Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
BRITISH FILM ‘WEEKEND’ was restricted to just ten cinemas on its release in Italy this week after the country’s bishops branded Andrew Haigh’s acclaimed gay love story “indecent” and “unusable” in the country’s many Church-owned film theatres.
In an unusual move that prompted accusations of homophobic censorship, the Italian Conference of Bishops’ Film Evaluation Commission classified the film as “not advised, unusable and scabrous (indecent or salacious).”
The Commission listed the film’s principal themes – described by critics as love and identity – as drugs and homosexuality.
The result, according to its distributor Teodora Film, was that the film was shunned by the more than 1,100 cinemas which are owned by the Church and make up the bulk of Italy’s network of independent/arthouse theatres.
The country’s official film board approved Haigh’s Nottingham-set drama for audiences over 14.
“I cannot see any other explanation than a problem of homophobia in the Church,” Teodora’s president, Cesare Petrillo, told AFP.
They decided it was unacceptable, that it should be censored and they have used their power to paralyse the distribution.
“Normally a film like this would have been picked up by many of these cinemas. Instead there are whole regions and big cities like Florence, Bergamo and Padova where we have not been able to get it put on. And the only reason for that is that the main characters are gay.”
Made in 2011, “Weekend” was brought to Italy for a cinema release as a result of Haigh’s recent success with “45 Years”, for which Charlotte Rampling was nominated for the best actress Oscar.
The latter film, a story about a long-married couple being confronted with an unsettling secret from the past, was enthusiastically endorsed by the Church.
“After the success of ’45 Years’, it is a terrible shame that so few people get to see “Weekend” and I’m really quite angry about it because there are fundamental values at stake,” said Petrillo.
For me, ‘Weekend’ has nothing scandalous about it – it is a story about love.
Priest censors
The large number of Italian cinemas owned by the Church are a legacy of the days when every parish had its own cinema and local priests controlled projections, regularly cutting sections of films they deemed unsuitable for parishioners.
Most of these cinemas are now rented out to operators who do not have to be religious but do have to sign a contract which, according to Petrillo, includes a clause agreeing to go along with the guidance issued by the bishops.
The Commission evaluates every film released in Italy. Often it will approve a film as “recommended” but signal that it is also “problematic” and might be best viewed in the context of a debate or a discussion on the issues raised.
Recent examples in this category include “The Danish Girl”, a drama about a transgender artist, and Oscar-winner “Spotlight” which deals with clerical sex abuse in Boston and was classified as “complex.”
Only very rarely does the guidance make it clear the Church does not want a film shown at all with the only other recent example being Chilean director Pablo Larrain’s “El Club”, in which the main characters are all Catholic priests, including one with a history of sexually abusing children.
The Church’s lingering influence in Italian public life was underlined in recent weeks when a bill to legalise gay civil unions was shorn of provisions guaranteeing same-sex couples equal adoption rights to their heterosexual counterparts.
The watering-down of the draft law followed Church lobbying of lawmakers which was sufficiently intense for Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to publicly warn the bishops to stop meddling.
Italy’s Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists said the treatment of “Weekend” was telling. The organisation said on its website:
The influence of the Church means that even niche films like this which deal with issues that are ‘uncomfortable’ or ‘immoral’ end up being subject to de facto censorship.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The Church (the clergy) owns these specific Cinemas therefore it is within their right to ban a film.They are drawing attention to themselves tho in a way that is hypocritical I think, as we are all aware of alleged homosexual acts among clergy themselves.Therefore I support their right to ban the film in their own cinema but I believe the decision is unworthy. I wonder did these same cinemas run Spotlight?
Why does the church own more than a thousand cinemas?
Profit? Same reason Vatican is a majority share holder is the Beretta Arms Company. Preach peace and profit from war and death.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet
Do they avoid paying taxes on them the same way they escape paying taxes on the multitude of other properties they own in Italy?
