Inappropriate music. What do you consider it to be?

[Lutheranteach]

Wow…really a tougher question for me than it appears on the surface. When I hear a song that has what one might consider offensive I always take a deeper look. Why did the artist choose those words and then decide. Early rap had plenty of what I would consider shocking lyrics but they served to highlight the problems of the inner city and give an accurate portrayal of life. So, while I thought those songs needed to be played with discretion I did not find them patently offensive. Now, I hear rap and the purpose seems to be missing. Instead of trying to highlight problems they’re adding to problems and glorifying lifestyles that are dangerous, deadly, etc. We’ve gone from get rich or die trying to I’m rich and you can go die.

 

[Joe_5859]

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.

What about rock music with classical influences? Rhapsody’s The Wizard’s Last Rhymes is one such example. Do the classical elements redeem it? Or do the rock/metal elements corrupt it? Would it be akin to prime rib with a side of McDonald’s french fries?

I get what you’re trying to say. I would agree that there is a difference between a three-chord wonder garage band and the likes of Mozart and Beethoven (or even John Williams), but artistic prowess and genre boundaries cannot be so cleanly dillineated. I’m a big fan of progressive and/or symphonic rock/metal bands, which can also often be an acquired taste. It takes a lot of talent to pull off successfully. I always point to Dream Theater’s 23 minute song A Change of Seasons as evidence of this. It is a remarkably well-crafted song, IMO. Very touching, too.

I don’t see how you can just claim that rock altogether is sinful. That’s something I never really understood; what makes rock in itself bad?

If you don’t understand, you are not alone. Finding the answer to that question is rather like trying to nail jello to the wall (IMHO ).

 

[Robster7]

I don’t think a certain musical style is in itself sinful. It is more what the lyrics say, the effect of the beat, and the intent of the artist. Whether you like the style or not is to some extent, a matter of taste.

I dont much care for Hispanic pop (often sounds like blaring brass and bongos), or rap/hip-hop, but then again that’s not my culture either. I doubt many Hispanics or blacks would much care for the Irish tenors John McCormack or Frank Patterson, either. This is assuming there is nothing objectionable morally about the lyrics.

And some charming Irish folk songs are quite bawdy, too: e.g., “The Limerick Rake.”
Not that it’s that explicit.

 

[Alex246]

Alex,

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 agreed with the fact that using God’s name in vain was inappropriate in music. I don’t listen to music that does. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. now, I would like to ask: do you read books that have any swearing at all in them? Movies? I personally find the cussing in music immature, since there are plenty of other, more appropriate, ways to express strong emotion. I prefer to listen to clean or “cleaned” music, but I don’t think that this is a sin. Also, did you read the Ask an Apologist topic I posted? I would also like to add that even though it is technically a personal opinion, it is the personal opinion of a person whose job is to explain church teachings.

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.
I personally love sports that give me an adrenaline rush such as paintball, airsoft, and ski racing. Please do not take this as rude, but when you can convince me of why those are immoral, then I will accept your arguments about rock music. It is exciting. Is that so wrong? Also, not all rock music is the stereotypical death metal. A lot of it is very musically sound, and not even loud. I think the definition of rock that you use is “loud, aggressive music that makes you angry.” Mine is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music

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.
This has nothing to do with morals. Also, I like classical music. I’ve already said that. And can we please keep this about what kind of music is moral, not “good?” “Good music” does not have a universal meaning. Different people have different tastes.

Again, this is wrong. This is the heart of the issue. You can’t just make categorical statements without an argument.
At the risk of sounding like an atheist, please give me evidence that supports your claim. You may consider the advice of a Catholic apologist to be my evidence.

No, it’s not just admirable. A moral act must be more in all its parts, or it is immoral (sinful).
I agree, but I already made my arguments known about why the music in question IS moral.

And to answer Portrait’s scripture quotes: Acts talks about burning books of WITCHCRAFT. That is not what is being discussed. 2 Corinthians: The real question would be if this is defiling the spirit or body. I contend it is not, as the defilement talked about is most likely sin.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

(Also addressing Portrait)

In what ways am I propagating it? I do not listen to the song because I agree with the message, rather because I like the music.

