Exactly!
Music will invoke many different emotions…some good, some bad. We are humans, not robots who are on only one setting. We have a wide range of emotions, thoughts, feelings so why should it matter if the music we listen to reflects that as well?My comment clearly was directed to the modern music that fell into the category I described… the “filthy” kind.
Care to provide a theological reason for this? Are you familiar with the ways to be accessory to sin?
Okay, how about a logical or empirical argument.
There is a difference between reflecting emotions and inciting lust.
Are you familiar with the linguistic theory of signifier and signified? I find that people who argue against “swearing” fail to grasp the idea of semantics. Furthermore, just because a song uses words deemed profane by your traditional view, it does not mean you should disregard whatever overall message it has. Would you trash a song that has swear words even though it speaks of doing your best to reach your life goals?
Sorry but you put “arousing” and “cheering up” in the same sentence. You also describe the effect music in a rock concert has on people as being akin to “animals”. What did you expect us to think?
That may not be true either. Again, go back to what I said about being interpreted differently. Believe it or not, I like listening to Nickelback’s Rockstar and the lyrics may be exactly what you warn against. However, you know what I see in my head? It ain’t the life of drugs, money, and sex of your stereotypical rockstars. Rather, it makes me think of my own characters, standing in a coliseum amidst cheering fans as they pwn the opposition in your typical shounen-action tournament.
You misunderstand the nature of a moral act. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. For something to be good, it has to be entirely good. Any defect in it makes it bad, whether the thing itself, the circumstances, or the intention. It doesn’t matter (even if you think it will ultimately help you save your soul or even the souls of every human being for the rest of time), it is a sin (an offense against Almighty God) to partake in any act that is deficient in any of these categories. The very nature of what the thing is makes it illegitimate. The words are immoral. This makes the act illicit and sinful, regardless of any possible good that may come from it.
Following that moral perfectionist logic, everything in this world is immoral. Even giving to a beggar is immoral because unforeseen circumstances might make that said beggar dependent on alms. Killing a person in self-defense would also be immoral because it takes the life of a human and deprives any chance of redemption (or at least gravely reduces it). Oh and don’t even get me started on wars in defense of people and country.
Again, you dodge the point about semantics. Are you really so naive about linguistics to assume that words, letters, and sounds are tied to their meanings? Think again. Just take the word “crack” for instance. I doubt even you are immune to that word’s double meanings.
This statement reinforces my previous comment. I encourage you to get a good book on ethics or moral theology. I think you would find it interesting, and you’d learn a lot from it.Following that moral perfectionist logic, everything in this world is immoral. Even giving to a beggar is immoral because unforeseen circumstances might make that said beggar dependent on alms. Killing a person in self-defense would also be immoral because it takes the life of a human and deprives any chance of redemption (or at least gravely reduces it). Oh and don’t even get me started on wars in defense of people and country.
Circumstances play a role in the moral act. What is commonly accepted as meanings of certain combinations of syllable (words) is a circumstance regarding the moral act of listening to such music.
Already aced that class thank you. Please read your own post. You said, any defect thus even if two out of three make it good, it’s still bad. Even should the intent and circumstances are good, your line of reasoning deems it bad purely because of the thing itself. Reality on the other hand, is not bound to such idealistic notions of extreme black-and-white morality.
Um, who taught you this class? Are you familiar with the principle of double effect?
Are you suggesting that self defense ISN’T moral? That directly contradicts church teachings, and doesn’t lend a lot of credibility to your opinions on music.
No, I didn’t say that at all. His statement about these things illustrates his lack of understanding of the topic, which is why I asked if he was familiar with double effect.
Why?
Well, there are certain principles that are followed after Beethoven, at least, both emotionally and allegorically. Furthermore, I’m speaking of the usage of words that are accepted as vulgar (i.e., in any dictionary that lists it).
Perhaps, but it would have no bearing on the piece itself. If it incites lust or sinful passions, it would be satanic insofar as it leads to sin. If the author happens to be a satanist and dedicates a song to the devil, that wouldn’t make the song itself illicit. I still wouldn’t recommend supporting such an artist.
I’m basically contending that in this circumstance, it can’t. Words have meanings. Those meanings must be accepted as a relevant circumstance in the moral act being considered. The circumstances make the music evil.
Note my comment about one of the first principles of moral theology: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. Regardless of any good that may come of such an action, it is still immoral. Again, the very playing of the music is an objective offense against God. It doesn’t matter if no one hears it. You can play it out in the forest with no one around (even you), and it’s still a sin. It is propagating sins against chastity or against the holy name of God or against right order by vulgarity.
If taken in the framework I specified above, I believe that Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu would not be violated.No, I didn’t say that at all. His statement about these things illustrates his lack of understanding of the topic, which is why I asked if he was familiar with double effect.
Sorry for my misconception.
Why?
In conversation, you assign a meaning that is not morally neutral to words, which are morally neutral. A word is only a combination of vibrations at specific frequencies that are generated by pushing air from our lungs through our vocal cords, nothing more. If our society did not assign a vulgar meaning to it, the f word would not be any more vulgar that the word “Pope.” Music is an art form that uses these frequencies to please the ears. The lyrics are detached from a conversational context, in which metaphor and symbolism are not expected. Therefore, I am free to interpret the lyrics as I wish. Granted, if the lyrics are completely unable to be listened to without invoking vulgar thoughts, then there isn’t really any excuse for listening to the music. There are some songs that I liked so much aside from the lyrics that I learned to strip the vocals from audio files
Well, there are certain principles that are followed after Beethoven, at least, both emotionally and allegorically. Furthermore, I’m speaking of the usage of words that are accepted as vulgar (i.e., in any dictionary that lists it).