That is totally not true and was found out to be a rumour made up by Italian blogs which was then taken on by an Italian news site which spread. This accusation has been found to be totally untrue. I don’t support the Catholic Church or any other religious organization but it’s better to check your facts before stating something which is untrue.
Regarding their tax status, the Vatican is it’s own country…
Or launder for the mafia .
*AN Other
The Vatican is indeed its own country – but it don’t have the 1,000 cinemas on it. They are in the rest of Italy that apply its own tax system.
There are restaurant chains that don’t allow any kind of strip tease no matter what the occasion is, so any other business are in their rights to do with their businesses as they see fit and legal… There is nothing wrong with that….
I believe they have shares in Durex as well?
Consent among adults is not indecent. Raping and abusing minors is indecent, to say the least. F€uk off and get your own house in order before dictating onto others.
I think you will find it is their house and their cinema. I completely support their right not to show it as I support your right to be p1ssed off.
Tom, we know you’re a hypocritical god botherer who’ll defend the disgusting and criminal institution that is the Catholic Church, even if they’ve been caught with the proverbial smoking gun
It’s a great movie what a pity.
Maybe they should play Spotlight over and over again in those theatres and keep it real.
I can’t believe nobody quoted fr ted yet, come on people ffs.
Careful now
Down with this type of thing!
….Sort of thing
They’ll be coming from Gdansk to see the fillum!
That will be an ecumenical matter
Get the fecking crunchies out of the car…..
Or made a joke out of the films name, Weakend lol.
Religious extremists condem something, ban it from general public and label it as against gods design. How any organisation can be that far up their own hole is amazing.
Got to see it meself at a special priests only preview. You wouldn’t believe the amount of nudity!
Do you remember that bit when St. Tibulus, he tried to take that banana off the other lad?
That wasn’t a banana Paddy!
Oh my god.. Ya mean that lad was.. with the other lads.. lad????
Priest only Fr. Billy. Tell me did you enjoy it much. wink wink.
Down with this sort of thing!
Who cares what the church does no one cares, very few believe in the God they peddle anymore. Religion leads to nothing but death and division in society.
The message of Christianity is ok but look at the ones who have used it to control what people believe to control money and power with it. Nothing is wrong with the message but look at the messengers?
You have a point there, Michael Sands, the principal message of loving your neighbour as yourself is a good one, the sad thing is that this doesn’t seem to apply if said neighbour is homosexual, trans*, Muslim, or any other sort of ‘undesirables’ in the eyes of organized Christianity, with a few exceptions
I don’t usually agree with you Michael but I do in this incident. The problem is that most Christian churches couldn’t be further away from the message that Jesus Christ had. After all the guy did dismissed most of the rubbish in the Bible when he says ” I give you a new commandment love one another as I have loved you”
Larissa, it is nothing got to do with anything but difference as difference creates groups. When you belong to a group then the group mentality takes over and people loose themselves to the group. The group mentality is what drives conflict because someone else like an individual or group does not share the same beliefs as the other group.
What drives this mentality is not lifestyle, religion, race etc but control and this comes from the exact same place where species of animals fight over breeding rights but with people this has evolved into beliefs and not just genes. Animals fight over the survival over their genes and therefore offspring but with people this has led to the hand down of beliefs being as important as genes. That is why I think that conflict exists between the different groups, seen especially strong in beliefs.
The Catholic church has lost its way as have all religions, you see how they all have started and how people have changed them to suit what they believe, it has not been the plural I believe in what my religion / God says but that my religion / God believes in WHAT I BELIEVE. This only creates more conflict and a lack of control creates anger and anger creates hatred and hatred creates conflict.
All religions are picking bits out of their scriptures to prove that they are right and they all have seemed to have turned a blind eye to the rest of their scriptures that proves them wrong.
Too many use these religions and books as weapons for hatred because things get lost in time and in culture and in history.
