I write this post with a heavy heart. Blue Bloods has been one of our family’s favorite shows for the past several years. It is a family police drama and one of the few shows on TV that takes religion, the “traditional” family, and law and order seriously and respectfully. For conservatives like us, the show was a weekly oasis in a cultural landscape that is increasingly hostile to our values. But I acknowledge that we are on the “wrong side of history.” I’m sure that Karl Marx and our current president would no doubt agree wholeheartedly with that description.
It seems that in the last decade we have suddenly become bigots. Yes, Blue Bloods jumped the homosexual shark (I know, that’s a mixed metaphor.) I’m the prototypical regressive Christian (I believe morality is something that doesn’t change with the so-called tide of history, and thus is not culturally determined), and that makes me persona non grata in a culture that sees sexual self-expression as life’s summum bonum.
That doesn’t bother me much, because as Christians we’ve always known that although we are in the world, we are not of the world. Many Christians around the world are being tortured and killed for their faith, not just demonized by a progressive cultural elite. The Apostles, Christ’s closest followers, died horrific deaths. Being seen as a bigot by self-righteous liberal elites isn’t the worst thing in the world (although it will, and has already had, real world consequences as it is codified into law).
It is widely agreed upon across the cultural spectrum that trying to send heavy-handed messages in movies or TV shows is not a good thing; the entertainment value of a work of art suffers when nuance is thrown out the window (think Atlas Shrugged). I don’t think the makers of Blue Bloods agree. It seems from last night’s episode that the writers, obviously on the “right side of history,” decided history needed a very big push. They should have put a cliché alert at the beginning of the show. It was by far the worst “agenda” episode I’ve ever seen on TV, and in a Hollywood totally dominated by sanctimonious progressives, that is saying something.
In the episode, a longtime, well-respected detective is forced to “come out of the closet” because he witnessed a crime in the wrong gay-friendly neighborhood. He is also Latino, which makes it especially difficult because, well, you know how bigoted and unreasonable patriarchal Hispanic culture is. His father even says that he is not welcome in his home again. The gay detective’s partner no longer wants to work with him, ostensibly because his partner wasn’t honest with him, but you know it’s because the gruff New York City detective is just an anti-gay bigot. He even punches his gay partner in the face. Subtle.
Detective Danny Reagan (Donnie Wahlberg) and his sensitive, gay-friendly Latina partner (Marisa Ramirez) go to New Jersey to search for clues about the perpetrators of the crime. There they meet a police captain who mocks homosexuals by lisping and pretending to act effeminately. No, seriously. The writers actually put this in the show!
We ultimately learn, of course, that the primary suspects are two white, twenty-something, ex-football jocks who obviously think killing homosexuals is a good thing. See what happens when you let anti-homosexual bigotry off the hook!
Given that the Catholic Church has always been an important element of the program and the Reagan family, you know the Church won’t come out of this episode unscathed. Sure enough, during a press conference, Police Commissioner Frank Reagan (Tom Selleck), the very definition of gravitas, tells the public that the Catholic Church is on the wrong side of history when it comes to homosexuality. I think he used the words “behind the times,” but you get the point. Reagan even calls out a weaselly looking Catholic bishop in his office for the child abuse church scandals, thus questioning the moral authority of the Church to proclaim homosexual behavior a sin. As the Bishop leaves the office abruptly, he holds out his hand so that a disgusted Frank can kiss his ring.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks (although the writers of this episode somehow managed to do so).
Frank is then taken to task by his press secretary (I guess there are a lot of Catholics in New York City the commissioner shouldn’t offend) and tries to craft a non-apology apology, but he just can’t, with integrity, force himself to do it. The characterization of the Church as “behind the times” must stand!
Finally, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for us: the penultimate scene, in which a nun visits Frank’s home to see whether he can help keep a Catholic school in the city open. She reveals that she is a lesbian, when she tells him that when she left Wisconsin to become a nun, she kissed her girlfriend goodbye. Yes, eventually, one can hope, the Church will come around and get on the “right side of history.”
