for himself, while not fully addressing the concerns raised by those familiar with the books, and the comments by Pullman himself about his intentions for the series. Forbes was right to share his opinion of the film, and I respect him for it, but it was wrong to affix his opinion with that of the U.S. Bishops, whose very job is to be faithful to teaching Catholic doctrine. No quelling of thought here.