I believe that religion exists to make us more than who we are and to make us more than what our genes and nature tells us to be but it is used by people who use religion as a weapon as in a way to control others for no other reason than the joy of making others do as they want, as in self gratification. They get people to do things that they wouldn’t and then take delight in the feeling they get from that and that is anti-religion.
I am a Catholic and I think the Catholic Church has lost its way by transforming from the spiritual into the worldly political complex, it has replaced Jesus with a brand of self serving business men. It has turned into greed while other peaceful religions have turned into hatred and this has been led by consumerism in the rich nations and the fallout of consumerism as it is seen in poorer countries has led to poverty and the awareness of poverty. So as groups change and grow stronger in their own lies due to watching what other groups do, then they want to do the opposite using hate as an excuse to say that they are right by saying others are wrong. All this does is that it leads to a selfishness that goes against spirituality and religion that is suppose to put others before the self.
Christianity is about God and the good of others but greed and consumerism is changing that by creating groups who believe in the good of the self over the good of the whole / others. All religions now are run like businesses and they will change according to how the flow of the money goes rather than the good they can do?
James, there is nothing like theology to confuse matters. The old testament was predicting the new testament and both are predicting a further testament. The old testament makes more sense with knowing the new testament and the new testament doesn’t make sense without knowing the old as each testament has a manual for each other in them.
The problem is that in the old testament it is double speak, a name can mean a time or A country like in the book of Ruth, the book of Joshua is another as it was written about the past but yet it is about the future as well. Also the book of revelation is tied in with the book of Genesis.
These are just examples, although I do suspect that some in the early days of the Bible might have added to it their views but which version of the Bible do you go by as the most accurate is the Septuagint or do you go by the English version of the Tanakh and then there is the New Jerusalem Bible?
The trouble is that the Churches have lost the message of Christ and have replaced it with their own dogma, they have replaced the Bible with a Catholic library instead as have other Christian religions…
If people can’t add to it they try to explain it to mean what they want it to mean and if that doesn’t work then they try and bury it with other works of people that they agree with?
Careful now…..
Hardly mainstream stuff is it.
Stick it on the arthouse circuit with the other foreign movies that nobody else watches.
The 3%.
The filmmaker’s follow-up film just landed an Oscar nomination for best actress. So he’s certainly become a visible presence, and Weekend was available on US Netflix for a long time.
Sorry it doesn’t contain any robots or ninjas or robot ninjas.
Making up stats ? Good for you .
All hail the giant Flying Spaghetti Monster .
Ramen…
Interesting how a bunch of professional virgins should decide on the decency of the sexual content in this film.
Private screenings in the Vatican. Lol
Does the travelling community respect gays?
Whats this article got to do with travellers?
Travellers are traditionally strong Roman Catholics.
The travelling community doesn’t respect anything
If the church says no, its probably ok or good.
Usually when they say “no” it’s not all that good anyway. Life of Brian and a few others being the exception.They were all for The Passion of the Christ.. so much so that it only carries a PG or 12 rating. It’s a two hour long torture porn up there with Hostel or Saw 4 for brutality but at least it’s not gay….
Im confused by this statement in the article? Are they independent or not?
“….more than 1,100 cinemas which are owned by the Church and make up the bulk of Italy’s network of independent/arthouse theatres”
Jonathan, they are owned by the church but rented out to operators, who don’t have to be religious, but still have to do the church’s bidding, I think the independent in this case refers to the movie theaters not being part of any chain, like Odeon, or Omniplex
The Church doing what they do the worst……..
Reminds me of the priest cutting all the kissing scenes in Cinema Paradiso
What a bunch of hypocritics, there are probably more gay males in the Vatican than anywhere else on earth.
Was the film banned because it was Gay or because it was indecent?
Same thing as far as I’m concerned !
Ivor, would you care to explain why you find that homosexuality is indecent?
Kind of ironic that they ban a gay film when it was gays within the church who molested all those little boys.