This leads to the final dinner scene, and there is always a dinner scene or two in the show, with the whole Reagan family gathered around the table. Frank’s dad, an old ex-cop, is clearly depicted as being on the “wrong side of history.” He’s a fossil who needs to be lectured to and dismissed by the rest of his family, who are clearly with the times. The scene couldn’t have been more didactic if one of the characters had turned to the camera, a la House of Cards’ Frank Underwood, and told us, hey folks, don’t get stuck on the “wrong side of history!”
Lest you think that we are obsessed with this one type of sin, early in the show the Reagan daughter (Bridget Moynahan), a divorcee, spends the night with her paramour. Not only are we bigots about homosexuality, but we still accept the quaint notion that sex ought to be limited to marriage, the old-fashioned kind, the one where gender matters. I told you I was regressive.
We’ll miss you, Blue Bloods.
I agree with everything you said. I felt the exact same way and have watched maybe 1 new show since then. This is why I will never expect to see anything come out of Hollywood that would depict The Catholic Church is a positive light and hold orthodox conservative views.
When you claim that morality doesn’t change with the tide of history and not culturally determined you’ll have to explain things like slavery and the societal subjugation of women. Even the thought that the equality of humankind extends to all creeds and colors is an ideal voiced but still struggled with.
It’s very clear that what individuals and society as a whole view as moral or immoral does change as we strive , struggle and learn more. To claim otherwise seems like a denial of history.
[…] light of some lively and mostly respectful debate I’ve had with some people because of my post on Blue Bloods and its latest episode that dealt with homosexuality. One of the themes of the comments went […]
Let’s not forget that “Hollywood celebrity conservative” Tom Sellick kissed another guy in “In and Out.” Because of this Act of Submission, he was permitted to resume his stalled career — but only on television. Still, it’s not enough to sprinkle incense on Caesar’s altar once. The act must be repeated periodically.
I have enjoyed the show. Oh hell, I’ll say it; I loved it. This is not to say that I have always agreed with all of its takes on current issues. But usually, I found a redeeming feature, an ability to entertain a contrary notion, a suggestion that things are not always as they seem, that the other side may have some force of reason behind it. Not in this episode, though.
I believe the writer is correct in his take, one I share, that this show was an assault upon all of us heterosexist homophobes, even those of us, who in the great long ago, urged compassion for the misguided, and who were conscious of our own sins.
Interestingly, about the only part of this show that I could relate to was the observation that “gay” was once a lovely word full of merriment and hope for the future.
I remember a song sometimes sung on television when I was a child that hearkened back to a still earlier time. I may not have it exact but it was always sung by a man and went something like this: “I was feeling so gay in the merry, merry month of May, when I was taken by surprise by a girl with pretty eyes.”
I had always associated the word with the continuation of the species, and the propagation of posterity for life’s continuing saga, a thing in which the state once expressed an interest.
Now the word gay conjures up a narrow cul de sac, men huddled together in a bathhouse or a gay bar or club, drinking , drinking drinking, or in Clubland back in the day popping ecstasy, trying to get it all down and done before the lights go out, and the cry is heard, “Last Call.”
There are a lot of broken people amongst us, and the truth be told the broken ones are often more sinned against than sinning, victims of increasingly unstable family environments.
This broadcast was heavy-handed and propagandistic , a disturbing instance of agitprop.
I think I will be backing away from the table, as I have had my fill.
NBC took care of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and CBS sucker punched me with Blue Bloods.
What will ABC do to top this one?
What’s next? Will my Yankees adopt rainbow pinstripes? Diversity! Inclusiveness!
Sophistry?
Tune in again to see Danny take down a villainous gay person? It will not happen; there are none.
You are right: the writers were given a terrific opportunity to explore a police officer being “outed” against his will, and the trauma that causes both him and his family. The Catholic Reagan family, who meet every Sunday for family dinner after church, could have had a terrific discussion about the Church’s compassionate teaching for those with same-sex attraction.
