300

[Wisdom]

Your not alone as seeing this violent movie as being pro-western and worthy of some artiistic value. Christiantiy Today the conservative evangelical magazine gave it 3 out of 4 stars which is high rating for a violent R rated flick for them. They don’t easily dole out 3 stars for R rated flicks.
Funny thing is that this same Persion Emperor Xerxes that is presented as evil incarnate here is presented as some sort of Romeo to Esther’s Juliet in TBN’s god awful sappy “One Night with the King” So ok will the real Xerxes please stand up?

Is he the evil pagan warlord against western values or is he the merciful lover of Esther? Historians think the book of Esther went really soft on the guy of course Jewish historians point Esther as his queen but Greek Historians point to other wives. He probably had many wives and concubines and thus the orgy scene was not that far from the truth how to sqaure with the whitewashing or glossing over that Esther seems to have given him?

It is interesting that many of the church fathers who mentioned the book like Orgin doesn’t treat Esther as a historical character but type and anti-types of Christ and his church and many church fathers just fail to mention the book at all in many of the canonical list Esther is missing and the fathers themsevles rarely did a commentary on this book and when they did it was allegorical like Origen’s. Hey its in the Bible so it’s the word of God but how its to be treated is still a valid question as to it literal history or allegorical value to the early church. Many Rabbis left it off their canonical list as well and not until the 3rd century AD was it firmly in place for the Jews it had a lot of doubters to its historical aspects.

 

[beckers]

**Peterdiago

Thank you for the great review.

I watched this movie this weekend with 9 catholic men and 2 of us females. I have never felt more uncomfortable watching a movie. Thank God I didn’t go see it with my father. The sex/orgy scene with the deformed hunchback was absolutely horrible. There was no need for it. You could have had it implied about how corrupt the Persians were but we did not need to see women on top of other women or underneath the man. Some times LESS is more! The bloodshed could have been less but I knew it was bad and prepared myself. But seriously how many times do we have to see someone’s head or leg cut off???

I normal like historical movies as I was a history major in college. I love Gladiator and even liked Sin City (another movie shot in the comic book style) But this is a movie that I will not own nor will I ever see it again. The only good thing in it is the soundtrack!
**

 

[Peterdiago]

Sorry you were uncomfortable with the movie.

I tend to have the view that there is very little difference between the orgy scene which shows lesbianism (for example) and reading about homosexuality in the Bible. Both are clearly on the same moral level (by that I mean the homosexuality, not 300 and the Bible, obviously!)

In the story of Sodom, we are told that the men of Sodom were homosexual. In 300 we are shown that the conqubines of the Persians are certainly bisexual for pay. In terms of moral corruption, these two “civilizations” are on a par).

To say that “less is more” in only true in so far as the less does not get automatically “filled in” by the viewer. When I read the account of Sodom, I know what the men did - I am aware of what physical actions they performed. As when I read a history text which speaks of lesbian rites performed by pagan priestesses; the text does not need accompanying video for me to know what is going on.

Film is an essentially visual medium, and hence it is necessary to show these things. To have shied away from showing them would, I think, have implied that somehow humanity should not be aware of them.

The Bible uses every tool at is disposal to show the depravaty of Sodom. The film 300 uses some tools to show the depravity of the Persians.

As for violence - well, HAVE you read the Bible recently? There are scenes of 185,000 dead killed by an angel, if I recall the number correctly. That’s hideous and that is bloody. The Bible has the highest body count of any work of art (with the possible exception of the fourth Star Wars movie, A New Hope).

My personal view is that nudity, sex, violence and all these other things which can be immoral (and even things which are ALWAYS immoral) need to be shown in order to discuss them. If we are to discuss abortion, for example, we need to see it and understand it.

I do not consider that these things, when correctly presented in the right context, lead to inappropriate moral actions. I have seen no studies which suggest this at all.

I do realize, however, that there are those who disagree with me in general, and those who say “I would never watch a movie where two people - even Catholic husband and wife - were shown having sex because I know it would tempt me.”

I am, when it comes to sex, both blessed and cursed. I am a very sexually oriented person and find many people very attractive. Fortunately, following a number of indiscretions in my youth which lead to emotional pain and feelings of intense, crushing guilt on becoming a Catholic with regard to anything other than intermarital sex, I manage to keep my urges in check.

