G
goofyjim
Guest
In your opinion.
- Status
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
sorry. please correct this Jim. “in the popes opinion”
L
Loren_1of6
Guest
Gerbel, I see what you’re saying and I agree that we should all be careful of how we entertain ourselves in this media age. The problems arise when you set yourself up as the sole judge over what constitutes “exalting evil” and exactly which TV shows, movies, or video games every Catholic should watch. That’s not your job. You have shared the Holy Father’s message in loving concern for your fellow Catholics, but you can not form our consciences.
I have four children. We watch many shows or movies as a family. Some of the shows we watch are ones that other parents would never share with their kids. Still other parents think that we are too strict about what we let our kids watch. My point is that it is a personal decision that we make based on our informed consciences. We check out the movies first and make a decision on what is best for our family. If our standards are not the same as yours, that doesn’t make necessarily mean that we are wrong and you are right. Even if our standards are more strict than yours, that doesn’t mean that your standards are too low.
You have told Jim over and over that you think a particular show is evil. You are not going to convince him that it is, especially by repetition. You have explained how you think it fits the Pope’s criteria for shunning, now it’s about time to let him consider your position and make his own determination.
Just remember that not everyone will come to the same conclusion about the same shows. We are not all in the same place on our spiritual journeys and we all have different needs. Pope John Paul II reminded us that there is almost always some good to be found in all media. Even shows that glorify perversions often have other messages that give honor to good and beautiful things.
Some of us want to appreciate the beauty that we find even in ugly circumstances. That doesn’t mean that we approve of (or exalt) those circumstances, just that we try to look past it to find the core of beauty that God has placed in all creation.
I have four children. We watch many shows or movies as a family. Some of the shows we watch are ones that other parents would never share with their kids. Still other parents think that we are too strict about what we let our kids watch. My point is that it is a personal decision that we make based on our informed consciences. We check out the movies first and make a decision on what is best for our family. If our standards are not the same as yours, that doesn’t make necessarily mean that we are wrong and you are right. Even if our standards are more strict than yours, that doesn’t mean that your standards are too low.
You have told Jim over and over that you think a particular show is evil. You are not going to convince him that it is, especially by repetition. You have explained how you think it fits the Pope’s criteria for shunning, now it’s about time to let him consider your position and make his own determination.
Just remember that not everyone will come to the same conclusion about the same shows. We are not all in the same place on our spiritual journeys and we all have different needs. Pope John Paul II reminded us that there is almost always some good to be found in all media. Even shows that glorify perversions often have other messages that give honor to good and beautiful things.
Some of us want to appreciate the beauty that we find even in ugly circumstances. That doesn’t mean that we approve of (or exalt) those circumstances, just that we try to look past it to find the core of beauty that God has placed in all creation.
N
nsper7
Guest
Gerbel never answered my question. Is that statement of the Pope’s a personal opinion or a dogmatic pronouncement? I believe the Pope (just as you or I or anyone else) can have a strongly-held personal opinion without it necessarily being a dogmatic pronouncement.
Also, re-read the Pope’s words. He judges the PRODUCTION of such forms of entertainment, not the CONSUMPTION.
Also, re-read the Pope’s words. He judges the PRODUCTION of such forms of entertainment, not the CONSUMPTION.
C
Connie2
Guest
As a child, I was insturcted (and it pretty well stuck) that if we wished to follow Christ in our daily lives, we would “avoid the occasion of sin”. I find it hard to believe that while watching such offensive and often perverted programs, we are not in the “occasion of sin”. I also believe that what goes in our minds, will affect what comes out. The Holy Father is doing what he has committed himself to do when he accepted the vocation to the Seat of St. Peter - that is, to instruct the faithful as to what they must do to stay close to Jesus, and eventually, be with him in Heaven. This is what we all aspire to do, is it not?
N
nsper7
Guest
But how do we address St. Paul’s statement about all things being lawful but not beneficial? We concentrate on the beneficial part, but he was clearly stating that even if something is not beneficial (I would agree that playing GTA4, watching violent movies, etc. is probably not beneficial) it may still be lawful.
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
I dont think so
if someone produced evil. is it lawful to eat it?
I dont know, I think this is definition of papal authority = As head of the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is the supreme spiritual leader of the Church and controls the church doctrine. With a billion followers, the pope’s decisions impact societies and governments all over the world.
I dont understand. The pope haveing opinion almost is papal authority isnt it? I thought it was ( not being cocky I really think this)
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
I am not the sole judge any can judge. what the pope said is what goes thats just that. im judging that some things are wrong and some right. The pope said a rule " anything that exalts evil is a perversion" so the rule is this way, anyone can tell. The ten commandments werent for a select few, the doctrine of the church werent for few but for all to follow.
indeed it is true. But Jesus once said " you are either with me or against me"
so then the show is either with Jesus and the pope or against Jesus and the pope.
R
RobbyS
Guest
The problem is still that much of what is available today is by historical standards pretty raw.
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
here is a better link
I think it might explain more but im going to bed
vicariateofcalapan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=14&Itemid=32
its WAY more offical and from a better site
N
nsper7
Guest
Show me where it says this. It seems to me (and this is the argument used to excuse the corrupt Popes such as Leo X and others) that there is the Office of the Pope (which can issue bulls, encyclicals, etc.) and there is the person occupying the Office. The person occupying said Office can have personal opinions without it being a Papal declaration.
I’ll use an example from the Episcopal Church (this Sunday is my second Confirmation/inquirers class!!). The current Presiding Bishop, Katherine Schori, has some theological opinions that I don’t agree with. She expresses her opinions, but she does not issue doctrinal statements based on these opinions so they remain her own opinions and do not change the Church’s official doctrine.