They chose the cheap and easy route.
What exactly is the Catholic Church’s compassionate teaching about same sex attraction?
http://youtu.be/6rgDLWOFCRA. It’s a great short film about your question.
I saw the episode as a religious man struggling to balance his religious belief (and inherent struggles with that faith’s tenets) with the secular requirements of his job, not an agenda by the writers.
As far as the nun having had a lesbian relationship before becoming a nun: It’s my understanding a man can have a relationship before becoming a priest, so I didn’t see much difference in renouncing previous relations for the calling.
To the writer’s issue with other “sin” in the show: Is the issue only with Erin having an unmarried paramour? Because Jamie had unmarried relations with his then-fiancé, as well as with his off-and-on lawyer friend in one episode. I have no problem with either, but wonder if one is seen as worse than the other due to gender. It may be the author limited comments to this ep only, but I’m curious.
RobM1981, I appreciate your thoughts. My point simply, it seems some commenters missed, is that this specific episode was incredibly ham-handed. It was preachy and pedantic. And I am NOT a Catholic, so that wasn’t my point. Imagine if the show was on the other foot, if a Catholic or evangelical position on homosexuality was pushed on the viewers in the same pushy, forced stereotypical way. First it would never happen, but if it did, I would be the first to call it out. There was no nuance in this episode, None. I love Blue Bloods because it has dealt with many issues in a way that takes seriously the conundrum that is human existence. In this episode they completely failed. I simply can’t in good conscious support it any longer. I don’t care if it takes place in NYC or Pascagoula, Mississippi.
I didn’t see ham-handedness, but that’s just a matter of taste and opinion.
Having been an RC there are a few things that I have observed: a lot of nuns are, indeed, gay – if not openly, then latently.
And as long as its latent, it’s not a sin. It’s temptation, but we all are confronted with temptation each and every day. I liked the way this episode ended, with the nun’s confession and the implication that she is no longer active.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the use of the pedophile-scandal is inappropriate or ham handed. Much like Benghazi and so many other such things, it was never actually resolved. Time has allowed it to fade away, mostly, but that doesn’t change the fact: there were no priests jailed, at least none that I can recall, and that will alway make me question the RC church’s moral authority. I view any reminder of that as Fair Game, and I am in no way a “basher.” The RC church does much good. Catholic Charities are amongst the finest in the world.
But that’s not an excuse for what happened or how it was resolved – and to mention it in a drama is fine by me.
As for the kissing of the ring, I can relate. I did it, once. It’s one of the reasons I left. As we all know, the RCC is perhaps the last truly feudal society. That’s fine, if you’re OK with it. I’m not. There is no verse in the Bible that I know of that says I should be kissing anyone’s ring, or genuflecting (regardless of which knee) to another human. I thought that particular scene was spot on, particularly since the Cardinal was obviously forcing it on Francis as a show of dominance.
That’s why I feel that the overall handling was rather believable. It’s not as if the Cardinal backed down. It also showed the Cardinal to be a politician, which is often true.
I’ve always thought that “the Reagan’s” are RC largely for these very reasons. It’s a church with a lot of baggage – past and present. It’s the only Christian church that still has a very powerful leadership layer. The feudal aspect of it makes it fertile ground for drama.
Imagine if they were Methodists… nowhere near the same room for drama.
But, necessarily, this means that the RC is going to get their hair ruffled now and again.
BTW, remember how the show opened. It’s not as if Dt. Reagan and his partner embraced the idea of a gay cop. There clearly was that “oh… OH!” moment, quite intentionally. You can agree or disagree with this as a reaction, but it’s hard to say that it never happens.
Very much what Blue Bloods is about, IMHO
Regards
Really, Richard, I’m denouncing liberty? Please prove your absolutely baseless assertion. I’d love to see how you can magically produce something that doesn’t exist anywhere in the text. If that’s what will appeal to people under 40, you can have it.
And I haven’t been a Catholic for a very long time. Cheers!