Insofar as you are playing it. It is an act that exists in reality. You choose to play this music, which would not have been played otherwise. If there are offenses in the song against God, those offenses are multiplied by being played again whereas they would not be had you not played them. There is also scandal that is given to others.

I believe that music is personal. If music sounds good, I listen to it. Lyrics have little meaning and can be put into my own interpretation, anyway.

Please re-read my comments about language and those things that are actually sinful. I am talking about actual mortal sins (using God’s name in vain) and actual venial sins (vulgar language, promoting immorality).

If a song was written against Christ, what matter does that have to me?

As a Christian, it should matter.

I don’t see how you can just claim that rock altogether is sinful. That’s something I never really understood; what makes rock in itself bad?

Are you talking about the music itself? This has to do with the disordered passions it foments, but that is a more intricate discussion, as I noted above, which is why I wanted to finish the discussion of lyrics first.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I have listened to this:

opusangelorum.org/audio_conferences/music/audio_music_dw.htm

Its amazing and VERY insightful.

 

[Portrait]

And to answer Portrait’s scripture quotes: Acts talks about burning books of WITCHCRAFT. That is not what is being discussed. 2 Corinthians: The real question would be if this is defiling the spirit or body. I contend it is not, as the defilement talked about is most likely sin.

Dear Alex246,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your comments above.

By way of reply I would say that the passage in the Acts can be equally extended to include anything that is sinful and unsavoury, be it handbooks on the black arts, culturally unwholesome novels, pornographic magazines, or one’s morally offensive rock and pop collection. This is surely a perfectly reasonable application of the passage - an application that many expositors have remarked upon. It is undeniable that sooner or later there must come a point when a Christian realizes the need to confess the sinfulness of their practices or pleasures, whatever they may be; if it is possible to go further and remove the occasion of the sin, then so much the better.

In II Corinthians 7:, 1, St. Paul is appealing to the Christian to to keep his entire personality, body and spirit, clean from everything that might befoul it. This task will obviously entail the avoidance of any possible sources of contamination. Now since I would maintain that rock music is decidedly a source of such contamination, this text is highly appropriate in so far as it encourages purification of the soul from sin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[McatholicN]

In case anyone forgot, the official Vatican newspaper “L’ Osservatore Romano” gave much praise to the Beatles despite their open views against Chrisitanity and drug use saying that this is all meaningless when one listens to their beautiful music. It went to on to praise the Beatles’ White album and Revolver album. There is no doubt that both of these albums are morally imperfect. Revolver has sexuality in it (Love You To) and was the first album the Beatles released while under the use of drugs. The bulk of the White album was written while on a spiritual retreat in India and includes songs such as “Sexy Sadie” and “Why Don’t We Do it in the Road” (self-explanatory).

Now why would a church that is so vehemently anti-rock (as some here are making it out to be) do such a thing as to praise and promote the greatest rock band of all-time?

I don’t know about you, but I’ll trust the institution that was handed down to us from Christ himself and guided by the Holy Spirit on this one.

cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/12/world/main6388123.shtml

Opinions, comments, thoughts, etc. are more than encouraged. <

 

[Portrait]

Have you read Jimmy Akin’s article Bad Music? What do you think of his take on it?

Dear Joe5859,

Cordial greetings to you and I trust that you are keeping well.

Do hope that you don’t object to me butting in here but having read Mr. Aikin’s article in a previous debate on the rock music issue, I would like to comment upon it.

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Aikin, a first-rate apologist, he does, I feel, somewhat oversimplify the issue in this instance. One can appreciate his remarks respecting ‘scrupulosity’, or what used to be termed ‘being righteous overmuch’, and this can all too easily develop into some sort of compulsive disorder. Quite possibly so, but surely the ardous demands of our Faith enjoin a healthy scrupulosity of some kind at least.

Unfortunately Mr. Aikin’s article does not really grapple with the issue head on, since the whole question revolves around what individual Christians deem to be unacceptable and forbidden pleasures and pursuits. Thus an individual, such as myself for instance, who argues against rock music would only be labeled ‘overscrupulous’ (and possibly some other abusive epithets!) by those who vehemently oppose his supposedy uninformed and erroneous standpoint. As this is to be expected it proves very little. Moreover, to say that a man is overscrupulous about rock music is, in the final analysis, a very subjective opinion, possibly made by someone who passionately disagrees with the other man’s position on the matter. To put it simply the scrupulosity card is often nothing more than a stick to figuratively thrash one’s opponent and discredit him.