It was pedophiles who molested children not “gays”. The former are attracted to children the latter to adults of the same sex. You don’t blame the “hetros” when a man or woman abuses a child of the opposite sex.But I’ll bet you know that already…
Why was it mostly young teen boys that were molested ? Pedophiles are attracted to younger kids.
Whatever it is it must make Catholics really proud that they’ve being following child abusers and people willing to cover up for since at least the first reported incident in the 1600′s and continue to follow them even knowing what that organisation does.
Teen boys? Probably younger Tony, mostly boys because only boys were allowed serve Mass up until very recently as altar boys so the Catholic priests had access, the attraction was to children irrespective of gender, do you think all heterosexual men are attracted to young girls? What a bizarre mindset.
Paedophiles are called by god to the priesthood… why is that?
There’s no point in trying to explain anything to Tony Richard. He is as thick as a ditch. If he knew anything he would know that paedophiles are exclusively attracted to children. And that the sex of the pre- prepuberty child is irrelevant to the paedophile. But Tony thinks that he knows better than all the experts in the field.
Wow…All the gay defences come up quickly when you ask why those being abused where predominantly male. I think you may touched a nerve John Hayes !
Tony’s defences come up quickly when you ask why those being abused were predominantly Female
.The vast majority of the victims of paedophiles are girls.1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
https://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics
I think you may touched a nerve Tony Kilduff !
That’s by your theory Tony not mine. Shot yourself in the foot there didn’t ya. lol
But those that were abused within the church weren’t predominantly female Jimmy, they were almost all male. …if you’re inferring that girls are more widely abused in general by heterosexual men that then implies that the the boys being abused within the church were abused by homosexual men…. ? Eh … I think it’s you that may have just shot yourself in the foot there…. lol.
Oh, the Kilduff troll strikes again, I have a fair mind to kicking it in the soft and danglies for his choice comments directed at me recently on other threads, alas, I think it would enjoy that.
Ah Larry s here.. The one that calls anyone with different opinions a troll, the one that thinks he can insult anyone but gets all upset when someone throws some back.
I thought you preached love and rainbows all the time anyway Larry ? You’re threatening me with violence now, that’s very hateful of you…
See how the Kilduff troll is incapable of using any names to address other posters than the names it makes up itself, and see how these names contain maximum two syllables, that serves as proof, that the mental capacity of the troll is limited, currently experts are arguing if it should be classed as a reptile or an amphibian, though there are strong arguments for it to be a particularly ‘intelligent’ vegetable
Go back and read my comment again Tony. I mentioned the victims not the predators. But I knew that you would jump to that conclusion. And start typing before it would register on your brain that you have yet again shot yourself in the foot in a desperate attempt to put up your defence mechanism That is why I said by your theory and not mine.
Lol… I’ll give you a green thumb for that Larry, one if your better posts.
Jimmy you’re talking shìte (again). Your posts make my eyes hurt, get a grown up to help you make sense.
If Tony said a table was a chair he would consider it a valid opinion based on fact and then he would wonder why people don’t agree with him and laugh at his absurdities ideas and file disgusting accusations.
If you think that I am talking shit Tony, care to try and refute any of the points I made. No I didn’t think. so. lol
I’m trying to work out what your points are Jimmy, half of what you write makes no sense. I’ll paste them into Google translate, see what that comes up with…
Such predictable respond from a fool who has never come up with anything to support his ridiculous arguments. lol. Be a man Tony and admit that you can’t refuse any of my points. Or are you too busy playing with her daughters? Playing not necessarily in the conventional sense.
I bet you don’t like it when I fight fire with fire. I guess probably cut to close to the bone for you Tony.
Are you saying that the boys had mostly gone through puberty and so it wasn’t paedophilia but statutory rape Tony? Like when a heterosexual has sex with a minor who is not prepubescent but not yet above the age of consent? If the children had reached puberty then it’s not paedophilia, if not then it is as that’s what paedophiles are attracted to. Prepubescent children.
