I used to watch Woody Allen movies because my husband liked him. I should have said I stopped contributing money to Allen's pocket after the whole scandal with Mia Farrow and the woman who is now Allen's legal wife. Yes, I guess you found me out, vito, I can hypocritically handle violence in movies, but not sexual immorality. Go figure. But I don't watch many movies any more. I like the animated ones out of Pixar and Dreamworks, movies like Finding Nemo. I like the Lord of the Rings, the Narnia movies, the Hobbit, even though the battle scenes bore me. Actually, I don't think people who are trying to live moral Christian lives should fill their eyes and minds with things that are not moral. Movies still have a lot of "peep show" in them . . ..

So I am confused, have you or have you not watched Woody Allen movies? Because you say that you have not seen a Woody Allen movie you liked. Which means that you have watched a number, and which in turn means that you HAVE contributed money to "immoralist Woody Allen's pocket". Unless you downloaded them illegally.
Second, what do you mean by "movies that show immorality"? You cannot watch any movie that shows any immoral behavior? That pretty much excludes any serious movie, at least I cannot recall a movie that would show only moral behavior... Man, that would be boring. So no war movies, no violence, to crime, no serious drama...? You are excluding every great movie ever made. Godfather and Schindler's list etc etc. Or do you mean by "immorality" just people having sex? In that regard Woody Allen is one of very few prominent directors who never shows any open sex scenes or nudity.

Yeah, I get it. Christians all over the world work this verse into their wedding ceremonies, but when same-sex couples say it's the same for us, suddenly we hear, "No, that's about friendship!"

Eccl. 4:9-12 does not sanction "same sex marriage nor does it condone polygamy. It simply speaks to the value of friendship. You take this out of context to support your belief that same sex marriage or homosexual activity is approved in the bible.
Verse 8 speaks of one who has to one, either son or brother. That is where 9-12 speaks of friendship and not sexual activity between persons of the same gender

It seems that you defend the right to divorce and remarry, but these things are not accepted by the Church. As you have the right to stand for your opinion the Church and the believers have the right to disagree, and to defend their opinions. At least in democratic regimes that guarantee this right of one having opinions and defending those opinions.

In the Church perspective the marriages are commitments for life, not just the product of a temporal disposition. In these sense it would be odd that the Church didn’t defend his view, or assist with indifference to the rules society impose on the individual persons, the Church thinks that his thoughts on these normative issues is the one that is correct and the one that better contributes for a good and meaningful life for humans, so it only natural that the Church is committed to defend its point of view.

Tolerance doesn’t mean indifference to what is wrong (that is the new proposed meaning that is emerging in modern societies). And the Church can’t be indifferent, even at the cost of not being popular, but then being popular is no goal to the church (and has no significance).

In the end I am not sure about your claim, are you claiming that the Church can have an opinion, but then it would be better if it behaved as if the Church didn’t possess the right to have an opinion (I am not sure about the rationality and coherence of this thought).

Not trying to deal with the whole scope of the crimes and misdemeanors of either the Catholic Church or "atheist " regimes; just divorce and remarriage, as that's what the subject under discussion was.

The Catholic Church has everywhere, as far as I know, opposed liberalization of laws concerning divorce and remarriage and has attempted to use it's political influence to oppose this. It's acceptance of more tolerant laws has always been under protest and in recognition of it's viewpoint as being that of a minority.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that- the Catholic Church has a right to an opinion on such matters, just as it does on the economy (and cheers to Pope Francis for his recent condemnations of the unrestrained market).

But since it has opposed such measures until bowing before force majeure, it has no right to claim credit for itself for the happy state of tolerance that then results- any more than I could congratulate myself on dropping abortion rates that were caused by new laws closing clinics, and which I opposed.

These various characters confront, in all of their vivid and seductive
power, fame, sex, pleasure, and material success. In each case,
moreover, the embrace of these things would involve the compromising of
some unglamorous but stable and life-giving relationship.

Yes, as a young man I avidly pursued the above (except material success, never much interested) but now, like Woody Allen, I am content to defend sitting at home at night with my wife and enjoying some unglamorous but stable and live-giving relationships- yet somehow I'm unable to convince my 20-something-year-old sons to see it the same way.

I believe it's called "growing old".

Would you fault someone for learning to play the ancient Greek kithara when everyone else is learning to play the modern guitar? These writings need someone that can cross over the ocean and bring them back. I have learnt how to unpack them, to unfold the entailments. How is that a fault? A good portion of the writings of the Church are packed away in Greek and Latin. A modern western person would have to learn the language in order to read the originals. But it is much more than just reading the language. One must learn how to read these things in the Light of Christ. Abbot Anscar Vonier writes extensively on this subject. Seeing as it is a learnt language for me and the subject is obscure to moderns, it is a normal reaction on your part to consider my speech as stilted. It is. Is that a fault? I don't think so, but then I am not hostile to it.

For me, then, in my "yes" to God's gift of the vast Roman Catholic Christian heritage, I have had to "sell" all that I have. That means willingly mortifying the inclinations of my self (fasting from movies, tv, news, novels, most graphic art save icons, casual conversation, and on and on) in favor of the soul that animates it. For these things I avoid are frequently inimical to the life of the soul.