Quite frankly, I do not think that there is much milage in scrupulosity arguments because they are so subjective and boil down to individual and, often, biased opinion.

However, it admits of no doubt that if one is not on guard against evil, then one is more likely to be influenced by evil - that is not being overscrupulous merely being vigilant.

Help me to guard my precious soul
By active constant self-control.
Cleanse my thought, my speech, my play
O Lord, keep me pure from day to day.

Joe, your moderation and charity is always apprecaited amidst hotly debated topics. Thankyou my dear chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

 

[tvdxer]

Insofar as you are playing it. It is an act that exists in reality. You choose to play this music, which would not have been played otherwise. If there are offenses in the song against God, those offenses are multiplied by being played again whereas they would not be had you not played them. There is also scandal that is given to others.

It exists in reality, too, simply by being engraved on a hard drive, CD, or LP. Do you think the “offenses against God” suddenly come to exist whenever you play them? No, they are stored on a recorded medium, and hence always there.

I don’t want to give a carte blanche to the listeners of dirty music - there are other reasons for not playing it - but I can’t help but point out an apparent analogy. Classic works of art (pre-Christian) also offend against God, chiefly through promoting idolatry. Yet these are displayed, even at ostensibly Catholic museums (the Vatican Museum has plenty of pagan artwork on display). The Latin phrase Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. certainly holds true for their creation - the artists committed an objectively evil act in making the idolatrous or otherwise evil sculptures and paintings, even if they were not aware of it (material sin). As such, they are imperfect. Yet I don’t think playing or displaying “imperfect” works is necessarily a sin in itself. If it was, then all such statues and paintings, among other works, would have to be destroyed, or at least kept in a dark room, as the light “illuminates” the paintings or sculptures, presenting them to the senses just as an audio system plays the files or CDs or whatever have you. It is normally at least an imperfection to make evil representations, whether they are visual or aural, but not NECESSARILY (notice I say necessarily) to view or play them, as they can have redeeming qualities, even though the works themselves are imperfect.

Such an interpretation of “Bonum ex integra causa…” would also be nearly impracticable, not only now but in any era. For example, listening to anything other than “traditional” Catholic radio would be fraught with sin - not because of sexually immoral or vulgar lyrics, with are easy enough to avoid, but just by individuals presenting viewpoints opposed to ours, even on Catholic radio for apologetics purposes. I could not listen to certain sound clips which present sinful points of view, even if they are not promoted, but presented in a neutral manner or even refuted, as I would be “propagating” sin. In addition, forget about going to the cinema or watching a new film, even if you are aware that it does not contain nudity or sexual content, because a sin could have been committed in its production, and by playing it back, again, you would be “propagating” that sin. Obviously, this is no way to live life, and one can become very scrupulous this way, perhaps even to the point of abandonment of the faith and a consequent lack of any discrimination in their viewing or listening habits.

In addition, such rigorism, as engaged in by many so-called “traditional” Catholics, is opposed to evangelization or even retention. When you start saying the Church teaches things that are stricter than it really does, you turn people away from the faith. On one hand, they could perhaps be called weak, but it is an understandable weakness, as you are not presenting the Catholic Truth, but a stricter counterfeit of it, just as the Jansenists and other sects did.

 

[Alex246]

Dear Alex246,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your comments above.

By way of reply I would say that the passage in the Acts can be equally extended to include anything that is sinful and unsavoury, be it handbooks on the black arts, culturally unwholesome novels, pornographic magazines, or one’s morally offensive rock and pop collection. This is surely a perfectly reasonable application of the passage - an application that many expositors have remarked upon. It is undeniable that sooner or later there must come a point when a Christian realizes the need to confess the sinfulness of their practices or pleasures, whatever they may be; if it is possible to go further and remove the occasion of the sin, then so much the better.