Playing with whose daughters Jimmy ? Who’s her ? Again I need to ask, what on earth are you on about ?
I’m aware of the difference Demise, a lot of those abused were not prepubescent so yes those that abused them were not actually pedophiles, they were gay men.
But it wasn’t paedophilia so if they weren’t prepubescent it was statutory rape then? As has been pointed out to you already as it was mostly boys who had roles within the church such as altar boys, it was mostly boys who were abused. The numbers of females who the priests had access to was lower.
Also where are you seeing statistics that show most abuse victims were not prepubescent? Can you back that up with a link Tony?
The following is copied and pasted from Bishops-accountability.org. I’m having trouble posting it as a link via my phone, its a pdf download. There’s loads of stats on the net but this example seems to put it fairly clearly. The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17, and just over half (50.7%) of all individuals who made allegations of abuse were between the ages of 11-14. The average age of all alleged victims is 12.6. This number has increased over time, however. In the 1950s, the average age was 11.5; in the 1960s it was 12; in the 1970s it was 12.87; in the 1980s it was 13.2; and by the 1990s it was 13.87. Table 4.3.2 VICTIM’S AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE Age in Years Count % of Total 1 4 .0% 2 11 .1% 3 22 .2% 4 41 .5% 5 82 1.0% 6 158 1.8% 7 220 2.5% 8 369 4.1% 9 362 4.0% 10 752 8.4% 11 895 10.0% 12 1,323 14.7% 13 1,141 12.8% 14 1,188 13.2% 15 1,042 11.6% 16 769 8.6% 17 577 6.5% Total 8,956 100%
@Tony ” Again I need to ask, what on earth are you on about ?”
Tony you have no problem accusing me and all gay men who have their own children who are boys of being paedophiles and child abusers. But in the tables are turned on you and the suggestion that you are abusing your daughters because you are straight you don’t understand. How convenient for you. Should you ever end in court for those alleged accusations, will that be your defence I don’t understand your honour i’m straight not a Hebephilia, or Ephebophilia?
Yet you have no problem refusing to acknowledge the difference between Hebephilia, Ephebophilia and homosexulality In order to persue your homophobic agenda.
Hebephilia is the strong and persistent EXCLUSIVELY ADULT sexual interest in pubescent (early adolescent) individuals, typically ages 11–14.
Ephebophilia is the EXCLUSIVELY ADULT sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
Neither of which are gay adult men. Adult gay men are attractive to other adult gay men. We are NOT and I repeat NOT attractive to children. And no amount of your disgusting lies about gay men will ever change that.
And considering the unquestionable power the church and by extension priests had back when clerical abuse was widespread, do you think the situation may have been different or the abuse less prevalent had it been as acceptable to be gay and in a homosexual relationship as it in Ireland today? Do you think gay men were more likely to join the priesthood which was considered an honour for the family and meant they weren’t expected to marry a woman, to avoid bringing the shame of having a gay relative on their families?? Can you see how it can be dangerous to oppress people over something innate which they cannot change?
Deminie If you read my post above you will find that it was not gay men that entered the priesthood in order to have access children. It was paedophiles, ephebophilia and hebephilia. They entered the priesthood as they knew because of their status at the time that nobody would any listen to any child that made accusations against them. But of course there is no point in telling Tony that as it does to is homophobic agenda.
No Jimmy, I didn’t understand because you said HER children not YOUR children. That’s why I asked you what you were talking about. Get it ? Or do I need to spell it out to you again ? You see its hard to understand your points sometimes when you can’t master basic English. I understand now, you were suggesting I abuse my own children….nice…Bit ironic an accusation like that coming from the likes of you I’d say.
Yep Demise, don’t disagree with any of that.
I agree James I don’t think it was gay men abusing children and I abhor the way Tony often seeks to link homosexuality with paedophilia. I don’t think gay men went in to abuse children but I do think it was an easier option to join the priesthood and make your family proud plus not have to marry someone you are not one bit attracted to, than it was to come out as gay.
