D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Thank you.
- Status
P
paul11b
Guest
You are quite welcome!
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Joseph,
I think you misrepresent the CAF answer given about luxurious living. The reply was that there is not necessarily anything sinful about it. That is quite different than saying it is not sinful. The Gospel speaks quite clearly about the need for detachment from earthly things and the call to earthly poverty. This calls goes out to every Christian, although we are not all called to live it out in the same manner. I would highly recommend the book: Happy are you poor by Thomas Dubay.
I would again suggest that you are again doing what you accuse me of- making absolute statements based on your own opinion that are not necessarily true. Saying “there is nothing wrong with wanting lots of stuff for Christmas” is a very difficult assertion to support without knowing: what stuff does the person want and why do they want it.
The comments from the film critic you posted are interesting. I do approach his analysis cautiously, as it is unlikely a film critic will reach the conclusion people shouldn’t watch flims, at least not without finding another line of work. There is a built in bias because of his field. It is why scholars who specialize in the historical critical method and analyze the OT books are biased against reaching the conclusion “Moses wrote the Pentateuch” and moving on…because they would be out of work, if their work is spending a life time trying to track down various “sources” for the books.
That doesn’t mean what he has to say shouldn’t be considered, but it important to keep someone’s perspective in mind.
His comments on nudity and pornography seem to be a bit mixed. Schiendler’s List is good because the nudity is non-sexual. But it has sexual nudity…but it is still good because we don’t have to agree with everything in film. What about the actors- who performed real or simulated sexual acts with each other while naked? Are they exempt from the 6th and 9th commandments because they are actors? When an author writes a book, the ficitional characters don’t actually do the sins in the book…because they are fictional characters. This holds true in some cases in performance arts- a “murder” doesn’t really kill anyone, but when it comes to sexual acts, much of what is portrayed…IS actually done. We must remember that any willful and knowing arousal of the sexual passions outside of marriage is a mortal sin. The act doesn’t need to be completed for it to be wrong.
The link mentioned that Vatican II called for wholesome entertainment for youth. I completely agree. Entertainment doesn’t need to include TV or movies, so there is no requirement from the council for Catholics to support either, at least not that has been brought forward.
Thank you again for providing the information. It is good food for thought.
On a somewhat tangential note, I found it very interesting that It’s a Wonderful Life ended up on the recommended film’s list. It is a moving film. At the same time, it has totally wrong theology with regards to angels- that angels were men.
It’s also important to note that those “Vatican approved films” are not really Church approved. They are suggested by members of the Church who happen to be at the Vatican. There is nothing authoritative about the recommendation at least as far as I can tell. It is like people who say “the Church says Harry Potter is fine” because there was a positive review in a Vatican newspaper. Well there were also negative reviews. And none of those reviews are part of the teaching magisterium of the Church.
Pax Christi and God bless
I think you misrepresent the CAF answer given about luxurious living. The reply was that there is not necessarily anything sinful about it. That is quite different than saying it is not sinful. The Gospel speaks quite clearly about the need for detachment from earthly things and the call to earthly poverty. This calls goes out to every Christian, although we are not all called to live it out in the same manner. I would highly recommend the book: Happy are you poor by Thomas Dubay.
I would again suggest that you are again doing what you accuse me of- making absolute statements based on your own opinion that are not necessarily true. Saying “there is nothing wrong with wanting lots of stuff for Christmas” is a very difficult assertion to support without knowing: what stuff does the person want and why do they want it.
The comments from the film critic you posted are interesting. I do approach his analysis cautiously, as it is unlikely a film critic will reach the conclusion people shouldn’t watch flims, at least not without finding another line of work. There is a built in bias because of his field. It is why scholars who specialize in the historical critical method and analyze the OT books are biased against reaching the conclusion “Moses wrote the Pentateuch” and moving on…because they would be out of work, if their work is spending a life time trying to track down various “sources” for the books.
That doesn’t mean what he has to say shouldn’t be considered, but it important to keep someone’s perspective in mind.