Wow. Everyone understands that this show is a Police drama, right? And that it’s based in NYC, correct?
Who can’t accept a situation wherein the Police Commissioner of one of the most liberal cities in the USA would be tolerant of homosexuals?
Let’s flip that around: who would believe the opposite?
I seem to recall that the Cardinal did not back down. I seem to recall that the RC church was properly represented in this episode, was it not?
This is a late night show. It is not meant to be used as a moral compass. I completely agree that some shows are so offensive to Christian sensibilities that I won’t watch them, but I don’t number Blue Bloods amongst them. You said it yourself: this show treats these issues with respect. That doesn’t mean that it pussy-foots around them. Instead, it tends to find a balance between both sides of an issue, use that balance to create tension, and then tip the balance to a conclusion – a conclusion that will often irritate one side or the other.
Just off the top of my head I can recall a situation where a brother killed for his sister’s honor, where euthanasia was the primary topic, how women – even women cops – aren’t strong enough to stop a rapist if/when they catch them by surprise, parental drug abuse… and that’s without thinking. And racial/ethnic issues? Black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, Jewish – which group hasn’t been the center of an episode? Alcoholism, pedophilia, muslim terrorism – Blue Bloods doesn’t shy from any of it.
Blue Bloods is the first show in a very long time that takes on Big Issues, including issues of Faith.
The fact is, people sin. They sin all of the time. Blue Bloods has the guts to admit this, without glorifying it – or without saying that right is wrong.
Francis had an opinion; the Cardinal had a different one. What outcome were you hoping for? Did you want the homosexual detective to be fired? Do you even think that the Cardinal of NY would ask for that?
I respect your opinion. Enjoy whatever show you are going to watch instead of Blue Bloods.
Spot on! Honestly, I thought we are supposed to love the sinner whilst hating the sin. I enjoy Blue Bloods because it truly honors the values and struggles of a modern family, including dealing with the dilemmas posed by current challenges to our cherished values. Although a conservative (politically) practicing Catholic, I also have long time friendships with several gay men, whom I met at the workplace, whom I love and revere for their integrity and respect for others (yes, they are politically conservative, anti abortion, law and order folks who “happen” to be homosexual.) I found the depictions of reactions to the “outing” of the officer by family and friends to be accurate. There was no attempt to “force an agenda” on viewers, rather to reflect the reality of a gay man, even in today’s ostensibly more understanding climate, being stigmatized by prejudice and blind hatred. As for the nun, why would God not call to vocation a formerly gay woman to a higher calling?
If I understand Catholic dogma correctly, homosexual behavior is considered sinful. So is the sexual abuse of any person. However, the church is supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner. The admonition to the sinner is go and sin no more. To the extent that this is not practiced, the church or any other religious group claiming a christian basis needs to be called to account.
The biggest lie, the attackers. Most anti-gay violence in NY is committed by minorities, not white kids.
The header on the article is “Selleck’s Anti-Catholic Show”. Perhaps it’s just me, but perhaps putting Catholic characters in roles not preferred by some, even all, Catholics doesn’t rise to the level of “Anti-Catholic”. What phrase would you use to describe Bill Maher if this is “anti-Catholic”?
I love it when the Liberty Institute publishes pieces denouncing liberty. No wonder nobody under the age of forty takes Republicans seriously.
Mike D’Virgilio should go back to his rosary-lined hug-box where there aren’t scary gay people and people don’t have sex. Because he’s so into liberty.
You evidently have not seen some of the more recent polls that show a rising percentage of young adults favoring GOP views.
JB, I refer you to my comment to Leigh above. You ought not lecture someone about what they should and should not watch if you don’t even bother to read what you are criticizing. In case it wasn’t clear enough, I and my family will no longer watch Blue Bloods. So you get your wish! Are you also saying I should not comment on heavy handed preachy political correctness which is terrible entertainment because it has to do with “Catholic values.” Does discussing religious values offend you? Well then, don’t read my blog post!