I believe I have covered this.
Perhaps, but it would have no bearing on the piece itself. If it incites lust or sinful passions, it would be satanic insofar as it leads to sin. If the author happens to be a satanist and dedicates a song to the devil, that wouldn’t make the song itself illicit. I still wouldn’t recommend supporting such an artist.
That is the real question, and we completely agree on it. If the music incites vulgar or immoral thoughts, don’t listen to it.
I’m basically contending that in this circumstance, it can’t. Words have meanings. Those meanings must be accepted as a relevant circumstance in the moral act being considered. The circumstances make the music evil.
Again, I have covered both meaning and circumstance already.
Note my comment about one of the first principles of moral theology: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. Regardless of any good that may come of such an action, it is still immoral. Again, the very playing of the music is an objective offense against God. It doesn’t matter if no one hears it. You can play it out in the forest with no one around (even you), and it’s still a sin. It is propagating sins against chastity or against the holy name of God or against right order by vulgarity.
Dear IntegraCatholic,
I agree. The f-word, in fact, is used by young people in Quebecois as “um” (which was introduced illicitly, of course, but that doesn’t mean everyone who uses it understands what he is saying or the gravity of it). There do seem to be some vowel and consonant sound combinations that seem to indicate anger more than others (in any language, this seems to be true, e.g., that harsh sounds generally are used for vulgar words because they seem of themselves more fitted to expressing rage or anger). This isn’t necessarily true, but it’s a conjecture. It doesn’t hold in those languages where (lamentably) there are no “created” words that are just to be vulgar but are merely abuses of sacred words (e.g., to take Quebecois, again, though it may be true of French at large, the use of the word “sacristy” in vain or as an expletive).
Not so. It is impossible to convey any meaning at all to something if one does not use language. He can use any given language (heck, he could use Latin or Esperanto, if he wanted, even though no one speaks these natively). Nevertheless, if he speaks in a certain language, that language is a circumstance to his act. The meanings of words are not merely based upon whether they are used in a conversation or not (e.g., I can’t shout expletives or the name of God in vain by myself, outside of any conversation). It is a necessary circumstance. While we can speak of this possibility hypothetically, it never applies in reality, where there necessarily are words that are sacred and those that are vulgar. The former cannot be abused, the latter cannot be used at all.
I believe you misunderstood my argument. I wasn’t saying that, outside of conversation, anything goes. From my experience, people don’t like it when you keep using metaphors when you’re talking to them. Similes maybe, but not metaphors. I wouldn’t walk up to a really tall, thin person and say “you are a tree.” However, art is up to the interpretation of the viewer/listener. And again, we agree on the fact that some expressions just can’t be treated as metaphors. They are just too solidly tied to their meanings. I also never argued that music didn’t use language. I just said that it can be separated from it’s meanings and assigned new ones far more easily than in conversation. I usually do this through metaphor, since once again, at the point where metaphor no longer makes sense, the original meaning is unmistakable.
With the notable exception of Gregorian chant, which I enjoy immensely. And the church does not require that we cleanse our entertainment collection from every single cuss or imperfect theme. Your argument, to me falls under the category of “admirable but unnecessary.” I keep my music “clean” by reducing any objectionable material to metaphor, or, in the case of cussing, just ignore it or get a cleaned version of the song. That Ask and Apologist post I linked to explains the church’s position pretty clearly. We don’t need to strive to strip ALL imperfect human art from our life. We just need to exclude the music/movies/anything that we can’t partake of without being tempted. Continue doing things as you do, but it’s just not for everyone.
Have you read Jimmy Akin’s article Bad Music? What do you think of his take on it?
Dear McatholicN,
The sin is not merely in whether it affects you or not. The sin is also in propagating something that is sinful. There are a lot of things in the Beatles that aren’t illegitimate in and of themselves, but those who were “in the know” at the time knew what it was about (e.g., Yellow Submarine is talking about abusing drugs). I think Portrait said the rest better than I could.
Agreed, but the issue is with using God’s name in vain and vulgar language, neither of which fall into that category of pliable language.
I agree if you are speaking about the lyrics, though this doesn’t justify the use of what is an illegitimate effect of the music itself, but I suppose you’d have to define the genre a bit more. Also, while I am as convinced about this as I am about the lyrics, I think it’s a more nuanced argument, so I’d like to get to the bottom of the lyrical aspect of music first.
This is the recommendation a priest once gave me: listen to “classical” (broadly speaking) music until you find something you like or at least something you dislike least. Continue listening only to that piece or that composer until you really start to like it (e.g., for a month, even). Once you develop your taste for music, you will abhor the modern genres. It is no different from enjoying good cheese and wine. When someone is used to eating sugar and McDonald’s all day, he won’t like good food. He has to develop his palate.
Again, this is wrong. This is the heart of the issue. You can’t just make categorical statements without an argument.
No, it’s not just admirable. A moral act must be more in all its parts, or it is immoral (sinful).
(Also addressing Portrait)