His comments on nudity and pornography seem to be a bit mixed. Schiendler’s List is good because the nudity is non-sexual. But it has sexual nudity…but it is still good because we don’t have to agree with everything in film. What about the actors- who performed real or simulated sexual acts with each other while naked? Are they exempt from the 6th and 9th commandments because they are actors? When an author writes a book, the ficitional characters don’t actually do the sins in the book…because they are fictional characters. This holds true in some cases in performance arts- a “murder” doesn’t really kill anyone, but when it comes to sexual acts, much of what is portrayed…IS actually done. We must remember that any willful and knowing arousal of the sexual passions outside of marriage is a mortal sin. The act doesn’t need to be completed for it to be wrong.
The link mentioned that Vatican II called for wholesome entertainment for youth. I completely agree. Entertainment doesn’t need to include TV or movies, so there is no requirement from the council for Catholics to support either, at least not that has been brought forward.
Thank you again for providing the information. It is good food for thought.
On a somewhat tangential note, I found it very interesting that It’s a Wonderful Life ended up on the recommended film’s list. It is a moving film. At the same time, it has totally wrong theology with regards to angels- that angels were men.
It’s also important to note that those “Vatican approved films” are not really Church approved. They are suggested by members of the Church who happen to be at the Vatican. There is nothing authoritative about the recommendation at least as far as I can tell. It is like people who say “the Church says Harry Potter is fine” because there was a positive review in a Vatican newspaper. Well there were also negative reviews. And none of those reviews are part of the teaching magisterium of the Church.
Pax Christi and God bless
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
St. Clare of Assisi never watched television during her earthly life. She died in 1253.
Pope Pius XII declared her Patroness of Television because she had visions of the Mass on her wall when she was too ill to attend Mass.
That is a long way from any kind of endorsement of any present day television program.
Pax
Pope Pius XII declared her Patroness of Television because she had visions of the Mass on her wall when she was too ill to attend Mass.
That is a long way from any kind of endorsement of any present day television program.
Pax
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
DAN DALY WROTE: “I think you misrepresent the CAF answer given about luxurious living. The reply was that there is not necessarily anything sinful about it. That is quite different than saying it is not sinful. The Gospel speaks quite clearly about the need for detachment from earthly things and the call to earthly poverty. I would highly recommend the book: Happy are you poor by Thomas Dubay.”
“And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm
DAN DALY WROTE: “Saying “there is nothing wrong with wanting lots of stuff for Christmas” is a very difficult assertion to support without knowing: what stuff does the person want and why do they want it.”
- I must point out that poverty is not a good in and of itself. The Church does not teach this. Priests and nuns sometimes take vows of poverty to eliminate distractions from their worship of God. But such vows are entirely VOLUNTARY. Those who are not priests and nuns are most certainly not required to take such vows.
“And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm
- Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia under the section entitled “Poverty:”
newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm
- The entry goes on to make the voluntary nature of evangelical poverty perfectly clear. Just follow the link. Unless one is being specifically called by God do extraordinary giving, or to take a vow of poverty as priests and nuns often do, NO ONE is required to give all they own away and live in poverty. This is quite wrong.
DAN DALY WROTE: “Saying “there is nothing wrong with wanting lots of stuff for Christmas” is a very difficult assertion to support without knowing: what stuff does the person want and why do they want it.”
- People generally want stuff for Christmas because it’s FUN. What other reason is there? Unless you specifically KNOW that someone is wanting porn magazines, or handguns, or other potentially sinful and dangerous things for Christmas (which is just plain evil),it seem bizarre to have any suspicions in this area at all. Books, toys and clothes are NOT sinful in themselves. This just strikes me as suspicion for the sake of suspicion, and it is wrong.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
DAN DALY WROTE: “I do approach his (Greydanus’) analysis cautiously, as it is unlikely a film critic will reach the conclusion people shouldn’t watch flims, at least not without finding another line of work. There is a built in bias because of his field.”
“I do not think that responsible adult Catholics today should consider themselves bound by any one verdict on movies. In 1960, for example, the” Legion of Decency” condemned Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. I have no quarrel with anyone who mounts a moral critique of Psycho. But I don’t think that putting Psycho on a list of films that Catholics are expected to vow not to see is the best way to serve Catholic or public moral standards.”
