# U.S. Council of Bishops Film Ratings **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 23, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370 "2003-09-23T18:53:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/1 "2003-09-23T18:53:54Z")
When I was a kid, I used to look through the Catholic newspaper we received weekly for the ratings of films by the U.S. Council of Bishops. This was long before the MPAA “G-M-R-X” rating system (the ancestor of the G-PG-PG-13-R-NC-17 system we have now), and I was always curious to see how they rated the films. Remember, this was before restrictions, so that _all_ movies were effectively “G”. The Bishops’ ratings were: ``` **A-I -- Morally Unobjectionable for Anyone A-II -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults and Adolescents A-III -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults A-IV -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults, with Reservations B -- Morally Objectionable in Part for Everyone C -- Condemned** ``` In my naivete, I thought A-IV meant that, if you were a grown-up, and you already had reservations to the theater, you could go, even though the bishops didn’t approve. I didn’t understand why there were separate B and C categories. If the film was objectionable in part for everyone, how was that different than “Condemned”. Of course, the most interesting mocies were Condemned. The Killing of Sister George. Carnal Knowledge. A Clockwork Orange. Anything rated “X”. In time, I came to resent the list – why should the bishops tell me what to see and what not to? Wasn’t avoiding films somehow immature itself? What was so awful about Anatom,y of a Murder? (discussion of rape, apparently). Imagine my surprise to find that they’re still at it, and have a website: [http://www.usccb.org/movies/movieall.htm](http://www.usccb.org/movies/movieall.htm) They’ve gotten rid of the distinction between B and C films, and replaced that sexy “C” with “O” for “Objectionable”. I’m not surprised to see **Caligula** there, and **Rocky Horror Picture Show**. But **The Terminator**? And **Terminator II**? I still wonder about the Bishops, even when they get a chance to explain themselves, as they do on this site. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/2 "2003-09-23T19:20:37Z")
Just about all the James Bond movies are rated “O”. Curiously, the Hannibal Lector films **Manhunter** and **Silence of the Lambs** are more acceptable, although they condemned **Hannibal**. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/3 "2003-09-23T20:54:16Z")
The _Terminator_ movies-probably all the violence. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/4 "2003-09-23T21:42:26Z")
James Bond - I’m going to guess they object to the unmarried sex w/no consequences. And maybe the violence, but most of the violence is pretty cartoonish. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/5 "2003-09-23T22:57:12Z")
[This guy](http://www.capalert.com/) is even nuttier than the Bishops. His system requires an advanced degree in nutcasery to even understand. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/6 "2003-09-23T23:28:09Z")
> [@](#): > > This guy is even nuttier than the Bishops. His system requires an advanced degree in nutcasery to even understand. He notes under the “Sex/Homosexuality” listings, something called _Belly Sin_, but doesn’t explain what this is. What is it? Have I been missing out? ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/7 "2003-09-24T00:07:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CalMeacham \* > \*\*They’ve gotten rid of the distinction between B and C films, and replaced that sexy “C” with “O” for “Objectionable”. I’m not surprised to see Caligula there, and Rocky Horror Picture Show. But The Terminator? And Terminator II? I still wonder about the Bishops, even when they get a chance to explain themselves, as they do on this site. > > Just about all the James Bond movies are rated “O”. > > Curiously, the Hannibal Lector films **Manhunter** and **Silence of the Lambs** are more acceptable, although they condemned **Hannibal**. \*\* Well, let’s compare… Here is a film that did **not** get the big “O”… > [@](#): > > Silence of the Lambs, The – An FBI trainee (Jodie Foster) seeks the identity of a psychotic serial killer (Ted Levine) from a brilliantly manipulative psychiatrist (Anthony Hopkins), himself an imprisoned multiple murderer. Jonathan Demme directs a riveting thriller eliciting superb performances from Foster and Hopkins while attempting a straightforward treatment of repugnant subject matter by focusing on the novice agent’s dedication to her assignment. Some intense violence and