To translate: Did I think the Queen was cute? Heck yes, she was hot as you like. Was I even for a moment tempted to think of her as a sexual object and nothing more? If she had appeared in front of me and dropped her top and said “Take me” would I have done? Absolutely not.

Again, that is me - I realize there are people who are not like me. But I would urge all Christians to carefully consider going to see this movie - we cannot really reject it on grounds of violence if we do not reject the Passion on the same grounds. It is only sex that we have a problem with - and it presents a VERY Christian view of it.

 

[tac]

But I would urge all Christians to carefully consider going to see this movie…

Considering what you’ve written above about the movie, this is the most ridiculous and stupid thing you could possibly say. Have a little common decency. To describe in detail the sexual depravity depicted in the movie and then to advise Christians to see it - you need to seriously reevaluate your values in light of the cross. Think about those actors/actresses; that is, at least objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act to commit. Good moral theology says that a husband and wife who are engaged in the marital act are to cease at once if they are “walked in on” even at the risk of pollution. The Bible, while describing many evil things, for the most part, employs euphamistic language, because it’s evil to graphically describe such things. You should be ashamed of yourself, go to confession, talk with a priest, don’t rely on your own strength anymore unless you want to go to hell.

 

[Peterdiago]

Considering what you’ve written above about the movie, this is the most ridiculous and stupid thing you could possibly say.

Please don’t call me stupid - it’s impolite at least.

Think about those actors/actresses; that is, at least objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act to commit.

Is it? To appear naked and to illustrate what happened historically in a manner which absolutely does not promote sinful actions, but actively discourages them?

it’s evil to graphically describe such things.

I would like some support which is not just your own knee-jerk reaction to these things, please. It is not evil to graphically describe evil - if it were, then we would be unable to describe what evil actually is.

You should be ashamed of yourself, go to confession, talk with a priest, don’t rely on your own strength anymore unless you want to go to hell.

You should take a good, long, hard look at yourself. You just made a judgement about my soul - something you have no right, duty or even skill to do.

Where did I say or suggest I was relying on my own strength? I never did. I said that the movie illustrated a very positive message about where civilization came from.

Your words show that you have clearly not read what I wrote. You are more than likely projecting your own insecurities about seeing naked people on to me.

Let’s break this down very clearly - I live in a modern world where women walk around half-naked and where I am constantly bombarded with messages which say that it is okay to treat people as sexual objects and that violence is an acceptable solution.

A movie comes along which depicts violence and sex and does so in a manner which shows that they are NOT the way the secular world would have us believe. It promotes a pseudo-Christian use of violence and sex - something which is wholy in accord with the teachings of the Church.

The movie is not actually pornography, as the sex scenes are not designed for titilation - clearly not designed for that. They show sex for what it is; wonderful when used properly, terrible when not.

And for this you think I have sinned? Because I say that this movie is something Christians should know about?

You know what? I think every Catholic should read the Da Vinci Code - especially if they are going to complain about it. Every Catholic should know something about Masonry, and Wicca, and Islam.

Why? Because these are the things we need to understand if we are to resist them. You appear to be advocating a world where Christians simply know nothing about the world they live in, where Christians understand nothing of why and how terrible things happen.

And as for saying I need to get to Confession and I’m likely to end up in Hell because of this . . . do you have any authority to say such things? Or are you just pontificating in order to make yourself seem important? Right or wrong, you have no right to say those things, and I demand an apology.

 

[lizaanne]

You should be ashamed of yourself, go to confession, talk with a priest, don’t rely on your own strength anymore unless you want to go to hell.

I have typed several responses, all which required deletion because I don’t wish to have to end up in confession myself for being so uncharitable.

Yes indeed - my husband most certainly does deserve an apology from you. He is a good and Faithful man, and you have no place to make judgement on his soul.

~Liza

 

[tac]

I do apologize, because I was not trying to pass judgement on your husband’s soul, only on the advice that he’s given, but that definately did not come across in my post. I appreciate your willingness to be so kind to me. The intention I had was more along the lines of addressing the whole “I-can-resist-temptation” attitude. Not that he is on his way to hell, but that sort of attitude is certainly leads down a broad and easy path. I said “go to confession” more to emphasize the gravity of advice such as he was giving, rather than to literally emply that he was in a state of mortal sin, because I, of course cannot know that. The advice given, though, is shameful. And I cannot apologize for denouncing that, but I certainly do apologize for not being more carful in my phrasing of things.