“In the past I’ve done some writing for the OFB myself, including classifying at least two films as morally offensive for the bishops. I can thus confidently say that the classifications of the OFB, like its predecessor the Legion of Decency and like my own ratings here at Decent Films, are a matter of individual judgment and opinion. The fundamental difference is that these decisions are no longer considered binding on individual Catholics, as they once were at least for those Catholics who took an annual vow to avoid offensive films — meaning, of course, films condemned by the Legion. Particular OFB classifications can, have and sometimes should be questioned by individual Catholics.”
“I certainly don’t want even individuals, let alone groups, taking vows not to see movies that I — or frankly anyone else — has classified as offensive. The only people on the planet bound by any decisions of mine live under my own roof.”
(I myself, for example, enjoyed the very dark film “Black Swan.” This film can be rather nasty at times. There is even a very unpleasant lesbian sex scene, which I don’t care for at all. I most certainly did not get the film for those reasons. I watched it because it was well-made and artistically significant. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anybody who is old enough to deal with the issues presented within it. Greydanus makes this point, too. Children watch children films. But adults are certainly not restricted by our Church to watch films only suitable for children. Hence the 1995 Vatican film list. A film must be age-appropriate to the person watching it. Even if a film has unpleasant sexual themes like “Black Swan,” the overall purpose of the film is to present an art story, told with sophistication. I would never recommend such a film to a child. But to an adult, certainly.)
decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms.html - I suggest you read the ENTIRE essay here. Especially the section on sexuality toward the bottom. It should answer your questions about sexuality/nudity in any given film.
- On the other hand, for there even to EXIST a Catholic film critic at all should be a clear sign that the Church doesn’t have any particular vendetta against films. I see no reason for suspicion in this area at all. Steven Greydanus has written film reviews for the USCCB itself – he talks about it on his homepage “Decent Films:” decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-9/4
=====================================================================================
“I do not think that responsible adult Catholics today should consider themselves bound by any one verdict on movies. In 1960, for example, the” Legion of Decency” condemned Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho. I have no quarrel with anyone who mounts a moral critique of Psycho. But I don’t think that putting Psycho on a list of films that Catholics are expected to vow not to see is the best way to serve Catholic or public moral standards.”
“In the past I’ve done some writing for the OFB myself, including classifying at least two films as morally offensive for the bishops. I can thus confidently say that the classifications of the OFB, like its predecessor the Legion of Decency and like my own ratings here at Decent Films, are a matter of individual judgment and opinion. The fundamental difference is that these decisions are no longer considered binding on individual Catholics, as they once were at least for those Catholics who took an annual vow to avoid offensive films — meaning, of course, films condemned by the Legion. Particular OFB classifications can, have and sometimes should be questioned by individual Catholics.”
“I certainly don’t want even individuals, let alone groups, taking vows not to see movies that I — or frankly anyone else — has classified as offensive. The only people on the planet bound by any decisions of mine live under my own roof.”
“Immorality in movies and other entertainment is certainly an individual and social problem that the Church ought to address. However, the idea of renewing an annual pledge not to see indecent films doesn’t strike me as a workable or advisable idea. Among other things, it presupposes a commonly agreed-upon, workable standard of which movies are or aren’t decent, which we aren’t going to get. Whatever moral consensus may have existed in the first half of the twentieth century about decency and indecency is long since gone.”
Greydanus again makes the point that our understanding of what makes “good programming” may change over time, or be completely different than other people’s understandings. This is nothing to worry about. There is no cut-and dried answer as to what makes “good” programming and what does not. Being afraid of going to Hell for watching films or television with sexual or violent content is utterly ridiculous. It is good to try to find “decent” films that are not outright pornography. But there is no readily-agreed upon consensus for what such films should precisely consist OF.(I myself, for example, enjoyed the very dark film “Black Swan.” This film can be rather nasty at times. There is even a very unpleasant lesbian sex scene, which I don’t care for at all. I most certainly did not get the film for those reasons. I watched it because it was well-made and artistically significant. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anybody who is old enough to deal with the issues presented within it. Greydanus makes this point, too. Children watch children films. But adults are certainly not restricted by our Church to watch films only suitable for children. Hence the 1995 Vatican film list. A film must be age-appropriate to the person watching it. Even if a film has unpleasant sexual themes like “Black Swan,” the overall purpose of the film is to present an art story, told with sophistication. I would never recommend such a film to a child. But to an adult, certainly.)
decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms.html - I suggest you read the ENTIRE essay here. Especially the section on sexuality toward the bottom. It should answer your questions about sexuality/nudity in any given film.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
DAN DALY WROTE: “It’s also important to note that those “Vatican approved films” are not really Church approved…There is nothing authoritative about the recommendation at least as far as I can tell. It is like people who say “the Church says Harry Potter is fine” because there was a positive review in a Vatican newspaper. Well there were also negative reviews. And none of those reviews are part of the teaching magisterium of the Church.”
- Just the fact that the Vatican HAS a “1995 film list” strongly indicates that the Church’s view on films is far less severe than many other people’s. The Church has not condemned any particular film. As Greydanus points out, the Magisterium has never formally declared that watching a particular type of film is a mortal sin (except, of course, for pure, unadulterated pornography). If you are looking for documentation supporting that we can’t watch certain films, you will never find it. It does not exist. The only significant Church documents on the subject of films are those that SUPPORT movie and television media (Inter Mirifica, The 1995 Vatican Film List). And John Paul II’s words in his Letter to Artists still stand: “Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption.” (10)
- If there is a Patron Saint for television, then television is most certainly not considered evil by our Church in and of itself. As stated, there are absolutely no official Church documents condemning television or film as “intrinsic evils.” If television WASN’T some kind of overall good, I have a hard time seeing how there could EVER be a Patron Saint for it. Things that actually ARE evil don’t receive Patron Saints. There are no Patron Saints of Porn, for example. This would be utterly ridiculous.
D
domandcarols
Guest
M
Megan7
Guest
I love this post!
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Thank you for the reply. I think you may have misunderstood my earlier post. I have not said and do not believe that everyone must take simple or solemn religious vows. Nor have I condemned private property. So your rebuttal on those points, is rebutting points I haven’t made, nor have I see anyone else in the thread make.
At the same time, we are all called to a spirit of poverty and detachment from wordly things. This calling is lived out differently for the layman than for the consecrated religious, but it still must be lived out.
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I think are misunderstanding what being a patron saint means. For example-
St. Maria Garetti is the patroness of rape victims. The Church is not advocating that anyone become a rape victim. The Saint is there to intercede for santification.
TV as a technology and watching TV as an activity are two different things. Technologies are not good or bad. Fission which is used in nuclear weapons can also be used for peaceful power generation. The medical technology of “the pill” can be used for legitimate medical purposes. Even a condom- a latex device- can be used for a legitimate purpose, such as when soldiers on D-Day put them over the barrels of their rifles to keep sand and water out.
So the technology is not of itself good or evil. The question is how is it used.
One other thing, the argument that watching TV must be ok because there are Catholic film critics, fails on a logical level. Catholics do all kinds of things- murder, theft, lie, cheat, etc. If there is a commandment, Catholic violate it. Saying a Catholic does “x” so “x” must be in accordance with the Catholic faith isn’t true, unfortunately. That doesn’t speak to the appropriateness or lack thereof of television programing, but that particular argument you used is not a good one.
Pax and God bless.
S
Silver_Thread
Guest
Give it time…obviously you are selective as to what you watch? Secondly as you get older television will leave you not you it! By that, I mean as my wife and I got older we didn’t relate to the programs…shucks, we don’t even get the commercials!:banghead:
J
jmjconder
Guest
I was about to recommend the same book…I still do!
M
Monica4316
Guest
What if a person doesn’t watch cable, and only has a tv so they can watch movies about the Saints or EWTN? or old movies like “Sound of Music”. There are many good movies too… but I agree, there are problems with tv. Not to mention, there are definitely many problems with cable. I don’t even watch cable.
- Status