Mr. Virgilio,
I’m not lecturing you, and whether you choose to watch a TV show or not is your business and no concern of mine. I’m Irish Catholic, our annual family reunions for the past 60 years always are held in the meeting halls of the Churches where we attend daily mass or else in Convents, and several of my first cousins are priests and nuns. I’m also a survivor of repeated clergy abuse as a youth, so I’ll say whatever I feel about the Catholic Church and Catholic values. If you don’t wish to receive comments you dislike, don’t accept comments at all from anyone and/or don’t pen posts that invite commentary. Remove the mote from your eye before you throw stones, sir. I read your post carefully the first time. The solution to the trash one sees on TV is simple: change the channel or switch off the tube. I prefer the latter option. May God bless and protect you and your loved ones always, in every way every day.
I watch the show because it’s an entertaining cop show different than the overdone Law & Order and CSI and NCIS and Cops fare that American viewers get hammered with relentlessly. At one point a few years ago I counted over 70 separate programs on TV that were reality crime-related, crime news-related (with lots of shrill preachy judgmental lynch-mob garbage), or fiction crime-related. I don’t look for “moral” messages in any of these shows including Blue Bloods. It seems a bit silly to confuse entertainment with some type of viewer search for a greater moral faith-reaffirming Catholic message in made-for-TV scripts. If the show offends the writer of this essay, then don’t watch it; change the channel, or switch off the TV and read a well-written book on the Catholic values that you respect and shape your life.
I have never watched the show, in fact I don’t go down lower in the channels then Channel 13. But I am shocked that Tom Selleck is part of a show attaching the Roman Catholic Church. I won’t watch this in re-runs………….
Hey Leigh, any chance you actually read the piece? You might want to do that before you lecture me about commenting in a free land on a blog about a television show. I am free to do that, right?
And according to the makers of Blue Bloods, you sure as hell should swear allegiance to their dogma, or you are a bigot. Or maybe you missed that in my piece. Sorry it wasn’t obvious enough.
Mike. Come off your high horse please. You fool no one. I already said you are free to watch it or not watch it. Or did you not properly read my reply? Myself, I never watched the show, and never will. I do not like cop shows, hospital dramas, or sitcoms, preferring instead PBS documentaries, and the occasional “Antiques Roadshow”.
You want no one meddling in your life, would that be correct? Excellent. Others want the same courtesy from you. So perhaps you should gear your energies toward more important things happening in this country, other than worrying about others’ sexual “sins”. That is not your fight. Nor your worry.
Sorry my comment didn’t sit well with your own self-importance, but, well, that’s life. By the way, I swear allegiance to myself, and that’s about it.
You watched this show consistently until this one episode aired. Suddenly the makers of this show are Bashing Your Christian Beliefs because of the gay theme to this one episode. Suddenly you will no longer watch it. Okay. Excellent. Wonderful. You are free to do that, as I said before. I have never watched the show and likely never will as I don’t like cop shows or sitcoms. I’m more attuned to PBS documentaries, thanks. But, you are free to eschew the episode and the whole show and all of “liberal elitist” Hollywood if you like. Just as others are free to eschew your religious beliefs in favor of the show or in favor of a lifestyle that you condemn. Their lives are not yours for the living.
There are a lot more important issues to deal with in this country other than who is accepting whom into who’s bedroom. Nobody is looking for your approval or blessing, and nobody is being tortured or killed for their faith in this country. People demonizing Christians? Perhaps. But Christians seem to be doing a lot of demonizing too…to those who do not adhere to or respect their beliefs. Other peoples’ private lives are not your business and not your fight. But if disease or war comes to your country or even to your town, it WILL be your fight. Try gearing your anger and energies toward something worthwhile and leave peoples’ private lives to them. You want freedom? Great. Others want the same freedom. Allow them that, please.
Leigh, thank you for writing, and so passionately! You completely miss my point by stereotyping people like me as somehow having a desire to be involved in people’s private lives, of wanting to limit their freedom. That is your bias against religious conservatives, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what people like me actually believe. Nothing! Most of us, and I would say 99.9% of us could care less what you do privately in your own bedroom. Just ain’t our business, and we don’t want it to be, contrary to your assertions.