 

[tac]

Sorry, I read the lady’s post first and then the one above. Yes, for an actor or an actress to expose their bodies and imitate sexual intercourse while being filmed, for the purpose of having others watch them is sinful. Your comments that in spite of this every Christian should consider seeing the movie, is stupid, but that does not mean that you are stupid, and I have no reason to believe that.

There is a difference between describing and graphically describing something sinful. I could say, “the Persians had those among them who practiced sexual deviency in the form of lesbianism,” that is one thing. Now I could probably even imply that sort of thing in a visual medium, and people would get my drift. However it is quite another to have other people take off their clothes roll around and mimic the sexual depravity while I film it, in order to get my point across. “To appear naked and to [GRAPHICALLY]illustrate what happened historically in a manner” certainly does encourage similar behavior, and to think otherwise is to espouse a very stupid idea that runs contrary to right reason, and practical experience. According to that mentality, why not have a married couple show their home movies during marriage prep? After all it is positively encouraging the right behavior and showing an accurate portrayal of what married life should be like, right? Nudity is one thing, but to have others have sex on screen is quite another. As for judging your soul, I do apologize if I did that, though it was not my intention as I said to your wife.

 

[Peterdiago]

“To appear naked and to [GRAPHICALLY]illustrate what happened historically in a manner” certainly does encourage similar behavior, and to think otherwise is to espouse a very stupid idea that runs contrary to right reason, and practical experience.

Care to offer a single shred of evidence for this?

While I certainly admit that pornography which shows casual sex in a consequenceless environment and as a good thing will encourage it, I fail to see how showing bad sex in a bad light will encourage it. That does NOT run counter to right reason and practical experience. The armed forces show videos of what happens if you have unprotected sex - and the amount of casual sex drops. People have showed videos of the consequences of casual sex, and casual sex rates drop.

300 shows bad sex in a VERY bad light. It shows those who practice it as physically ugly, evil, traitors. Those who practice good sex are married, have children, love each other and are pretty.

Unless you are going to argue that by seeing naked women men are going to become aroused and commit sexual sins . . . . and there I grant you a point.

To clarify, I would recommend Christians go see this movie UNLESS they are aware of the fact that seeing a few naked girls or guys is going to cause them uncontrolable temptation to sexual sin. However . . .

It’s not actually that graphic - frankly, I have seen more erotic things just flipping through the TV channels, or by picking up a magazine which is certainly NOT soft- or hard-core porn. Virtually everything is sold these days by slapping a semi-naked girl on it.

Yes, the women are naked from the waist up at times. I would suggest that if someone is lead into sexual temptation by seeing a naked woman then, no, he or she should not watch it.

But . . . and this is where I get a little preachy I don’t think that is really the case. The eroticism of the story is minimal, and would only, I think, be used as an excuse. Anyone who saw this and decided, for example, to masturbate because of it, is just looking for an excuse. These are the people who could take their wife’s clothing catalogue and open it to the swimsuit section.

In short, while the movie is erotic, so is walking down the street and looking at girls. There are women I know who are very, very beautiful - if I were looking for an excuse, I could certainly lust over them. I don’t - and neither do I lust over conqubines in 300.

Anyone who would can lust over anything, and probably would. Or, they have such temptations that merely to speak with a woman is dangerous. The former group have no sympathy from me - they are looking for something to blame their sexual indiscretions on. The latter group I feel very sorry for, as they have such a huge cross to bear it is maddening. Neither of these groups I would advise to see the movie.

But, I think these people are such a small minority it doesn’t matter.

Bottom line? If you are a guy who can stand to go to a pool party and not lust over every woman there, I think that you can watch this movie.

Note that I say THIS movie - I would not apply that to other movies. Especially not pornography. Because of the way this movie is shot, written and directed, it pushes a very definite concept of good sex = good, bad sex = bad (and, arguably, good violence = good, bad violence = bad). There are VERY few other movies that do that. I would NOT recommend any and all Christians to see, for example, Troy - despite the fact Troy shows less naked women.

Why? Because Troy shows heroes who are adulterers. THAT’s why. In 300, the guys that Christians would call bad get their commupance or are shown in a very negative light.

That’s my final analysis - but others may, of course, have a different view.

 

[tac]

I reply that there are two issues at the very center of this debate.