In II Corinthians 7:, 1, St. Paul is appealing to the Christian to to keep his entire personality, body and spirit, clean from everything that might befoul it. This task will obviously entail the avoidance of any possible sources of contamination. Now since I would maintain that rock music is decidedly a source of such contamination, this text is highly appropriate in so far as it encourages purification of the soul from sin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

So we come back to whether or not rock is inherently sinful. I’m not going to explicitly repeat my older arguments, so consider them extended.

First, I would like some direct examples of songs or bands that you would classify under the genre “rock.” Again, for simplicity’s sake, I am using this definition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music Classification seems to be a major part of this debate, after all, I don’t think anybody particularly likes not knowing what they’re debating about

Now I’m actually going to take on the argument that rock is objectively sinful or an occasion of sin. All of the arguments against rock are based on the idea that the beat, instruments, musical style, etc. exclusively and without exception arouse base desires and disordered passions. I’m sorry to say that I don’t have any scientific evidence against this other than the fact that, in myself, that is definitely not what happens. Sometimes, depending on my mood and what I’m doing, I will get an adrenaline rush, but (like I told IntegraCatholic) to prove that that is bad, you’d have to prove that ski racing and all of the other exciting activities I enjoy are bad. This in and of itself disproves the “without fail” part, therefore getting rid of any argument that rock can be objectively sinful. It also does not tempt me to sin, so it is not an occasion of sin for me to listen to.

Now, of course there are people for whom listening to rock IS an occasion of sin. But it isn’t for everybody. Painting with a broad brush isn’t ever a good idea for this exact reason. Again, the only argument that will ever persuade me in this matter is that adrenaline is bad, and even then, a lot of rock is more thoughtful and well composed than loud and rousing.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

It exists in reality, too, simply by being engraved on a hard drive, CD, or LP. Do you think the “offenses against God” suddenly come to exist whenever you play them? No, they are stored on a recorded medium, and hence always there.

Yes, and they are multiplied, as I said, each time you play them. I’m not saying you can possess sinful music, either.

Classic works of art (pre-Christian) also offend against God, chiefly through promoting idolatry. Yet these are displayed, even at ostensibly Catholic museums (the Vatican Museum has plenty of pagan artwork on display).

This is a different circumstance. No one believes in mythology anymore (and even at the time, many people didn’t really believe it… it is entirely contrary to reason). Many Catholic artists have produced scenes from mythology as fictional stories, which they are.

The Latin phrase Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. certainly holds true for their creation - the artists committed an objectively evil act in making the idolatrous or otherwise evil sculptures and paintings, even if they were not aware of it (material sin). As such, they are imperfect.

As I said, not everyone believed it, but more importantly, what the author thought or believed is irrelevant to the thing in itself, just as it is irrelevant if someone dedicates a song to Satan. That doesn’t effect the thing itself. At most, it could affect the circumstance of creating, viewing, etc., the art for the actual artist himself. How does this play into the thing (a fictional portrayal), the circumstances (everyone knowing it is fictional and being used merely to promote good art), and the intention (which we would presume is not one of idolatry, though, of course, if it were, then it would be sinful for that individual but not in itself).

For example, listening to anything other than “traditional” Catholic radio would be fraught with sin - not because of sexually immoral or vulgar lyrics, with are easy enough to avoid, but just by individuals presenting viewpoints opposed to ours, even on Catholic radio for apologetics purposes.

That is unjust per se. It can be tolerated in order to disprove the error. This is not equivalent to the use of recreational music.

I could not listen to certain sound clips which present sinful points of view, even if they are not promoted, but presented in a neutral manner or even refuted, as I would be “propagating” sin.

In what way? It is not a sin to state what people believe when it is wrong. It is a sin to promote it. As I said, there isn’t necessarily a sin in presenting the sad state of affairs, e.g., of many inner-city peoples or whathaveyou. It is sinful to promote their sinful practices.

In addition, forget about going to the cinema or watching a new film, even if you are aware that it does not contain nudity or sexual content, because a sin could have been committed in its production, and by playing it back, again, you would be “propagating” that sin.

What do you mean by “in production”?