graphic shots of mutilated bodies, a flash of nudity and occasional rough language. (A-IV) ® ( 1991 ) And one, in the same vein, which did get the Objectionable rating… > [@](#): > > Hannibal – Repelling sequel continues the murderous cannibalism of fugitive Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) as he outsmarts an Italian cop but is ensnared by a vengeance-crazed former victim and comes face-to-face with his FBI nemesis, agent Starling (Julianne Moore). Director Ridley Scott jettisons depth of character in favor of graphic, grotesque slaughters in a trashy and uninvolving tale of human degradation. Excessive violence and gore, crude sexual references, some profanity and intermittent rough language. The U.S. Catholic Conference classification is (O) – morally offensive. ® – restricted. 2001 (MGM) It seems to me that the difference in rating is given a justifiable reason. You may not agree with it, but the increased gore and violence in _Hannibal_ (and its less ambitious artistic goals) bumped it up a notch. In fact, one should pleased that a critically acclaimed film like _Silence of the Lambs_ was not judge Objectionable (or Condemned for that matter) by moralizing bishops. (Actually, I doubt any bishops contribute to the actual ratings, they simply established a panel of experts to do that for them under their aegis.) ## Peace. The post is rated “S” for “Sassy!” ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/8 "2003-09-24T00:36:04Z")
Anything which glorifies violence will usually get an “O” rating. This explains the Terminator movies and the James Bond movies. (Bond also gets dinged for all that promiscuous sex.) Something like _Saving Private Ryan_, OTOH, gets an A-III (adults) rating. _Silence of the Lambs_ escaped with an “A-IV” because the violence, while it was pretty damn nasty in parts, wasn’t overdone. I haven’t seen _Hannibal_, but from what I’ve heard it’s pretty much a standard blood-and-guts slasher movie. Hence it gets the big O. BTW: any ideas what the difference is between “profanity” and “rough language”? In my book those are synomyms. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/9 "2003-09-24T04:15:31Z")
Conservative Catholic here. I happen to think that, unfortunately, church movie ratings simply subject the church to ridicule. And that’s a shame, because there IS a valid place for them. Problem is, any valid rating system has to address two issues that are completely separate, even though people sometimes act as if they’re connected. 1. Is the subject matter of this film appropriate for kids? 2. Is the movie, ultimately, moral or immoral? There are folks to whom a film is automatically immoral if it receives an “R” rating, if it shows a breast, if it contains one of George Carlin’s famous “7 words,” or if there’s any violence. I’m not one of them. I happen to think a film can show violence and/or sex graphically and still be quite moral. For that matter, even a film in which there are no characters with any redeeming features can be moral. Oh, it may be inappropriate for KIDS, but that’s a separate issue. I would submit that many films that receive PG ratings are far more morally objectionable than films that receive R or NC-17 ratings. Example I’ve use before: “Pretty Woman” was rated PG, and features no nudity. “Boogie Nights” was rated NC-17, and only made it to R after several scenes were removed. Now, “Boogie Nights” certainly is not a film a kid should see, but I believe it’s far less morally objectionable than “Pretty Woman.” After all, “Boogie Nights” shows BOTH why the porn industry is attractive AND why it’s ultimately so destructive. “Pretty Woman,” on the other hand, tells kids “Prostitution is a glamorous life in which you stay at luxury hotels, go shopping on Rodeo Drive, and marry Donald Trump.” Most church-affiliated film critics either don’t even try to grasp such distinctions. I’m pleased when they do, but that’s still a rarity. - I happen to agree, by the way, that “Hannibal” Was morally objectionable in a way that “Manhunter” and “Silence of the Lambs” were not. In the latter two films, Hannibal Lecter is a repulsive (if intriguing) character, and the audience is encouraged to root for the heroic FBI agent (Graham or Starling). In “Hannibal,” however, we’re clealry supposed to be rooting for Dr. Lecter, who is presented as far more admirable than any of the people trying to catch him. A film that shows gory deaths isn’t necessarily immoral. One that glorifies them, and makes a hero of the man who commits them IS immoral. ---