1. Having actors and actresses strip down with people who may or may not be their true and legitimate spouses and graphically imitate either marital intercourse or depraved acts for the purpose of being filmed and then shown to large groups of people for entertainment is objectively wrong and deserves neither support nor patronage from Catholics or any Christians.
2. To willingly and volunarily place oneself before images and sounds of a sexually explicit nature constitutes a near occassion of sin for a reason that is no more than self indulgence. To assert that one may watch people pretend to have sex without being concerned about one’s own concupiscence, is presumptious and stupid.

Ask yourselves this question, would the Blessed Virgin Mary buy a ticket to this movie?

 

[Peterdiago]

Having actors and actresses strip down with people who may or may not be their true and legitimate spouses and graphically imitate either marital intercourse or depraved acts for the purpose of being filmed and then shown to large groups of people for entertainment is objectively wrong and deserves neither support nor patronage from Catholics or any Christians.

Is it objectively wrong? Or is it objectively wrong when done for the specific purpose of creating lust? I do not consider that this movie falls into the category of pornography - rather, it is art.

Is it objectively wrong or right for people to pretend to do violence to each other for entertainment? If the answer is different to simulated sex, why?

To willingly and volunarily place oneself before images and sounds of a sexually explicit nature constitutes a near occassion of sin for a reason that is no more than self indulgence.

Again, I challenge the statement of self-indulgence.

To assert that one may watch people pretend to have sex without being concerned about one’s own concupiscence, is presumptious and stupid.

And there you go again making assumptions and calling me stupid. This is not polite, nor entirely appropriate.

You say I am not concerned with my concupiscence - which is a flat lie. I am concerned with my concupiscence, but I have come to the conclusion that I am not actually likely to sin because of it. In the same way when my wife says, “Oh, look at her dress!” I can look because I know that I am capable of looking at a woman without objectifying her under normal circumstances.

When sex is presented in such a hideous and distorted fashion, or in such a romantic and personal fashion, as it is in 300, I am confident that most men can watch it without difficulty. But I add the proviso that people who think they cannot should not.

Ask yourselves this question, would the Blessed Virgin Mary buy a ticket to this movie?

No, I would probably buy her a ticket and say, “Mary, this is a great movie which shows a legend of a group of men who died to make a better world. They suffered and lost their lives in order to protect something they believed in - and that thing is the very empire and philsophy that provided the fertile soil for your Son’s message to reach the rest of the world.”

That’s the point I wanted to make - without those 300 men, God would have had to find a different way to make His Church. And we have a film which I think displays that and gives a very Christian message to the world.

Yeah, it’s got some naked people in it. Guess what? So do a lot of the old masters . . .

 

[tac]

Yes, it is unequivicolly wrong to film people engaged in sexual activity for so-called art or entertainment, regardless of if the intention is to create lust. To assert that it is not is again a stupid proposition, but it does not mean I think you’re stupid.

Yes, it is self-indulgence to buy a ticket to a movie that you don’t have any true need to see other than to satisfy curiosity or satiate an appetite for pleasure of the mind or the senses, regardless of content.

Yes, it is a stupid thing to presumptiously assert that for yourself or others to voluntarily watch others engage in sexual intercourse or sexual depravity for the sake of art or the sake of self-indulgence and conclude that there is no proximate or immediate danger to one’s soul.

Yes, it is a blasphemous thing to offer a ticket to our Model of Purity, the Blessed Virgin.

And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Mirdath]

Uh, Peter, are you aware that the Persians of that time actually held religious beliefs a lot closer to yours than the Spartans? And that ‘too young to know the embrace of a woman’ meant nothing? Spartan induction into the military included knowing the embrace of another man pretty well, from about the age of 12.

 

[Durendin]

It’s also a self indulgence to purchase a computer with which you use to vent and espouse self-righteous clap-trap, but I’m quitely confident that I’ll be forgiven for that along with all the other bad things I’ve probably done by the measure of others.

As for 300? I can’t wait to see it. Peterdiago has pushed it further up my list and hopes are high after a remarkably wimpy year at the cinema with disappointments released “weakly!”

As for the beliefs of the Persians being similar to our own (Christianity), in so much as them following only one “god” it’s worth mentioning that Satanists also follow their one “god” and that’s perhaps a more apt description? Besides, history aside, it would appear that the Spartans have been made “early converts” to Western Christian conservative theory>

 

[tac]

Please explain how urging Catholics and other Christians not to see a movie that has scenes that are immoral and impure constitutes “self righteous clap trap.”