Obviously, this is no way to live life, and one can become very scrupulous this way, perhaps even to the point of abandonment of the faith and a consequent lack of any discrimination in their viewing or listening habits.

Not when someone takes a balanced approach. As I pointed out, most of the examples above are misapplications of the principle.

In addition, such rigorism, as engaged in by many so-called “traditional” Catholics, is opposed to evangelization or even retention. When you start saying the Church teaches things that are stricter than it really does, you turn people away from the faith.

Perhaps, but no one is doing that. Pope Bendict has said himself that the Church isn’t about numbers. It’s about truth.

 

[tvdxer]

Yes, and they are multiplied, as I said, each time you play them. I’m not saying you can possess sinful music, either.

Yet…

This is a different circumstance. No one believes in mythology anymore (and even at the time, many people didn’t really believe it… it is entirely contrary to reason). Many Catholic artists have produced scenes from mythology as fictional stories, which they are.

As I said, not everyone believed it, but more importantly, what the author thought or believed is irrelevant to the thing in itself, just as it is irrelevant if someone dedicates a song to Satan. That doesn’t effect the thing itself. At most, it could affect the circumstance of creating, viewing, etc., the art for the actual artist himself. How does this play into the thing (a fictional portrayal), the circumstances (everyone knowing it is fictional and being used merely to promote good art), and the intention (which we would presume is not one of idolatry, though, of course, if it were, then it would be sinful for that individual but not in itself).

But let’s say the author sincerely believed it, which they did in many tribal cultures. Works of other faiths were created with a sincere faith in their efficacy (e.g. amulets) or devotion (Tibetan mandalas). This would seem, for the artist and his immediate audience (meaning the audience he intended to show it to at first), to be a sin against the First Commandment. People are more credulous than you think, and to say that no religion is “believable” except the Catholic faith is incorrect. Not believable assuming you deeply reason and are guided by faith, perhaps, but do you think that individuals put their effort into Hindu sculptures or African tribal masks without giving some credence? I don’t see how there would be an exception to the rule for idolatry. “Good art” is found in imperfect movies and songs, too. By shining a light on an object, you are “playing it” by releasing it to the senses, which would apparently be the same as playing a recording or movie.

That is unjust per se. It can be tolerated in order to disprove the error. This is not equivalent to the use of recreational music.

But could it be tolerated for literary criticism? For literary criticism with enjoyment? Also, what about news? Am I committing a sin every time I listen to NPR or watch PBS Newshour (or even Fox News) and an invited guest comes on with a viewpoint opposed to the church’s?

In what way? It is not a sin to state what people believe when it is wrong. It is a sin to promote it. As I said, there isn’t necessarily a sin in presenting the sad state of affairs, e.g., of many inner-city peoples or whathaveyou. It is sinful to promote their sinful practices.

“Promotion” of their sinful practices is open to definition, but I prefer defining it as open or implicit support of the practice, or furthering it. Whether or not you and I buy Amores Perros, for example (an otherwise excellent movie which contains some sexual content and coarse language) will not likely influence future production of such content, because those against it are so few, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. As such, it would most likely fall into the category of “remote material cooperation with evil”. This would be fall into the same category as me buying from a company who happens to donate a tiny percent of their income to Planned Parenthood.

What do you mean by “in production”?

The actors and/or producers committed a sin producing certain scenes of the movie, or the musician committed a sin, even unknowingly, in producing the song. For example, whether or not certain profanity or vulgarity would count as a sin on the producer’s part is debatable, and the sinfulness of the amount of undress in a movie, in scenes where it is necessary, could also be debated. Whether or not a movie or TV series promotes divorce or polygamy (e.g. Big Love), and therefore the producers and/or actors committed a sin, is sometimes debatable. As you see, this approach leads to unbearable scrupulosity.

Not when someone takes a balanced approach. As I pointed out, most of the examples above are misapplications of the principle.

Perhaps, but no one is doing that. Pope Bendict has said himself that the Church isn’t about numbers. It’s about truth.

It is not a “balanced approach” to say that a song (or movie, or book, etc.) must be perfect in order to be watched or listened to or read with a clear conscience. That is rigorism (the opposite of laxism, which would say that all entertainment, even depraved material without redeeming value, could be enjoyed without sin). These seem to be more balanced approaches to the matter:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370719
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=228407
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=179671

Whether Pope Benedict really agrees with you is doubtful.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

This would seem, for the artist and his immediate audience (meaning the audience he intended to show it to at first), to be a sin against the First Commandment.

Absolutely, it would be.

People are more credulous than you think, and to say that no religion is “believable” except the Catholic faith is incorrect.

Did I say that?

I don’t see how there would be an exception to the rule for idolatry.

There isn’t an exception in the circumstances you gave. Our circumstances are different. The same is true of movies and songs in a vacuum. If the English language did not exist and the word “God” and vulgar language did not have the meanings they do, then it wouldn’t be sinful. As it is, they do have those meanings, so the comparison fails.

But could it be tolerated for literary criticism? For literary criticism with enjoyment? Also, what about news? Am I committing a sin every time I listen to NPR or watch PBS Newshour (or even Fox News) and an invited guest comes on with a viewpoint opposed to the church’s?

This is more intricate, and we can speak of rationale for it. It is basically like I said above with Shakespeare and Chaucer. If the person is not committing outright blasphemy, it seems you could consider what people have to say via media equally morally as you could via a book.

“Promotion” of their sinful practices is open to definition, but I prefer defining it as open or implicit support of the practice, or furthering it. Whether or not you and I buy Amores Perros, for example (an otherwise excellent movie which contains some sexual content and coarse language) will not likely influence future production of such content, because those against it are so few, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon.

There are two different sins, the promotion you speak of, which properly speaking is nothing other than scandal, and the promotion in the sense of propagating the sin itself by either directly reproducing it or being a cause of its reproduction (e.g., buying a movie ticket or CD for such).

As such, it would most likely fall into the category of “remote material cooperation with evil”. This would be fall into the same category as me buying from a company who happens to donate a tiny percent of their income to Planned Parenthood.

No, because the evil thing is what you are purchasing. It’d be like giving the money directly to Planned Parenthood.

For example, whether or not certain profanity or vulgarity would count as a sin on the producer’s part is debatable

This seems to be clearly sinful.

and the sinfulness of the amount of undress in a movie, in scenes where it is necessary, could also be debated.

It’s never necessary.

How? Why?

As you see, this approach leads to unbearable scrupulosity.

Do you know the definition of scrupulosity? The examples you gave would not have anything to do with scrupulosity.

It is not a “balanced approach” to say that a song (or movie, or book, etc.) must be perfect in order to be watched or listened to or read with a clear conscience. That is rigorism…

According to you.

 

[_Karla]

Simple. It’s rap amd hiphop.

I have to disagree with you. There is a lot of hip hop and rap that is bad, but that’s the commercial stuff. The stuff in the top charts. I’m young but I love hip hop and rap, but most of the stuff I listen to is from the 1990s because it was quality then, and now it’s become very commercial. Hip Hop used to be owned under independent considerations and now it’s commercially based.

There is a very good article on the aesthetics of rap. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_n2_v29/ai_17534805/

Here’s a part:

The explosion of sexually and violently explicit lyrics, and the sub-genre such lyrics create (i.e., “gangsta” rap), occurred soon after the major labels got into the rap business. The major labels created an environment in which a rapper’s main focus became money, not music, and what is the best way for a rapper to make money in a society in which sex and violence sell? To rap about sex and violence.

You see so rap didn’t always use to be about that, and you can still find quality among the trash. And there’s also Christian rap, which is genre in itself, lot of good music you can find.

 

[McatholicN]

I think that rather than get my information from some unknown people on this site, I think I’ll trust the Church itself and trusted apologist, Jimmy Akin.

 

[Joe_5859]

Dear Joe5859,

Cordial greetings to you and I trust that you are keeping well.

Do hope that you don’t object to me butting in here but having read Mr. Aikin’s article in a previous debate on the rock music issue, I would like to comment upon it.

With the greatest of respect to Mr. Aikin, a first-rate apologist, he does, I feel, somewhat oversimplify the issue in this instance. One can appreciate his remarks respecting ‘scrupulosity’, or what used to be termed ‘being righteous overmuch’, and this can all too easily develop into some sort of compulsive disorder. Quite possibly so, but surely the ardous demands of our Faith enjoin a healthy scrupulosity of some kind at least.

