Although I can see your point, I can’t say I agree with you.

This blog also has guidelines. For instance, bigotry is unacceptable. The Alternative Film Guide will not publish a review or commentary stating that X ethnic/religious/national/etc. group is inferior to Y group because of this or that holy book. Or simply because the author of the review is a deranged bigot.

But if there’s a movie I find offensive — filled with bigotry — but a contributor sees it differently (”it’s not really pro-bigotry, it’s actually anti-violence”), I feel I’d have no right (or desire) to prevent the author from publishing his/her take on said film. And once published, I’d never have the review removed.

The U.S. bishops could easily have added a note to the “Golden Compass” review stating that Forbes and Mulderig’s views were theirs alone, and that they did not reflect the bishops’ own views. That would have solved the problem — New Line couldn’t claim the bishops approved of their film — without the need to remove (censor) the “offensive” review.

No matter what the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says, Catholic moviegoers (those who think for themselves, that is) will see “The Golden Compass” in their own way.

Some will be offended by it; others will enjoy it; others will be bored to tears by it. Forbes and Mulderig’s expressed *their* way of interpreting the film. That should be their right.

As you noted, Harry Forbes and John Mulderig are “the director and staff reviewer of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

The bishops’ website describes that office as follows: “The Office for Film and Broadcasting is responsible for reviewing and rating theatrical motion pictures, previewing and evaluating television programming as well as providing the Catholic public with information about the role of the entertainment and news media in influencing societal and personal values.”

Catholics look to these reviews for guidance in making their entertainment choices for themselves and their families. As one would expect, once this review was published, news organizations ran stories saying the Catholic bishops liked the film, and the studio began planning a massive marketing campaign to Catholics.

If a film critic employed by a Quaker organization praised a shoot-em-up Schwarzenegger film or a PETA film critic praised a film in which animal torture is presented as fun, you would justly say that they aren’t doing their jobs, and you would expect their bosses to take appropriate action. If a public relations director of a large corporation misrepresents his corporation’s views or policies to the public, swift correction (and perhaps a firing) would follow.