The debate about homosexuality in American society has nothing to do with what people do in their bedroom. If that was what this was about, there would be nothing to debate. But liberals and homosexual activists want to change the definition of a millennial old institution, i.e. marriage, and in doing so they want, IN LAW, to have views like mine branded as bigotry, which means, in case you missed it in my piece, there are real world consequences to these issues. It is NOT about sex or who is having sex with whom (and I can approve or bless what I please), but what American law says about the institution of marriage. Blue Bloods has become part of the campaign of the liberal/left/secularists elites in our culture to demean anyone who disagrees with them on this issue. This is unacceptable. It’s not about just one show. It is way more important than that. And the debate is not furthered or fruitful when people like you completely misrepresent our position.
Finally, I would beg to differ that the makeup and health of the family, because that is what this is about, is critically not important to the health and future of this country. Look at what the breakdown of the family has done to much of inner city America. It is tragic. Please understand, this is not about “who is accepting whom into who’s bedroom.” It just isn’t. Thanks again. And I’ll try to stay off my high horse next time!
I understand the aversion to being labeled a bigot. I submit that the word does have a definition and that definition is not akin to Simon Legree, indicating some hate filled individual. I think bigot is thrown around as a hateful term to casually but that doesn’t mean it’s not accurate if you understand the word. It simply means someone who is obstinately devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, especially regarding intolerance toward a group. It’s more specific and slightly more severe form of bias. As humans we are all guilty of having some bias and I suspect we may all be a bigot to some degree about something.
If the thinking is that an opinion based on religious conviction, teaching or tradition cannot be labeled as a form of bigotry I disagree.
So don’t watch it, then. That’s the beauty of living in a free land. You can watch what you like, or not watch what you don’t like. You did not like this particular episode, which is fine. Others found it otherwise. Similarly, people living in our free land do not all first have to swear allegiance to Catholic dogma, or any other religious dogma for that matter, to be citizens of our free land, which to me is the biggest beauty.
Sure, but the option isn’t just to not watch that show, but all television because all of TV does this. GLAAD scored Fox as having 42% of all the scenes on their prime time shows featuring some gay friendly characters or themes. 1.6% of the population and 42% of the screen time. ABC was at 33%, and NBC at 29%.
Also, when it comes to education, we could just pull our kids out of public schools where it is now apart of curriculums to teach that there is no particular connection between procreation and marriage (not the best lesson to teach boys for 12 years, is it?).
And of course, in places like Silicon Valley you will lose your job if they find out you voted the wrong way (see Mozilla, for starters).
So right. Just don’t watch TV. And just don’t send your kids to school (but you sure as hell have to pay for that school either way), and just quit your job. But I’m not so sure I’d call that the beauty of living in a free land, would you?
I don’t think it’s the 1.6% of the population who are gay or lesbian that matter here. It’s the 1.6% plus the 40% or more of the population who have gay family members, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, and who now support gay people and their relationships and rights.
Those TV stats go a long way to explaining why in one poll most Americans guessed the percentage of gays at 20% or higher rather than the 1.6% you cited from the CDC report. That 1.6% includes a large minority that does not agree with the aggressive agenda of GLAAD and its allies. The heavy handed propaganda and discrimination against those who oppose this juggernaut may be a key reason why the percentage of approval of same sex “marriage” in the latest Pew Poll dropped to 49% from 54%.
I have watched Blue Bloods for years because I enjoy the ensemble of actors and the stories about NYC, but I’ve had to grit my teeth many times because of the heavy-handed conservative politics, including defending “stop and frisk”. or profiling of Muslims. This last episode was just fine by me.
I have to agree. This was an “in your face” episode. The “villains” were ugly and mean. The “victims” were handsome and/or sensitive. But then I shouldn’t expect an episode where people stand for righteousness from Hollywood.