Unfortunately Mr. Aikin’s article does not really grapple with the issue head on, since the whole question revolves around what individual Christians deem to be unacceptable and forbidden pleasures and pursuits. Thus an individual, such as myself for instance, who argues against rock music would only be labeled ‘overscrupulous’ (and possibly some other abusive epithets!) by those who vehemently oppose his supposedy uninformed and erroneous standpoint. As this is to be expected it proves very little. Moreover, to say that a man is overscrupulous about rock music is, in the final analysis, a very subjective opinion, possibly made by someone who passionately disagrees with the other man’s position on the matter. To put it simply the scrupulosity card is often nothing more than a stick to figuratively thrash one’s opponent and discredit him.

Quite frankly, I do not think that there is much milage in scrupulosity arguments because they are so subjective and boil down to individual and, often, biased opinion.

However, it admits of no doubt that if one is not on guard against evil, then one is more likely to be influenced by evil - that is not being overscrupulous merely being vigilant.

Help me to guard my precious soul
By active constant self-control.
Cleanse my thought, my speech, my play
O Lord, keep me pure from day to day.

Joe, your moderation and charity is always apprecaited amidst hotly debated topics. Thankyou my dear chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Thank you, Portrait. Good to see you again.

I see your point about having a healthy sense of scrupulosity. We certainly want to remain vigilant and not grow lax. I think we can all agree on that point. Perhaps a more accurate term would be overly-scrupulous. I do not know what the most accurate term might be in circles of moral theologians. I also understand the desire to err on the side of caution as pertains to moral questions. For the most part, it is better to think something is evil when it is not than to think something is not evil when it is.

I think the weakness you observe in the article is due primarily to Akin’s choice of focus. Apologists are probably always sensitive to issues of over-scrupulosity because they likely encounter it more often than average amongst those who ask them questions. In this particular article, Akin encourages discernment, but with an eye to speaking to those who are overly-scrupulous moreso than to those who are too lax. For whatever reason (perhaps because of the original questioner), it seems he felt his target audience could benefit more from that perspective than the other. It would be interesting to hear how Akin would respond to someone he felt was overly-lax on the issue.

Nowhere does he say that all rock music (or secular music) is acceptable for everyone to listen to, nor do I think he intends to dismiss as overly-scrupulous those who find certain music problematic. I can see how someone might look at the article as giving them carte blanche to listen to whatever they please with no discretion; however, I do not think that is the intent of the article.

I don’t know that I would say over-scrupulosity is entirely subjective, but I would say that it is really something that no one can determine of another over the internet or any other such casual meeting. It is one of those issues that really needs to be worked out with a competent spiritual director. I do think it is legitimate to be on guard against both laxity and over-scrupulosity, though. If the devil cannot convince us to sin, he can convince us that everything is a sin and thereby cause us much unrest and distraction (thereby paralyzing us with fear and preventing us from doing the good that we ought to be doing). We need to be vigilant about that as well. The devil has more tricks up his sleeve than simply desensitizing us to sin.

I will not call you any derogatory names, though. I have not received the impression from your posts that you personally are overly-scrupulous and have never presumed that. I do not believe that all people who think rock music is evil and/or morally suspect are overly-scrupulous. It is probably important to point that out. Name-calling doesn’t do anyone any good.

Best to you! I hope that you are enjoying your Catholic life so far.

 

[Portrait]

So we come back to whether or not rock is inherently sinful. I’m not going to explicitly repeat my older arguments, so consider them extended.

First, I would like some direct examples of songs or bands that you would classify under the genre “rock.” Again, for simplicity’s sake, I am using this definition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music Classification seems to be a major part of this debate, after all, I don’t think anybody particularly likes not knowing what they’re debating about

Now I’m actually going to take on the argument that rock is objectively sinful or an occasion of sin. All of the arguments against rock are based on the idea that the beat, instruments, musical style, etc. exclusively and without exception arouse base desires and disordered passions. I’m sorry to say that I don’t have any scientific evidence against this other than the fact that, in myself, that is definitely not what happens. Sometimes, depending on my mood and what I’m doing, I will get an adrenaline rush, but (like I told IntegraCatholic) to prove that that is bad, you’d have to prove that ski racing and all of the other exciting activities I enjoy are bad. This in and of itself disproves the “without fail” part, therefore getting rid of any argument that rock can be objectively sinful. It also does not tempt me to sin, so it is not an occasion of sin for me to listen to.

