Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Terry Mattingly

Those Oscar-winning sermons

Last updated on: January 30, 2013 at 5:15 pm   by tmatt

Those Oscar-winning sermons 2013-01-30T17:15:50-05:00 tmatt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Rare is the movie lover who hasn’t glared at the television and muttered: “If I could pick the Oscars, things would be different.”

This year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (usccb.org) urged Catholics, and anyone else who heard about the online poll, to cast their own votes for the major Academy Awards.

And the winners are? The best picture winner was “Million Dollar Baby.” Clint Eastwood won best director, for “Million Dollar Baby.” The best actress honor went to Hilary Swank, for “Million Dollar Baby.” In a big switch from the real Oscars, the Catholic-poll voters didn’t pick Jamie Foxx as best actor for his work in “Ray.” They selected Clint Eastwood, for “Million Dollar Baby.”

The bottom line: It was a knockout for the sucker-punch melodrama in which a gritty boxer (with a gold cross around her neck) asks her surrogate-father trainer (a daily-Mass Catholic) to kill her because she does not want to live as a quadriplegic after tragedy ends her meteoric rise to fame.

Meanwhile, the bishops’ own film critics gave “Million Dollar Baby” an “O” — morally offensive — rating and warned that its “guilt-wracked, but ultimately permissive” take on euthanasia “will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes.”

This movie did not have the catechism in its corner.

“We praised it on the artistic level and, in many ways, it is a fine film,” said Harry Forbes, director of the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. “But we also felt duty-bound to give it the worst rating we can give, in terms of moral content. … In the end, we did not believe it was propaganda for the euthanasia cause, although we know some people did.”

Thus, the office’s review said: “The pain and devastation of those involved is achingly evident. However, in spite of all the soul-searching that precedes it, the deed itself is presented as an act of reluctant heroism. … Our sympathies and humane inclinations may argue in favor of such misguided compassion, but our Catholic faith prohibits us from getting around the fact that, in this case, the best-intended ends cannot justify the chosen means: the taking of a life.”

Catholic ethicist Thomas Hibbs went even further, calling “Million Dollar Baby” a trip into a “nihilistic hell” in which Eastwood meditates on life in a chaotic, amoral and ultimately hopeless universe. At the movie’s heart is the ultimate question: “What if God does not exist?”

The fierce debates about this movie underline a sobering reality, said Hibbs, author of “Shows About Nothing: Nihilism in Popular Culture from The Exorcist to Seinfeld.” Modern consumers are more likely to find guidance at the mall or multiplex than in a religious sanctuary. Thus, whether they admit it or not, artists such as Eastwood are moral leaders when it comes time to wrestle with America’s most divisive issues.

“What happens in pop culture shapes so many of our debates — even political debates — about these kinds of issues,” said Hibbs, dean of the Honors College at Baylor University. “So maybe you haven’t seen this movie. But you’ve heard about it on the news, seen it on magazine covers and read about it in the checkout line at the grocery store. And an Oscar-winning film like this influences other films. …

“We have a vacuum in our society and this is what fills it — politics and movies. Where is the church in this picture?”

Forbes said feedback to the Conference of Catholic Bishops indicates that many readers do consult its film reviews. The Office of Film and Broadcasting critiqued 225 movies in 2004, publishing its reviews online and through Catholic News Service. The staff suspects that many of these readers are parents, looking for that friendly “A-I” rating that says the church believes a movie is appropriate for all ages.

Movies for adults are another matter.

“There was a time when what the bishops said had more clout,” Forbes said. “They could say, ‘Don’t go to see that movie’ and it would be so. We’re in a different age and people go see what they want to see.

Uncategorized

Catholics

Clint Eastwood

films

Hollywood

movies

Previous Post



February 23, 2005

No need for Orthodox pickles

Next Post



March 9, 2005 Communion in the Anglican Communion?


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Anglicanism Announcements books Catholics doctrine evangelicals family life First person Godbeat Islam Judaism Mainline churches Marriage mass media movies Orthodox Politics popular culture religion sex Social issues Uncategorized Web/tech World World religions worship young people

Select a Month July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999 October 1999 September 1999 August 1999 July 1999 June 1999 May 1999 April 1999 March 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 September 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 May 1998 April 1998 March 1998 February 1998 January 1998 December 1997 November 1997 October 1997 September 1997 August 1997 July 1997 June 1997 May 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 November 1996 October 1996 September 1996 August 1996 July 1996 June 1996 May 1996 April 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 December 1995 November 1995 October 1995 September 1995


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul Peter John the Baptist Mary

Related posts from Terry Mattingly

Public Square

'The Exorcist' -- Taking incarnate evil seriously for...

Terry Mattingly

Public Square

That Superman debate: Moses or the Messiah?

Terry Mattingly

Public Square

The faithful soul of Jackie Robinson

Terry Mattingly

Public Square

On the separation of church and history

Terry Mattingly

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Religion News

What Is Catholic Integralism?

Catholic Integralists believe that religious values – specifically Christian ones – should...

Electing A Virtuous President Would Make Immunity Irrelevant

Presidential immunity can bring with it many risks. So how can we...

Why The Olympic Games Are A ‘Civil Religious’...

Sporting events form a vital space where Americans display their 'civil religious...

Farewell For Now

After more than a decade of news, research updates, and insights on...

Q: Why do Southern Baptists and like-minded Protestants...

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER: Why? Simple. Because they believe that’s what the...

Is Gambling Evil?

THE QUESTION: Is gambling evil? THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER: Analysts anticipate a...

view all Religion News blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube