I wrote about actor Neal McDonough’s trouble with ABC back in March and received one of the biggest responses ever to a story because he was standing up for his religious beliefs. You may recall the post (No Sex Please, I’m Neal McDonough): how he was suddenly replaced 3 days into the filming on the ABC series Scoundrels in a move officially explained as a casting change. But, in fact, McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes because he’s a family man and a Catholic, and he’s always made it clear that he won’t do sex scenes. And ABC knew that. Well, a lot of people who applauded Neal wanted to know what he’ll be doing next. Of course, he’s co-starring in Marvel’s Captain America movie currently shooting in London. But now I hear McDonough has co-created and will executive produce and star in VIGILANTE PRIEST, a one hour drama for Starz which is fast-tracking the project.
I hear the series was his own idea, and he will co-create it with Law & Order vet Walon Green who will also exec produce and write. John Avnet also will be executive producing and directing the pilot. McDonough will take on the title role: an ex-cop turned priest who is cleaning up the streets of Los Angeles “one sinner at a time”. I continue to applaud the Band Of Brothers and Desperate Housewives standout for sticking to his principles even if it has cost him jobs.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Good for him, nice to see he’s moving on. His Starz show sounds quite interesting.
Why is everyone applauding this guy? Dude signed on for a job he was not willing to do. Unprofessional.
If you read the article, he made it abundantly clear to ABC that he would not do sex scenes. So it was ABC who was trying to change the rules. Finaly, a man of principle in Hollyweird. Thank God!
No applause needed. First, he knew reading the script for Scoundrels that he would be required to act out a sex scene. He had a choice before taking the role.
Second, a vigilante priest? PLEASE!!! What an insult to the faithful. When did Jesus preach vigilantism? NEVER.
This sounds like 1980s dreck.
Well, considering how much Scoundrels sucked I’d say McDonough came out the winner in this one.
In the entertainment news cycle controlled by Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton’s hair extensions, this news is a welcome break. Thanks for the update!
He has done great work on Desperate Housewives and Band of Brothers.
Good for Neal! Living well is the best revenge.
As long as everybody knows the deal beforehand, I really don’t see the problem with actors (or anyone) setting parameters about what kind of work they will or won’t do. He’ll never make the A-list that way, but even somebody like Ashton Kutcher, who does everything the “right” way, isn’t guaranteed to crack that. If doing it all the “wrong” way makes McDonough happy, so be it.
Well considering that most so called A-listers are bombing at the movies these days, It’s not such a prestigious list to be on. I’d much rather watch Neal than someone like Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Matt Damon anyway.
Right On~ I never heard of this actor before. After reading about Neal , I am now looking forward to giving this show ( and any other films/television he is in) a chance.
Also Minority Report standout. Solid actor and good for him for standing up for what he believes in.
Has this happened before in the industry?
Jim Caviezel is actually a pretty similar situation. I remember reading how he asked to tone down the sex scenes with Jennifer Lopez in Angel Eyes.
Good for him, he didn’t lose much by being fired from Scoundrels anyway, it got mixed to poor reviews and didn’t do much in the ratings, I hope his new project is a winner, I will be watching for it.
yeah…sounds horrible. but good for him!
Glad to see a guy take a stand and get rewarded, but “Vigilante Priest” must take advantage of the “Red Dead Redemption” morality clause in the Bible then. Don’t sleep around, but bringing the baddies to justice (violently) is cool.
Double agree. I’ve never understood the blowing-people-is-bad-blowing-people-away-is-good wing of Christianity.
That made me laugh. (And I’m a Christian)
I can see your point. However, I do not see a contradiction in his thought process. To engage in an actual love scene requires the act of being in some for of sexual contact. To portray a violent scene is not actually engaging in causing the other actor physical harm. Perhaps I am wrong but it is how I see it.
Patrick Mcgoohan was originally offered the role of James Bond but it went against his religious beliefs to play someone so sexually bankrupt that he turned it down and made The Prisoner himself. Retrospect is a good way to judge whether you were true to yourself. When asked if he regretted his decision to not play 007, he smiled and said, “Never.”
If you can’t separate yourself from the character you play maybe acting isn’t the job for you. Maybe actually becoming a priest is the way to go. Just saying.
Agreed.
Agreed as well. He and others in his situation do realize that the sex is not real, right?
That’s just silly.
Many (even well known) actors wouldn’t want to do gay sex scenes. Does that mean acting isn’t the job for them?
Perhaps even Orson Welles was wrong in becoming a director, since he couldn’t stand sex in films?
Neal’s a good guy. The posters here having no knowledge of the man or his beliefs need to leave him be…
And we won’t do gay sex scenes cause they are stomach-turning. I’ve been offered two in my career and turned both down. The money wasn’t worth the emotional distress it would cause my children (let alone wife, mom, in-laws, etc.) and I, financially, really needed the first offer.
Don’t know how Carrey did it, but that was his choice, these were my choices and this is Neal’s choice. (for all you pro-choicers out there)
Refusing to do sex scenes on moral grounds is hardly an “inability to separate yourself from the character.” In character or out of character, he’s still rolling around mostly naked with a woman who is not his wife. It’s not any different from a PETA-supporter refusing to wear fur for a role.
Except that there is such a thing as faux fur actresses can wear. If Neal could muster some faux kisses, he could have fulfilled his legal contract — but that would be acting, wouldn’t it?
Seriously, that’s just stupid. People pick and choose their parts all the time.
OK so he wont do sex but violence is OK. Wow I am really impressed by his morality and religious conviction.
Funny. He had no problem whatsoever playing a vicious, psychotic killer who did despicable things to people.
But I guess that fits his “parameters.”
I agree with This guy – acting may not be the job for Neal.
Agreed totally .. it’s the first thing I thought of. How many times does the “I won’t play gay” thing come up but people have no problem playing ‘murderer’ ‘rapist’ ‘robber’ ‘cheater’ etc. Ridiculous cherry-picking version of morality so common these days.
When there are hundreds/thousands of other talented actors in the world who don’t have any problems playing various scenes, why Hollywood puts up with this kind of thing is beyond me. Sorry, I just don’t think Neal D is talented enough to be so persnickety and still get work.
There is a real and fundamental distinction between pretending to be a crazed drug dealer and actually being one, pretending to be a crazed killer and actually being one, in the former they will use baking soda as a prop whereas in the later it is for real, they will use ketchup for blood whereas in the later it is real blood. This distinction breaks down with sex scenes. There is no fundamental distinction between performing a sexual act on screen or when performing a sexual act off screen, it is still a sexual act with both having the same moral content, namely this person is not my wife and I will not give her my body because I am committed singularly to my wife or future wife in this way. Would you mock him if he was asked to actually murder someone on screen to make it “look” more real and he said “No” because it against my faith? Of course not. Your accusation of him being a hypocrite does not hold up in light of this since a hypocrite is one who does not know the difference between what is real and not real and so they pretend to be someone or something they are not. Neal is willing to be real enough to NOT pretend with his faith. Far from being a hypocrite, he is just being real. If you cannot see that, then one wonders if you know the difference, and if you don’t, then the classical definition of hypocrite would apply to you. You may want to actually reconsider your nomenclature and your lack of clarity.
Marcus
Wrong-o. You’re missing the point. He’s a hypocrite because he said one thing and did another. He said he’d play the role with all that entailed — then refused, walked away, and screwed the production.
THAT’s the breach of ethics in question, none other.
Honestly, you can’t tell the difference between reality and not? It’s NOT the acting. It’s the sexual contact. How many accidental erections have been caught on film? How would that affect and effect his life? For the worse? For the better? Within that context, it makes sense to bow out. You don’t really knock people around when you pretend on film. It’s all slight of the hand.
However, looking at TV, where things like sex scenes dominate in television for a little T&A ratings titillation, it makes sense to draw a line that violates his marriage and family vows. Turn on daytime TV, notice how man love scenes are scripted. Turn on an adult centered drama, notice how many times people slip between the sheets. Look at the Bachelor, Average Joe, I Love [insert name here]. Sex sells and as consumers we binge on it. As a human, it’s better to avoid temptation then dive head long and lose everything important for a day’s worth of work and two minutes screen time. And I say this as a non-Christian.
It’s not that terribly difficult to figure out.
Nada…if you’d have READ the article mentioning why he left Scoundrels you’d have learned ABC knew he wouldn’t do sex scenes and hired him anyway. Then they tried to make him do it and he refused. If anyone breached their ethics, it was ABC not the actor.
YAY beliefs YAY!
Making this about religious freedom is a slippery slope. If he had refused to go on set during an episode that was in some way approving of choice re abortion due to the same religious beliefs, would the tone of this piece be different? Probably.
He wasn’t fired because of his religious beliefs. He was fired because he refused to do sex scenes on Network TV. (And sex scenes on Network are hardly graphic in nature.).
Everbody makes their choices. Good for him for making his. But Joan of Arc it ain’t.
Yes, yes, yes.
The problem was that he took the job on Scoundrels having read the script, and then did two table reads so he clearly knew what was required and should have passed before ever starting. Not stating he has morals after the fact. It was actually very much without morals.
The fact is we don’t know when he got the script or what he knew when he signed on. What we DO KNOW, is that he’s worked with ABC before and we DO KNOW ABC was aware he didn’t do sex scenes. So if ABC was going to need someone who roll around with some skank, they shouldn’t have hired a guy who doesn’t do sex scenes. You smell what I’m steppin’ on?
Ever since I first saw Neal in BOB I have been waiting for him to breakout. I guess the only thing that can hold you back in Hollywood is your morals, lol!
I liked this show better when it was called HELL TOWN, starring Robert Blake.
So refreshing that someone has values and integrity to stand up for what they believe. Mr. Mcdonough has been a parishioner in my Church for years. Also refreshing to have a positive Catholic in the news instead of “Catholic” Mel Gibson whose Church isn’t even recognized by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
So this show is going to be a live-action Americanized version of “Monsignor Martinez” from King of the Hill?
Well done Neal, it’s really rare to see someone standing up to their beliefs when they have to take the fall. And his series sounds a bit like Angel to me.
To say he was fired for his religious beliefs is a distortion of what actually happened. If an actor is hired to play a certain type of role, he has to do it. Or he shouldn’t be hired. Or allow himself to be hired.
And I’ve known quite a few Catholic “family men” who’ll play the Upstanding Citizen Role in public, but who in private is anything but. (I went to Catholic School. I know.) Incredible that people still buy into that sort of b.s. Won’t we ever learn? McDonough should probably run for office.
Well, McDonough may be a saint in real life for all I know, but his new series sounds ungodly awful. A priest getting rid of sin in the streets of Los Angeles. I hope he begins his work within the Catholic Church, which is in dire need of a thorough cleaning up.
So this mildly talented actor is so invested in an ancient novel’s hero that he refuses to do his job and some people actually applaud him??
PLEASE tell me this praise is sarcastic.
Anyone that refuses to acknowledge the modern world and accurately portray the human condition in the name of art…
Well, they should be treated as the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. With contempt and scorn.
It must be very hard to be a working actor but still try to follow a strict personal code. It seems to me there was a wider variety of middle-of-the-road characters written in decades past (i.e., the 50s-80s). Now the “dark” thing has so taken over, + the mainstreaming of porn, that I wonder how many roles are possible for an actor who doesn’t want to do cynical or overly-sexy stuff.