 

[Mirdath]

As for the beliefs of the Persians being similar to our own (Christianity), in so much as them following only one “god” it’s worth mentioning that Satanists also follow their one “god” and that’s perhaps a more apt description? Besides, history aside, it would appear that the Spartans have been made “early converts” to Western Christian conservative theory>

Satanists are just atheists with a provocative name and a philosophy rather reminiscent of Ayn Rand. There are some actual devil-worshippers out there but they’re few and far between. Ahura Mazda has a lot more in common with the Abrahamic God than he does with Satan – Zoroastrianism has its own supreme evil, Ahriman.

 

[Peterdiago]

Yes, it is unequivicolly wrong to film people engaged in sexual activity for so-called art or entertainment, regardless of if the intention is to create lust.

Care to offer a citation for this? I have asked for this several times. I believe you will find ones against pornography, but the definition is open to interpretation and I do not find that 300 falls into this category.

I have had experience with both 300 and pornography. I know that the former is not the later. I suspect that you have had experience with pornography as you live in the 21st century, but that you have not seen 300.

To assert that it is not is again a stupid proposition, but it does not mean I think you’re stupid.

As Christ said, “By their actions shall ye know them” - by saying repeatedly I do stupid things, you are saying I am stupid. Personally, knowing myself, I regard this with a sense of amusement.

Yes, it is self-indulgence to buy a ticket to a movie that you don’t have any true need to see other than to satisfy curiosity or satiate an appetite for pleasure of the mind or the senses, regardless of content.

By that argument it is self-indulgent to buy a computer, or indeed a second pair of shoes, or anything beyond the barest necessities of life. The vast majority of your wealth, and the wealth of the world, goes on satiating appetites for pleasure. Don’t get self-righteous with me, not when I witness the fact that you are, merely by responding with me, in possession of an article which demonstrates the fact that you are a hypocrite.

Yes, it is a stupid thing to presumptiously assert that for yourself or others to voluntarily watch others engage in sexual intercourse or sexual depravity for the sake of art or the sake of self-indulgence and conclude that there is no proximate or immediate danger to one’s soul.

As I said, I would ask you to offer evidence for this - and by evidence I mean something other than your repeated statements. Merely because you say something several times does not make it true.

There are certain people for whom the sight of a naked women causes them uncontrollable lust, or who will use it as an excuse. In exactly the same way as there are people who will have ONE alcoholic drink and then go and get so drunk they are sick.

Does that mean that the average person can see nudity and simulated sexual acts without commiting a sin? Yes, it does.

For the person who watches 300 in order to get sexually aroused, yes - that is a sin because they have taken deliberate actions to become aroused. For the person who watches it for the purpose the writer and director intended, no - that is not a sin. This movie was clearly not designed to promote sexual sin - if anything, it was designed for exactly the opposite.

To clarify my point, which you seem to have missed. Sex = good. Sex was created by God for sacred purposes - and in this movie we see it being used for that, and for profane purposes - which are presented in a bad light. To view a piece of art which depicts sexual acts for a purpose which is NOT to be sexually aroused is not a sin.

Can I ask - if you are male, do you wear a suit? You know - with shoulder pads? Those are specifically designed to enhance the width of your shoulders, which is a secondardy sexual characteristic of the male.

If female, do you wear a bra? Which is designed to make your breasts appear perkier and more youthful. Or wear lipstick - which is designed to mimic the sexual flush?

Heads up - we are surrounded by sexual signals all the time, and to suggest that watching something which differs only by degree is sinful in and of itself is simply not accurate. The sin comes in deliberately seeking it out for a sinful purpose.

I say again - the sin is in the intent, NOT in the act itself. If a person can genuinely say “I am watching 300 - a movie which is not created specifically for sexual arousal - for reasons other than sexual gratification” then there is no sin there. Provided, of course, they are not watching it for some other sinful purpose.

Yes, it is a blasphemous thing to offer a ticket to our Model of Purity, the Blessed Virgin.

So you say. Might I ask, what precisely do you base that on? You will notice that I did not answer for her when you asked the question - I said what I would do. And she could accept, refuse, rebuke me or whatever.

You, on the other hand, answer for a woman born without Original Sin.

Is that not pride, that you think you can answer for her. I said what I would do - you say what she would.

And yes, you should be ashamed of yourself.

And so should you - by your own admission, you say you consider it wrong to spend $12 on a ticket to see a movie to be entertained. You have probably spent far more than that on entertainment in your life.

