Catholic Actors Must NOT Engage in Scripts/Scenes Offensive to God: A Real Turn-Offeditor
I agree 99% with the “Catholic Wife”, although I would make no exceptions; even if we think something may not affect us, the Devil knows better. We are all subject to our fallen human nature, and so I’d be exhorting us all to steer well clear of films like “Fr Stu” – about which I knew nothing until I came across the above review. I’d never heard of “Fr Stu” but now I know to avoid it, big time. Your thoughts…
I am with you on this, dear Editor. As you know from my previous comments and emails, I have a soft spot for Mel Gibson due to his Passion of the Christ – in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and Catholic movies ever made. But Mel has definitely gone off the rails in his private life (which has, unfortunately become very public), and we are not “stabbing him in the back” to admit that he is not living a Catholic life. He has often accepted roles in R-rated movies with significant sexual content. Mrs. Marinaio and I can’t understand his thinking on this. Is he that strapped for money that he feels he has to take such roles? Moreover, I maintain that as a celebrity, he will be even more accountable than non-famous Catholics on that “dies irae”, simply because he should have set a noble example, but instead portrayed characters or situations that depicted occasions of sin.
I do wish to make a distinction here with didactic movies that show sin but ultimately depict how that sin negatively affects so many others than just the sinner. Here, I am thinking of the legendary director, Alfred Hitchcock, a life-long practicing Catholic who cast Catholics in roles in which they committed both venial and mortal sins. But Mr. Hitchcock was always careful, I believe, to show how sin often ruins not just the sinner’s life, but those close to him/her. Maybe I am giving in to another “soft spot” in the case of that great director, but I think Hitchcock does indeed show evil and sin in his movies in such a way as to provide us with cautionary tales about avoiding the dark side. I am interested in hearing what others think of the distinction I make.
I was with you all the way until that distinction – and maybe I’m not understanding it properly, since you give no examples. If you could provide one or maybe two I could grasp better your meaning.
I am a Hitchcock fan and I can’t recall any, for example, explicitly impure scenes in any of his films, but then my memory isn’t what it used to be… If you mean he allowed Catholic actors (or any other actors) to engage in explicitly impure scenes, I would say that was very wrong of him, unjustifiable; if, however, he merely presents a character as a known sinner (say someone playing the role of a Mary Magdalen fellow-professional (!) I would not see that as sinful.
If I’m not making myself clear, let me know and I’ll try again to make myself equally unclear 😀
What you say about his scandalous private life becoming very public, should remind us that just attending the Latin Mass doesn’t make someone a good Catholic. It’s how we live our lives that is the nub of the matter.
Your comment was interesting, and it reminded me of something I’d noticed myself. I often watch the old black and white movies on the ‘Talking Pictures’ TV channel- the old 40’s, 50’s, 60’s films, and you can definitely see a gradual decline in general moral content as the years progress. In the old days, good always triumphed over evil (whichever kind of evil was portrayed – be it murder, marital infidelity or bank robbery) but as the years went on, good didn’t always triumph over evil. Of course, with modern day films, evil is more often than not portrayed AS the good thing!
Regarding Hitchcock, dear Editor, I was not clear. I did not mean to say that he ever showed any explicitly impure scenes. And that is really one of the distinctions I should have made. For instance, in “Psycho,” Janet Leigh’s character, Marion Crane, is having an affair with a divorced man who is short on money due to alimony payments to his ex-wife. She steals from her boss and intends to meet her lover at the creepy Bates Motel. And we all know how that turned out. But the point I was not clearly making is that Hitchcock portrays people in sin who pay the consequences. The same, it seems to me, occurs in “I Confess,” with evil-doer Otto Keller eventually paying the price. For those readers who haven’t seen it, I don’t want to be a spoiler; but Fr. Logan is portrayed heroically, the seal of Confession is maintained sacrosanct, and the bad guys get what’s coming to the. Of course, not all of Hitchcock’s story lines are as clear cut. And breaking into somebody’s house to see if a murder has been committed is far from actually committing murder. I am referring, as you probably suspect, to “Rear Window”. Grace Kelly breaks into Raymond Burr’s home and in spite of that “breaking and entering,” she and Jimmy Stewart wind up as the heroes. But Hitchcock made enough cautionary tales, I think, to allow us to accept his portrayals of evil, since the sinners generally pay the wages of what they did. At least, that’s my take on it.
I get it now. Yes, I agree with all of that. The message in Psycho is definitely don’t steal! Ditto Rear Window should not have caused Grace Kelly to head for the confessional.
Those are a far cry from the kind of scandalous content which appears to be the case in “Fr Stu”.