Didn’t necessarily say that. I was merely pointing His Holiness’s words. He appears to be going after the PRODUCERS (i.e. studios, etc.) and not judging CONSUMERS. In fact, he is not technically judging the PRODUCERS but the TREND itself.
I thought Papal authority can only be expressed through certain channels (i.e. encyclicals, bulls, etc.), otherwise any word the Pope says would be Church doctrine (think about the corrupt Popes in history).
I don’t think Jesus was addressing such an issue when He made that statement. He was addressing the issue of the Pharisees (who claimed to be the true Jews of their time) who stood against Him and the skeptical in the multitudes. I do not believe that passage applies here…
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
this is confuseing. and your a Jewish christian. I dont think you are recognized inside the church. I wont really listien to you if pope doesnt recognize you.
H
hasikelee
Guest
The statement is too broad. What does he mean by violence? What does he mean by exalt (glorify)?
What comes to mind for me are those movies such as Saw and the Hills Have Eyes. shudder
I watched Hitman last night and I thought it had a lot of violence in it, but I didn’t see it as glorifying the violence. In fact, the storyline seems to hint at the main character having issues due to the violence. I disliked the sexuality more than the violence.
What comes to mind for me are those movies such as Saw and the Hills Have Eyes. shudder
I watched Hitman last night and I thought it had a lot of violence in it, but I didn’t see it as glorifying the violence. In fact, the storyline seems to hint at the main character having issues due to the violence. I disliked the sexuality more than the violence.
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
And that my friend is why its okay to watch that movie. but I have not seen it so I wouldnt know, because you said it had sexuality and not sure if you said it exalted it or not.
B
Baptista
Guest
Mini gerbel, I have a book in front of me written by Karl Keating. The title is “What Catholics Really Believe - 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith” (Ignatius Press)
In this book, he states that the Pope’s charism of infallibility is strictly limited. Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the Pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a dfinitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”
Ok, you are talking about something that could be considered morals. I’ll give you that, but this goes on to state that Papal infallibility does not extend to Church customs, not to sports, not to literature, not to most things of everyday life. AND infallibility comes into play only when the Pope “proclaims by a definitive act.”
Otherwise, the Pope could say in an interview that he did not think Rib Roast was good. And this is written in a paper, put on the internet, etc. According to your interpretation, this would mean that no one could eat rib roast under penalty of sin.
I do not want to argue with you. I agree totally that tv, movies and other media have way too much sin portrayaled in them. I just wanted to post this because I think you meant it when you said you weren’t being cocky, and you really thought if the Pope had an opinion that it is law. That’s not the case. And we can be too legalistic in our views of things. That can be as bad as not paying enough attention to the laws of the Church.
I would recommend that you read Mr. Keating’s book. It’s highly informative. He is very readable.
M
Michele62
Guest
I don’t think we can watch violence all the time without being desensitized to what we are seeing. We see it on TV, in the newspapers and all around us, and don’t realize that we start to accept even extremely violent behavior as normal. As a result of my disgust for TV violence, I skip it and try prayer and meditation.
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
thanks for (name removed by moderator)utMini gerbel, I have a book in front of me written by Karl Keating. The title is “What Catholics Really Believe - 52 Answers to Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith” (Ignatius Press)
In this book, he states that the Pope’s charism of infallibility is strictly limited. Vatican I taught and Vatican II reaffirmed that the Pope teaches infallibly when “he proclaims by a dfinitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.”
Ok, you are talking about something that could be considered morals. I’ll give you that, but this goes on to state that Papal infallibility does not extend to Church customs, not to sports, not to literature, not to most things of everyday life. AND infallibility comes into play only when the Pope “proclaims by a definitive act.”
Otherwise, the Pope could say in an interview that he did not think Rib Roast was good. And this is written in a paper, put on the internet, etc. According to your interpretation, this would mean that no one could eat rib roast under penalty of sin.
I do not want to argue with you. I agree totally that tv, movies and other media have way too much sin portrayaled in them. I just wanted to post this because I think you meant it when you said you weren’t being cocky, and you really thought if the Pope had an opinion that it is law. That’s not the case. And we can be too legalistic in our views of things. That can be as bad as not paying enough attention to the laws of the Church.
I would recommend that you read Mr. Keating’s book. It’s highly informative. He is very readable.
And yes I am being completely serious in what I believe in.
but I showed preist my stuff and he said I was right ( I corrected him not to watch something that exalted evil )
how do I know if this is definitive immoral or not? I think it is definitive.
B
Baptista
Guest
You are welcome for my (name removed by moderator)ut, Mini gerbel. I posted in response to you thinking that the Pope was speaking infallibly on this subject.thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut
And yes I am being completely serious in what I believe in.
but I showed preist my stuff and he said I was right ( I corrected him not to watch something that exalted evil )
how do I know if this is definitive immoral or not? I think it is definitive.
But as for you correcting someone for watching something that you feel exalts evil, that is very commendable. However, you have done your part. You have said what tv shows, and games and movies that you think are exalting evil. Now I think that you need to do what another poster suggested, no matter how hard it is, and let those who have read what you have to say either accept or reject your words.
M
Mini_gerbel
Guest
okey-dokey
H
hasikelee
Guest
Well, there is a lot of frontal nudity, but I can’t say that the actual storyline glorified it either, as much as it was put in there to be some sort of “this is how it is in the bad guy part of the world.”And that my friend is why its okay to watch that movie. but I have not seen it so I wouldnt know, because you said it had sexuality and not sure if you said it exalted it or not.
In one scene the woman that he saved (which isn’t part of the original video game) attempts to seduce him in bed. Although his reason might be due to a dysfunction from his poor upbringing and violence, he does nevertheless stop the encounter.
- Status