I have never seen an episode of Duck Dynasty, but I have many parishioners who do. I'm as aware of the show, its characters, and its premise, as I am about most things that have become pop culture phenomena. I understand the reason why people like the show and the Robertson family members, which leads me to a few thoughts on the whole Phil Robertson controversy over his comments in an interview with GQ condemning homosexual acts.
I think Phil Robertson gave a forthright, honest answer to a direct question about homosexuality. I comprehend why A&E network has a concern over the public image of the star of its highest-rated program. A&E - a network that first shot to prominence with the series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy - doesn't want to be mixed up with a guy who has made comments about homosexuality with which many in the country disagree.
Here's what I don't understand: Does A&E not know why Duck Dynasty is popular, and who its audience is? Are they truly surprised to discover that the star of their reality TV show is a real person and not just a character, and that person has actual views on controversial issues? Seriously, what did they think Phil Robertson would say in answer to that GQ question other than what he said?
If A&E was so concerned about the network's image and that of Phil Robertson, they ought to have had their PR people oversee the interview and vet the questions. I don't even watch the show, and I could have told you with a great deal of accuracy how someone like Phil Robertson would respond to a question about homosexuality. I think A&E looks foolish to get their knickers in a twist and punish the man for an outcome they ought to have foreseen themselves. The hypocrisy of A&E is astonishing; with one hand they rake in money by promoting a show that appeals to a socially conservative audience, while with the other hand they punish the star of the show for holding and voicing a socially conservative opinion. So much for reality television.
Moreover, Phil Robertson got it right in his response to both the question and the controversy that followed. He wasn't "hating" on anyone, but condemning homosexual acts (the act, not the person, mind you). In so doing, he's entirely in line with Scriptural teaching and natural law. In his own rather rustic, simple parlance he was expressing the teaching of the Theology of the Body. Of course there are people who disagree vehemently with Robertson's stance, just as they disagree with orthodox Christian views on sexuality. In the Hollywood playbook, popular cultural icons like Phil Robertson need to be buried and deprived of any platform or attention. We wouldn't want average Americans thinking that it's OK to express conservative Christian views about sexuality and get away with it. That's how the gay rights agenda has progressed so far so rapidly; they succeeded in creating the illusion that no common-sense person could possibly oppose gay sexual relationships or same-sex marriage. And then... gasp! .... someone respected for their down-to-earth, common-sense approach to life comes out unequivocally against homosexual activity. Off with his head! Set an example that expressing this opinion will be punished!
Sigh. I remember when A&E did fine arts programming most people found boring. I miss that.
Amazing insight my friend!
ReplyDeletewonderfully well written.
ReplyDeleteVery well put.
ReplyDeleteYou got it Father
ReplyDeleteThank you, Father! I'm proud that you and the Duck guy can speak the truth and that you are willing to! The way things are going, it may not be that way forever.
ReplyDeleteAs always, your blog is spot on. I always enjoy reading what you have to say. Merry Christmas, Father from Jan & David Nabozny
ReplyDeleteThank you, Father!
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, Father. Very well put.
ReplyDeleteWell said!!
ReplyDeleteQueer Eye was aired on Bravo not on A&E
ReplyDeleteThank you Father Stuart for a well written blog!
ReplyDeleteFirst off, its not the "gay rights agenda". Its a Human Rights Agenda. No one in a country priding itself on Freedom of Oppression should be denied the same rights allowed by every other citizen.
ReplyDeleteSecond, why so much concern surrounding a "homosexual act"? Is what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home destroying your personal family values? Is it causing the economy to crash? Is it causing poverty, rising gas prices, wars, lost jobs, & political corruption? Last I checked, none of those real issues of concern were affected by a "homosexual act". Maybe its time to focus our frustration on issues that are a real threat to society & stay out of people's private lives.
Happy Holidays & Safe Travels.
Apparently A&E thinks inclusion and equality are more important than "conservative money". There *ARE* still people who place values above money. Thank GOD!
ReplyDeleteIt's not that Duck Dynasty was "popular" as you stated in your question (par. 3) - it had the highest ratings. If only 12 people gave it ratings, and they were all positive, then it's the highest rated. It doesn't have a following and full merchandising like "The Walking Dead."
It is not A&E Network's responsibility to ensure that Phil Robertson upholds his end of a contract. If he was so concerned about keeping his job from his employer, he should have asked. Or read.
You might want to start reading about Natural Law as this was also an error. Natural Law is found in every species of mammal on earth. Humans are the only mammal to attack without provocation.
Hypocrisy is spreading hate about how other people LOVE.
I believe the Pope released some new statements about this today. Can't wait until they 'trickle-down'.
Oh, where to begin. First of all, television ratings do have some science behind them. We can only assume that most of the millions of people who tune in to Duck Dynasty each week actually like the show. Second, marriage is not a human right. Society has always seen fit to regulate who may marry whom. While gay marriage may not personally do me any direct harm, it does, I believe, undermine society as whole, and those effects will in some way be felt by all people in time. With regard to natural law, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Natural law is not simply what can be found in nature. For a treatment of natural law, particularly in the Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, I'd refer you here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm I also don't think hypocrisy means what you think it means. Since Pope Francis when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires condemned the Argentinean government for legalizing same-sex marriage, I rather doubt he's going to soften the Church's stance on homosexual relations. For a very long time now, however, the Church has been articulating an approach to the pastoral care of homosexual persons, which in mind is all to the good. In fact, I always recommend people read those statements to gain a better understanding of how we ought to minister to same-sex individuals.
DeleteWhat I would respectfully ask you to consider is why the Church feels the need to speak out on this issue and hold firm in its teaching. The fundamental purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls. Given Biblical teaching and orthodox Christian views on sexuality, there is a positive obligation to proclaim the Gospel to all people, including homosexuals, and help them to live chastely according to their state in life, that they might share in the kingdom of heaven. We teach what we teach and preach what we preach because we love them and desire their salvation, not to cut them off. The Gospel of Jesus Christ demands conversion of all of us, and he asks us to sacrifice and take up our crosses. Those crosses are different for everyone, but we are all called to the same glorious destiny. Pretending something is moral when it is not will not help anyone get to heaven. We would imperil our own salvation if we did not speak what was true, especially if it allowed others to go astray.