Unless we’re going to ban everything except The Sound of Music, we have to allow a bit of wrong-doing, here and there, surely to goodness 😀
This is something I feel very strongly about. I’ve been raging at Mel Gibson for a good while now. I thought his Passion of the Christ was superb and I was SO proud to think he was a Catholic but then his affair and divorce from his wife of all those years – what a disgrace. People were saying “well the devil would target him, specially” – by way of excusing him but I see it the opposite way round – he should have been on his guard (as a married man, he should have been on his guard anyway). So, now I’ve no time for him, and I now see him as doing the devil’s work by getting involved in this “Fr Stu” which I’d never heard of.
Catholics should refuse to act in any film that requires them to blaspheme or act impurely. That’s it. There should be no question about it.
I could not agree more with every word you say in your comment @ May 2, 11pm.
What will be interesting will be to see just how many Catholics go to see that film. If they go, knowing the content, they will be guilty of very serious sin.
I completely agree.
Serious Catholic actors should not involve themselves in such projects where blasphemy or impurity is part of the content of their chosen artistic projects no matter how much they may perceive it to be beneficial in terms of promoting faith etc ????
Likewise no self respecting Catholics should endorse these films etc either by their willingness to view them.
I’d not heard about this film either, so I’ve searched and found an article about it – the first thing to note is that the film is produced by Mel Gibson’s “girlfriend”!
I’ll definitely not be contributing to any box office “success”, knowing that this man has sold his soul for worldly gain. What a huge disappointment. The same media people who were furious about the Passion, will be jumping with glee now.
I absolutely believe that no Catholic actor should accept any part that is offensive to God. The trouble is, so-called Catholics these days don’t seem to have a clue about what offends God. The fact that this man is supposedly attending a traditional Latin Mass is nothing short of a joke. What good does he think it’s going to do him? I think what he’s doing by making himself out to be a traditional Catholic, is he’s heaping coals of fire on his own head.
This film is definitely a “no, no” for Catholics.
This is the first I’ve heard of “Fr Stu” and I definitely won’t be going to see it. I will also warn others not to go – it sounds very offensive to God. I’m shocked that any Catholic actor, especially Gibson, would have anything to do with it.
I read a little about this Film on LSN even though it’s gone 50% Woke .
I personally watched some of Fr Ted and Forby the Terrible Scenes about The Catholic Church thought it was Rotten Anyhow. Their also was a Horrendous Film out years ago on Video called Priest and to say it was demeaning to our Faith is an understatement. So Fr Stu comes as no surprise and I certainly won’t watch it .
As regards Catholic and I mean Real Catholic Actors who have stood up for The Faith and refused good very good acting roles my Hero is Patrick Mcgoohan. I know not how many people know this but Patrick was asked to be James Bond and turned it down because Bond was a Ladies Man so to speak. Now thats whats called Principles.
You can definitely count me out – I get really angry when I see bad films with so-called Catholic actors in them I once saw a film in which Mel Gibson took our Lord’s holy name in vain. I never once heard him described as a good Catholic after that, without telling that fact. One time, a friend said to me that she thought The Passion of the Christ would have earned him a high place in Heaven but I think it will be the other way around. He has used Christ to make money and for that (as well as the blasphemy I’ve just mentioned) he might end up losing his soul.
How disappointing has Mel Gibson turned out to be, causing such scandal.
I certainly won’t be watching “Fr Stu” – it sounds dreadful.
Westminsterfly emailed the following earlier – I think it fits perfectly on this thread, as a prompt to us all to avoid Disney like the plague… he writes:
Another great example of the ‘go woke, get broke’ syndrome. It needs to be pushed home to these organisations that pushing the LGBT and other woke agendas is making people turn against them. Disney has been pushing the LGBT agenda for a long time, but more heavily recently, and it has lost nearly $50 billion dollars recently:
Incredible as it seems, this film is being promoted on the Irish Bishops’ website.
There is no mention of any controversy, nothing that is mentioned on this thread. They’re either deliberately misleading people to get them to go and see this film, or they’re ignorant about what is in it. I don’t know which is worse!
I’ve just watched this review of the Fr Stu movie – and read the comments underneath which are just as shocking as the movie seems to be. This is a young girl doing the reviewing and given her youth, she is remarkably “Catholic”, considering! What I mean by that is that her Catholic sense is fighting to get through, LOL!
The trouble with that young girl in the video is that she will be typical of most Catholics these days, so anxious to be reasonable, fair in their review, that, although she is clearly more denouncing than praising of the film, she doesn’t denounce it outright. She draws the line at 18 years of age, as if the devil won’t work on people of that age and older!
That would make him like the Covid virus, very choosy who he strikes, LOL! Still, she is a lot more Catholic, IMHO, than most of the young people here, these days.
Comments are closed.