 

[Peterdiago]

Uh, Peter, are you aware that the Persians of that time actually held religious beliefs a lot closer to yours than the Spartans?

Firstly, I never said that the Persian beliefs or the Spartan beliefs were accurately reflected in the movie, nor that they chime with modern pagan thought and modern Christian thought.

What I said was that as presented they did. The movie is a piece of fiction, and should therefore be treated as such.

And that ‘too young to know the embrace of a woman’ meant nothing? Spartan induction into the military included knowing the embrace of another man pretty well, from about the age of 12.

It means everything. This is what the MOVIE said - not the accuracy. Didn’t I post a comment about the homosexuality of the Spartans? I’m sure I did. I remember typing it as I felt it was important.

So, to clarify - yes, I know a great deal about the religous practices of the Persians and the Spartans. It appears I know more than you - as you seem to think that “the Persians” (did you note the “1000 nations” in the description of them in the movie?) were a single group. They were a federation of many states and worshipped MANY gods. They were pagans which, as we all know, is a form of demon worship.

But, the key point is not historical accuracy - if that were the case, I would be complaining about far more than religious problems. Such as the fact no-one spoke Greek and the fact that the Spartans weren’t wearing armour, and the fact that they didn’t have “squires” and the fact that . . .

Need I go on?

It’s also a self indulgence to purchase a computer with which you use to vent and espouse self-righteous clap-trap

Ouch, man! BURN!

Seriously, thanks for the defence and that, but . . . that was some put down. Yeowch . . . . perhaps a shade harsh there.

Thanks, though.

Peterdiago has pushed it further up my list and hopes are high after a remarkably wimpy year at the cinema with disappointments released “weakly!”

I think you will enjoy it.

Besides, history aside, it would appear that the Spartans have been made “early converts” to Western Christian conservative theory>

Which was the point I wanted to make with my original post. But, you know me. I blaspheme the Virgin Mary and do stupid things - what do I know?

Satanists are just atheists with a provocative name and a philosophy rather reminiscent of Ayn Rand.

That simply isn’t true - and shows the limitation of your knowledge. Satanists are not athiests and certainly believe in spirits and supernatural powers.

Ahura Mazda has a lot more in common with the Abrahamic God than he does with Satan

Other than the fact that Ahura Mazda = Satan. But beyond that, they are totally different

Zoroastrianism has its own supreme evil, Ahriman.

Ahriman is NOT equivalent to Satan, not at all. Zoroastrianism teaches something closer to dualism, a sense of waring powers of good and evil - which is NOT what Christianity teaches at all.

 

[tac]

A few things.

First, I’m not necessarily saying that self-indulgence is always a bad thing. My typing on this computer, is not necessary, my going to a movie is not necessary, but this does not make them bad, they are licit. One may even view something sinful, such as fornication, if one’s duty requires it, so long as one takes no pleasure in seeing the act. An example of this may be a police officer who must arrest a exhibitionist couple. However, one may not watch others have sexual relations for a reason that is not proportionately grave. This is the context in which I was using “self indulgence”. This reasoning is consonant with traditional orthodox Catholic moral teaching, such as Fr. Herebert Jone’s Moral Theology which has been a standard work for about 75 years.

As far as a citation for the sinfulness of watching others have sex, I again site traditional orthodox Catholic moral teaching. As I said before, a married Catholic couple licitly engaged in marital relations has a moral obligation to immediately cease in the event they are “walked in on” even though there be a certain danger of “spilling the seed”, and regardless of the non-pornographic nature of the act. However the idea that one may licitly watch others engage in sex is ludicrous in light of such teaching. Sexual intercourse portrayed is not a valid subject for art, regardless of if it is intended to be pornographic or not. Showing a nude and showing a couple in coitius are not the same.

Finally are you aware that the traditional and orthodox teaching of the Church is that any willful sin against purity is a mortal sin? Knowing that the sexual apetite, especially in our culture, is one of the hardest to control, why would anyone willingly and knowingly place themselves in a situation that is so greviously dangerous to one’s eternal salvation? To watch people having sex, even if it’s “good sex” is something that is sexually stimulating. To give into that stimulus is mortally sinful according to the teaching of the Church. In the act of contrition we pray, “I firmly resolve to sin no more and to AVOID THE NEAR OCCASION OF SIN.” Watching other people have sex, even if it weren’t sinful, constitutes a near occassion of sin for 99.99% of humanity.