” We are NOT and I repeat NOT attractive to children” Judging by your picture Jimmy, I doubt anyone finds you attractive … lol… Did you mean attracted by any chance ? Lol….you dunce.
Oh I see Demise, you’ll admit that loads of gay men joined the priesthood years ago but it wasn’t them raping teenage boys, it was the straight priests…. yes that’s very believable alright….
Yet again tony uses my dyslexia as an excuse and pretends that he doesn’t understand what I am saying. Then he is so stupid that he is able to correct my spelling which proves that he does understand but still he can’t refute any of my points. How stupid can one man be? lol
Wait for it his next comment will be along the lines that he doesn’t believe that i am dyslexic and he will call me a dunce.
Tony you call me a dunce and you can’t even look up the words Ephebophilia and Hebephilia in the dictionary. lol
Demise I agree with you that some gay men entered the priesthood. But not for the reasons that Tony is accusing them of.
@Tony “Judging by your picture Jimmy, I doubt anyone finds you attractive ” Maybe you are not a pedophile after all as one would only expect a childish comment like that to come from a child.Your inability to refute my points that prove you wrong would indicate that you are a child or homophobe that knows he is wrong and will continue with his agenda of hate at all costs.
What’s wrong Tony you haven’t come back with your usual cut at my dyslexia.
You still haven’t come up with a definition for Hebephilia or Ephebophilia. Or will you run away now that you have been proven wrong yet again. LOL.
Tony straight or gay is not the point that’s what I’m saying. Their sexual orientation is not the cause. Even if some of them were homosexual that does not mean that homosexuality is linked with sexual abuse of minors any more than heterosexuality is, do you not agree?
Actually Demise none of them were either gay or straight there is a grown amount of evidence that Pedophilia Hebephilia and Ephebophilia are sexual orientations in themselves where the gender of the child is irrelevant to them. Take Jimmy Savile for example he abused bought boys and girls.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality. There is still a lot of understandable resistance to this line of thought as it suggests that the paedophile has no control over his sexual orientation. However this does not justify the legalisation of paedophilia by any means as obviously no child is capable of consenting to such a relationship.
James Is it possible for some of them to be either homosexual or heterosexual as well as being a hebophiliest or ephobophiliest? I’m just wondering as many young children for example who are abused are abused by a parent who is married. So is that abuser not heterosexual as well as a paedophile?
Not necessarily Demise. All too often hebophiliest, ephobophiliest and paedophiles will marry and have family in an effort to disguise their true orientation. In the past and in many parts of the world gay people have and are marrying the opposite sex in an effort to disguise their orientation due to stigma family rejection, fear of assault or even murder. There are still one hundred countries where it is a criminal offence to be gay ten of which it is punishable by the death penalty. While hebophiliest, ephobophiliest and paedophiles can never be legalised for obvious reasons, many do marry for those same reasons.
Some in the field of psychology are slow to recognise these conditions as sexual orientations and opt rather to consider them psychological disorder. This may well be due to the fact that if they are classified as sexual orientations and therefore one cannot change, this might become a defence to justify acting on their orientation. However, this fear should not be an excuse not to recognise hebophiliest, ephobophiliest and paedophilia as sexual orientations because regardless of one’s orientation, we all have the capacity to choose to act or not to act on it. Homosexuality was once viewed in this manner as well and was considered to be a psychological disorder. The difference with homosexuality and why it has been legalised in civilised society is that both parties have the capacity to consent and such relationships when successful are not harmful to the individuals involved in the same way that in heterosexual relationship both parties have the capacity to consent and when successful are not harmful to the individuals involved. Where as a child does not have the capacity to consent to such relationships are always seriously damaging to the child well-being.
Careful Now! Down with this sort of thing!!!!
Sorry, thats it below now …..http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/4_3_incident3.pdf
have your say