**Author:** ![sirtonyh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@sirtonyh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sirtonyh)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/10 "2003-09-24T06:26:10Z")
Mmmm, Now here a surprise; Dogma – Because of anti-religious buffoonery, intense violence, sexual references, substance abuse, assorted vulgarities, profanity and recurring rough language, (O) – morally offensive. ® – restricted. Dogma is a sophomoric religious satire in which a heavenly messenger persuades the last descendant of Joseph and Mary to leave her job in an abortion clinic and set out to stop a pair of fallen angels from regaining heaven by means of a plenary indulgence. The unfunny proceedings rely on a mindless mix of irreverence and absurdity in poking fun at biblical characters and Christian stereotypes ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/11 "2003-09-24T06:56:52Z")
It’s the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, not the U.S. Council of Bishops. A film that was rated B, “Morally Objectionable in Part” could still be edited to remove the objectionable scenes, while a film that was rated C, “Condemned”, was thematically objectionable through and through. The Conference has usually been morally sophiticated in its ratings, often more so than the MPAA. While the MPAA gave _Midnight Cowboy_ an “X” rating in 1969, the Conference gave it an “A-IV” rating: > [@](#): > > Director John Schlesinger treats with compassion this odyssey of two alienated outcasts blindly groping for some redemptive human fellowship in a society that values sex and money more than human beings. Some may find its realistic depiction of a sordid environment, with a graphic sexual encounter and a brutal outburst of violence, quite reprehensible. Others will find merit in its attempt to recognize the resilience of the human spirit and the dignity of the individual. Challenging fare, not for the casual viewer. They also had quote good taste in movies. Witness their Ten Best list from 1972: 1. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie 2. The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds 3. The Emigrants 4. The Godfather 5. Jeremiah Johnson 6. My Uncle Antoine 7. A Sense of Loss 8. The Sorrow and the Pity 9. Sounder 10. What’s Up, Doc? Or their Ten Best list from 1997: 1. Amistad 2. The Apostle 3. The Ice Storm 4. Kolya 5. Kundun 6. L.A. Confidential 7. Shall We Dance? 8. Ulee’s Gold 9. The Wind in the Willows 10. The Wings of the Dove ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/12 "2003-09-24T12:48:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diceman \* > \*\*BTW: any ideas what the difference is between “profanity” and “rough language”? In my book those are synomyms. \*\* Well, one of the definitions of _profane_ is… > [@](#): > > 1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred. {American Heritage Dictionary on Yahoo} And so, most likely _profanity_ refers to taking God’s name in vain (religious ‘swear’ and ‘curse’ words) like ‘God damn it’ or ‘holy Jesus f\*\*\*ing Christ.’ And _rough language_ would be any non-religious vulgarities such as _f_\*\*\* and _shit_. Religious-minded folk find profanity to be much more objectionable than rough language. ## Peace. Darn it all to heck you friggin A-holes! ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/13 "2003-09-24T13:22:36Z")
Lest you folks think I’m trivializing this, or poking fun at the Catholic Church, I note that their reviews of many of the films are pretty insightful, and I note that my faves get pretty good ratings ( **A Man for All Seasons** is A-I-- no surprise there. **Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still**.) Still, I am surprised by the high objections raised to many of these. The Terminator ratings still surprise me with the “O”. I would’ve thought that **The Exorcist** would be panned for its excesses and misrepresentations, but it’s A-IV (I believe). Exorcist II, however, gets an “O”. And, while “Midnight Cowboy” may have gotten an “X” when originally released, I’ve heard frequently that it wouldn’t if released today. (More to the point, if it were in danger iof getting an “NC-17”, I;'m sure they would cut it to avoid that audience-killing rating). On the other hand, although it may get an A-IV from the bishops now, I could swear that I recall it originally getting a “Condemned” rating when it was released. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-council-of-bishops-film-ratings/203370/14 "2003-09-24T16:12:01Z")
The Conference’s A-IV rating for _Midnight Cowboy_ is from 1969. The X-rated _Midnight Cowboy_ even made the Conference’s Ten Best list for 1969. And the MPAA did revise _Midnight Cowboy_’s rating to “R” upon rerelease in 1971, without any cuts made.