To advocate for a variation of the fundamental option theory in such a case as this specific one is heresy, and if we take blasphemy to be a gross irreverence towards something or someone held as sacred or invioble, then yes for you to even offer a ticket to such a movie to the Blessed Virgin, as is your desire to watch others have “good sex” in the context of a good movie.

 

[Peterdiago]

However the idea that one may licitly watch others engage in sex is ludicrous in light of such teaching.

Which isn’t what I watched What I watched was an actor and an actress perform moves which are designed to show a stylistic depiction of sex.

As a man familiar with sex, I know what the act looks like. It does NOT look like it does in 300, or in practically any movie. In fact, it doesn’t even look like it does in pornography.

To be honest, the sex in 300 is veyr unrealistic - like the violence. It is stylized for artistic effect.

Have people heard of the tango? The dance which is, essentially, a series of stylized steps and moves which are designed to mimic seduction and sex? The vast majority of our dances (even the ones which are considered perfectly fine) for couples are based around stylized sexual behaviour.

The problem you have with this is the fact it is overt - that is all.

Sexual intercourse portrayed is not a valid subject for art, regardless of if it is intended to be pornographic or not.

I challenge utterly. Sex is part of the natural cycle of life and to suggest that art cannot reflect that suggests that there is something inherently dangerous about it. There is not.

Showing a nude and showing a couple in coitius are not the same.

Wholly agreed. Just as a matter of interest, would you consider it appropriate to show a couple post-coitus? It would be obvious what had just occured, but would that be permissible?

Finally are you aware that the traditional and orthodox teaching of the Church is that any willful sin against purity is a mortal sin?

Yep.

Did you expect more? I do not consider this to be a sin against purity in any circumstance.

Knowing that the sexual apetite, especially in our culture, is one of the hardest to control, why would anyone willingly and knowingly place themselves in a situation that is so greviously dangerous to one’s eternal salvation?

I would not willingly place myself in such a situation - and watching 300 is not such a situation. So, your question has no need of an answer from me.

To watch people having sex, even if it’s “good sex” is something that is sexually stimulating.

And now we come to it!

You can, of course, only speak of your own personal experience with any reliability - this means that YOU find watching couples have sex to be stimulating regardless of the circumstances. The fact is, I don’t. Is it beautiful? It is attractive? Can I appreciate the beauty of the human form engaged in it? Yes - but am I stimulated?

Not to a degree greater than when a pretty girl walks by on the street.

Watching other people have sex, even if it weren’t sinful, constitutes a near occassion of sin for 99.99% of humanity.

Do you have a support for that statistic? Or do you mean “most”? Or do you actually mean “It does for me under all circumstances - even for movies I have not seen, well, if I am being honest I mean I think it does - and therefore it must apply to the majority?”

Let me tell you what I thought and did while watching the movie and afterwards - I saw the Oracle scene and considered “That is done in a water tank, that is how they have got that effect” and “I am surprised that the actress has natural breasts - that is unusual for Hollywood”. I then realized that this naturalism was a choice made because of the era of the film.

When watching the sex scene between the husband and wife I thought “This is an excellent depiction of the spousal right and a very good, and essential, counterpoint to the evil of the priests earlier.”

When watching the orgy scene, I was shocked and horrified by the depictions of physical deformity in conqubines, and considered that this reflected on the moral and social corruption of the Persians as they found such ugliness attractive.

During the “rape” scene, I considered the juxtaposition of the wife’s love for her husband causing her to betray him in order to protect him and their nation.

To get to brass tacks, at no point did I become physiologically aroused. I remember these scenes now and do not actually find them sexually arousing - because THEY WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THAT WAY.

That is the key point I have been trying to make here. To use a recent analogy, Anna-Nicole Smith recently died. She was a very beautiful woman and posed for a number of very racy pictures and videos. Those would be arousing, as they are specifically designed to be so to a healthy person.

But, pictures of her immediately after death would not be - as they are not shot to be so.

My wife is very, very beautiful indeed. Yet I can look at her without arousal because she does not act in a manner which is designed to elicit that response constantly. Even when she is nude, I can look at her without arousal most of the time, unless she is tying to elicit that response.

My point is very simple - that, as you pointed out above, nudity is not the same as coitus, and arousal is NOT an inevitable consequence of nudity or even depictions of sex.

(continued)