Now, of course there are people for whom listening to rock IS an occasion of sin. But it isn’t for everybody. Painting with a broad brush isn’t ever a good idea for this exact reason. Again, the only argument that will ever persuade me in this matter is that adrenaline is bad, and even then, a lot of rock is more thoughtful and well composed than loud and rousing.

Dear Alex 246,

Thankyou most kindly for your response above.

‘Rock’ is a label which loosely covers a whole range of contemporary music, however the following are an example, listed in alphabetical order, of someof the groups and performers that I classify under the genre of rock music: AC/DC; The Beatles; David Bowie; Alice Cooper; Grand Funk; Jimi Hendrix; Jethro Tull; Kiss; Led Zepellin; Meat Loaf; Pink Floyd; Prince; Queen; The Rolling Stones and The Who. Trust that will suffice, at least for now.

It is incorrect to say that all of the arguments against rock music are merely about “beat, instruments and musical style”. That is not by any means the whole story, if only it were that simple. Take, as just one example, what I term the ‘filth connection’.

One of the most persistent allegations about rock music, and one of the most the most unhappy ones from a Christian perspective, is that it has undeniably strong sexual connotations - and one does not have to look far to see why. Many of its leading performers have made adultery, fornication, homosexual deviancy or other froms of sexual vice a way of life. Press reports of their sordid sex lives are now common knowledge and scarcely raise readers eyebrows. The usual response is to say that none of this, bad though it may be, should let us prejudice our views respecting their music. Fair comment, for there are dishonest lawyers, alcoholic accountants, perverted policemen and even some immoral clergymen, but that does not mean that their sins are in any way related to their occupations. Thus it is quite true that we do need to be careful before censuring any kind of artistic expression because of the depraved lifestyle of those who write or perform in it. Clearly, if we took that line to its logical conclusion we would be living in a cultural desert.

One could go a step further and say that many classical compositions have murder, violence, hatred, greed, immorality or other evils as their themes and should accordingly be judged by same criterion as any other musical production. However, the point at issue is whether one can single out rock music as having specifically sexual connotations. Now the evidence provided by the musicians and their performances says that we most certainly can. Alas, some of the evidence is just too revolting and disgusting for a Christian forum such as this. However, to a greater or lesser degree it all evinces a blatantly sexual orientation and would validate the assertion that rock is nothing more than musical sex.

The question which the Christian devotees of rock music must answer is, what moral impact do objectionable lyrics, obscene gestures and deviant sexual claims have upon those who are striving to cleanse themselves “from every defilement of the body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God” (II Cor. 7: 1)? Moreover, how will listening to such morally offensive filth help a Christian to cultivate those good and noble qualities mentioned by St. Paul?: “whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise,* think about these things*.” (Phillip. 4: 8, emphases mine). Even a blind man on a galloping horse could see that this does not sit comfortably with the morally depraved world of rock. There is clearly a definite connection between sex and rock music and only the deaf, uncaring or wholly distracted could fail to notice this. No Christian who is earnestly pursuing holiness would wish to risk being tainted or corrupted by this most debasing of music genres.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that rather than get my information from some unknown people on this site, I think I’ll trust the Church itself and trusted apologist, Jimmy Akin.

I won’t fault you for taking that approach.

Welcome to CAF, by the way.

 

[McatholicN]

I won’t fault you for taking that approach.

Welcome to CAF, by the way.

Shouldn’t we all take this approach? The church is the pinnacle heirarchy when it comes to truth, therefore, wouldn’t any thinking not aligned with the church’s be false?
And, out of a more opinionated stance, shouldn’t we listen to those who we know we can trust (not to say that others are not as qualified)?

I hate to come back attacking to such a warm response. Please excuse me and take no offense.