Is Watching Brokeback A Sin?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[CatherineM]

I don't have to put a needle in my arm or light up a crack pipe to know that route is darkness. You don't have to see morally offensive things just to know that you are up against darkness. The real darkness of these kinds of movies is in making the unnatural seem more natural or normal. That's the slippery slope. The actors in this movie are ones that I really like. Instinctively, I will want to like the characters that they play. Having sympathy or empathy for them allows us to walk the path of rationalizations.

[hyperdulia again]

Dairy, I'm not sure what you're up to, but I think this question is profound. I said no, but I'm really not sure. I like to have a very strict confessor (still shopping), where I lived when this movie came out I had one. A very stern Irishmen who said the Old Mass for us and Baptized my youngest child. He told me it could be dangerous, but did not call it sin, even when I begged him to.

[carrdero]

[size=2][b]Is Watching Brokeback A Sin?[/b][/size]
At the theatrical price admission of $9.50, yes.

[Theoketos]

I marked yes, but maybe I should have marked "I refuse to..." because we can never know wiether some one's particular action is sinful. Ergo, I do not know the culpability of the person.

I would say with out a doubt is a grave evil to watch it. Curiosity can itself be sinful.

[farglefeezlebut]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1405293' date='Oct 19 2007, 02:01 PM'][size=2][b]Is Watching Brokeback A Sin?[/b][/size]
At the theatrical price admission of $9.50, yes.[/quote]

LOL

Seriously, though...

There is nothing wrong with empathising with sinners. In fact, it's good, because it reminds us that we are ALL sinners.

The golden rule with this is "Hate the sin, love the sinner." If Brokeback helps you love the sinner, great. Just make sure it doesn't stop you hating the sin.

[PapaHilarious]

the only thing missing from these ridiculous polls is input from [b]nogodbutallah[/b]

[dairygirl4u2c]

you call them ridiculous, but look at how much people disagree.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1405368' date='Oct 19 2007, 09:36 AM']you call them ridiculous, but look at how much people disagree.[/quote]

all i'm saying is that if you really thought it necessary to make two polls about the exact same thing, you could have at least had one of your alternate screennames start the other one.

Edited October 19, 2007 by PapaHilarious

[Ash Wednesday]

Naturally such a situation shouldn't be regarded lightly, but regarding whether or not it would be objectively be called a sin, wouldn't that depend on the situation, and intent of the viewer?

What I'd like to know is how many phatmassers have seen it. (I haven't.)

[hyperdulia again]

i have.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1405181' date='Oct 19 2007, 12:14 AM']ty[/quote]

I would think it is more of a near occasion of sin.

[Mercy me]

I would never give my money to fund such things. If I really wanted to see it, I would get it at the library.

[dairygirl4u2c]

how would it be just a near occasion to sin? if you know what it's about etc and aren't doing for objective purpose, you have no good reason. you are just watching cause you're curious for one, and you are supporting them. how wouldn't that be a sin?

Edited October 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1406060' date='Oct 20 2007, 12:48 PM']how would it be just a near occasion to sin? if you know what it's about etc and aren't doing for objective purpose, you have no good reason. you are just watching cause you're curious for one, and you are supporting them. how wouldn't that be a sin?[/quote]

You aren't supporting them if you aren't paying for it - such as borrowing the DVD or watching it at someone else's house. As that information wasn't determined, I cannot state that one was complicit with evil.

I also did not know the reasoning behind why one would watch it. Therefore, I can at best declare a near occasion based on limited information.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well what's an example of someone watching it for a legit purrpose? i didn't describe an "objective" purpose very well, but any good reason i can think of would be "objective" and so not legit. (it does get odd my question cause objective can't mean legit, cause then i'd basically be asking if you can watch for an illegit purpose which i don't mean to ask and couldn't really. i guess you have to ask if there are good ways to be curious besides doing to to help out the gays by knowing your enemy etc but that's all i can think of and am open to other good reasons)

also, by watching it you're supporting it either finanically, or by simply giving their movie credence enough to watch.

plus at a certain point with polls, trying to find specific nuanced caveats is just being a technicalist and defeating the whole appearent point of the poll. "he didn't pay for it" etc. if you have an argument about his motive for watching, you don't need excuses as far as paying for it or not goes anyway.

[Justin86]

Brokeback is one of the many Academy Award winning films that about two people saw.

As for me ever seeing it, well first since I'm military I'm not sure if they regard that as having gay porn in your possession. I also don't feel like asking anyone if they do.

Secondly, even if I knew the military would let me watch it, why on earth would I want to? I mean, how old is the concept of a gay cowboy? Didn't the Village People do this?

Edited October 21, 2007 by Justin86

[photosynthesis]

I saw it with my mom, so I didn't really pay for the admission. I checked the box marked "no" but I think it really depends on the person.

I know exactly what people mean about empathizing with the characters. The movie really does try to get you to feel sorry for the two men, who eventually leave their wives to have this gay 'love' affair. Honestly, I felt more empathy towards the wives in the film, because their husbands committed adultery. That's because I think my conscience & intellect were well-formed enough for me to react to the movie in an authentically Catholic way. It was definitely a 'heavy' movie to watch with some adult themes and most people shouldn't see it.

I also have a degree in Media Studies and have taken a lot of classes on film analysis and criticism. The college I went to was very secular, and I have can't tell you how many 'morally offensive' films I had to watch for school that were even worse than Brokeback Mountain.

Many of my secular friends are gay, and a disproportionate amount of my relatives are plagued with homosexuality. When the film came out, a lot of them were anxious to hear my perspective. Movies can be a great vehicle for honest discussion and I'm glad I was able to explain why I could not empathize with those two men, and the differences between love & lust.

One of my greatest pet peeves is when people comment on books they have not read and films they have not seen. It's one thing to say, "I did not see the film. From what I heard about it, I thought it would be bad for my soul." It's good to guard your heart against worldly evil. I wish I did that more early on. But you can't really make comments on something you haven't seen. I always hated sitting in class with a student who didn't read the book but had no problem making baseless, uneducated comments about its contents.

Most people lack the necessary critical and moral formation to see movies like "Brokeback Mountain." Although I think I have those qualities, still I'd rather watch something Catholic. I remember when we went to the theater, there were two choices: Brokeback, and some mindless piece of Hollywood detritus with the aesthetic value of "dude, where's my car?" I happen to think Ang Lee is a brilliant filmmaker, and the asthetic quality, great acting and problematic morality of "Brokeback Mountain" is what makes it dangerous for some peoples' souls.

[Mercy me]

I don't know that it is sinfull to watch it. I think that depnds on the disposition of the view. It is not good to fund it or support it. Is it a sin? Again, I am not sure.

[dairygirl4u2c]

watching it to be able to help your friends is an "objective" reason. it's legit.

i was trying to make clear you'd be watching it "just cause you're curious". i guess this isn't super clear, but i think it is, and if you're trying to split hairs, you're just being technicalist. maybe i should add "just cause you're curious, just cause"

saying things like... "if they didn't know it was a sin" "if they didn't pay for it" etc etc is just splitting hairs and ignoring the obvious intent of the polls, just being difficult.

i suppose if you are questioning whether they are good, the gays, you are discerning, and that can't be taht bad. you'd be just curious too. so maybe this is a good reason after all.

so i guess i'd have to make a better poll. one tat says, you aren't in a discerning stage either. to get to the real intent of my poll. "just cause curious, just cause"