Is Watching Particular Shows A Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ATeutonicKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think watching certain shows, is dangerous to your faith.
No one is immune from desensitization.
If it hasn’t happened yet, you are very fortunate, that is all.

Take a show like FRIENDS. Great young actors, attractive people,
well-written scripts.
Everything about this show, however, is anti-Christian Morality.
Continuous fornication, the characters regularly enjoy watching porn,
bed-hop with each other and everyone they meet, Ross’s ex-wife
is living in a lesbian marriage, I could go on and on and on.
I used to really love this show.
(( Phoebe’s one Hit Single, SMELLY CAT, used to make me howl with laughter )).
But I won’t watch the reruns anymore.

On a personal level, on FACEBOOK, I had to, with deep regret, “unfriend” a few people whom I had been friends with or known since 1978. They were posting ungodly and immoral posts, advocating all kinds of sin. One even referred to the holy scriptures
as “unholy Bull-s__t.” These folks would post attacks on the Catholic Church asserting that the church was **chock full **of child molesters and that the scandal had been going on in full-force for “centuries,” etc, etc, etc, which is absolutely false. Another asserted boldly that the Catholic Church, some centuries back, used to PERFORM “Gay Marriages.” I asked him to direct me to some domentation of this assertion and he, of course, ignored the request. I hate to “unfriend” people, but sometimes allowing such evil posts to appear on my page gives the appearance that I endorse such views and attacks on the Faith. I cannot be party to that.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
 
“A priest’s primary duty is to save souls; he is responsible for prevailing moral atttitudes in his parish and specifically for the salvation of his parishioners’ souls. . . The priest, then must come to an honest recognition of the primary avenue to the destruction of souls in his Catholic homes, as that window to the world of immorality – the television set. And he must continually point out to his parishioners that acceptance of TV entertainment is simply not compatible with the Christian life of spirituality.”

“The disintegration of real Catholic culture has been a slow process begun two generations back. It happens to be co-incident with the degradation of TV fare, which began its downward slide with the inception of the medium, and accelerated that trend at a precipitous rate from the 1960s onward.”

“Thanks to the constant depiction – in an entertainment mode – of immoral acts. . . presentations once considered scandalous, perverse, and unfit for consideration by self-respecting people, now pass for commonplace, acceptable fare even among those claiming religious convictions.”

“Such programming is often criticized mildly as being crude, in bad taste, or even as awful – but hardly ever is it called sinful.”

"James Drummey, in a recent question/answer column in The Wanderer wrote “Even the best intentioned Catholics can become desensitized. . . if they watch these portrayed on televisions in a favorable light, night after night in their own homes.”

“We cannot hide from basic Catholic moral laws forever. And the sins that are most easily committed, and which involve most “grievous matter” are also the sins most exploited on television – those against chastity and purity.”

Fr. Frank Poncelet

If someone takes the Lord’s name in vain, and you record it on your mp3 recorder, and then play it over and over again…

What do you think God thinks of that?

What do you think Heaven thinks, looking down on you, looking down at the TV and its parade of Sodom and Gomorrah, and being entertained by it?

Make a simple rule like this:

Don’t watch any shows that take the Lord’s name in vain. Don’t watch any shows that have immodest clothing, or make impure suggestions as if they were good. Or have all the other problems.

And you’ll soon find you don’t watch any shows.

One simple rule like that – none with the Lord’s name in vain, and you will see more clearly just what is at stake. Christianity versus Antichristianity.

When you’re free from the TV, your spiritual life will be free and clear and make progress you could not get past before – because you had an unadmitted Idol sitting in your house. And in your heart.

Throw it out.
 
Shin said:
“A priest’s primary duty is to save souls; he is responsible for prevailing moral atttitudes in his parish and specifically for the salvation of his parishioners’ souls. . . The priest, then must come to an honest recognition of the primary avenue to the destruction of souls in his Catholic homes, as that window to the world of immorality – the television set. And he must continually point out to his parishioners that acceptance of TV entertainment is simply not compatible with the Christian life of spirituality.”

“The disintegration of real Catholic culture has been a slow process begun two generations back. It happens to be co-incident with the degradation of TV fare, which began its downward slide with the inception of the medium, and accelerated that trend at a precipitous rate from the 1960s onward.”

“Thanks to the constant depiction – in an entertainment mode – of immoral acts. . . presentations once considered scandalous, perverse, and unfit for consideration by self-respecting people, now pass for commonplace, acceptable fare even among those claiming religious convictions.”

“Such programming is often criticized mildly as being crude, in bad taste, or even as awful – but hardly ever is it called sinful.”

"James Drummey, in a recent question/answer column in The Wanderer wrote “Even the best intentioned Catholics can become desensitized. . . if they watch these portrayed on televisions in a favorable light, night after night in their own homes.”

“We cannot hide from basic Catholic moral laws forever. And the sins that are most easily committed, and which involve most “grievous matter” are also the sins most exploited on television – those against chastity and purity.”

Fr. Frank Poncelet

If someone takes the Lord’s name in vain, and you record it on your mp3 recorder, and then play it over and over again…

What do you think God thinks of that?

What do you think Heaven thinks, looking down on you, looking down at the TV and its parade of Sodom and Gomorrah, and being entertained by it?

Make a simple rule like this:

Don’t watch any shows that take the Lord’s name in vain. Don’t watch any shows that have immodest clothing, or make impure suggestions as if they were good. Or have all the other problems.

And you’ll soon find you don’t watch any shows.

One simple rule like that – none with the Lord’s name in vain, and you will see more clearly just what is at stake. Christianity versus Antichristianity.

When you’re free from the TV, your spiritual life will be free and clear and make progress you could not get past before – because you had an unadmitted Idol sitting in your house. And in your heart.

Throw it out.
Click to expand...
Although I respect your opinion and your actions to get holier, there is nothing wrong with watching a TV show that takes the Lord’s name in vain. As Michelle Arnold has stated, the Vatican has endorsed and encouraged Catholics to watch movies where at times the characters say the Lord’s name in vain. There is nothing wrong with this. You didn’t say it, so it is not a sin in any sense. It is best to avoid shows and movies that use the Lord’s name in vain every minute or so, but watching shows that do this occasionally is not a sin.

As for immodest clothing, it is definitely not a sin to watch something when women are wearing immodest clothing. It is best to simply look away in these situations, but it is not a sin to watch these shows. The Vatican has endorsed watching shows that have brief nudity as well, as the Vatican has recognized that nudity itself is not a sin. For instance, there is some nude pictures, artwork, and statues inside the Vatican. Is the Vatican a place of lust and sin because of this? Of course not. If you choose to live to such a strict lifestyle this is fine, I’m simply stating that these things are not sinful.
 
It is not so simple as that.

The above statement contains a number of mistakes in need of correction.

‘Get out of the filth of the horrible torrent of this world, the torrent of thorns that is whirling you into the abyss of eternal perdition. . . This torrent is the world, which resembles an impetuous torrent, full of garbage and evil odours, making a lot of noise but flowing swiftly passed, dragging the majority of men into the pit of perdition.’

St. John Eudes

I read once that St. Elizabeth Ann Seton had a vision in which she saw a black box in every American home, through which the devil entered.
 
Shin said:
It is not so simple as that.

The above statement contains a number of mistakes in need of correction.

‘Get out of the filth of the horrible torrent of this world, the torrent of thorns that is whirling you into the abyss of eternal perdition. . . This torrent is the world, which resembles an impetuous torrent, full of garbage and evil odours, making a lot of noise but flowing swiftly passed, dragging the majority of men into the pit of perdition.’

St. John Eudes

I read once that St. Elizabeth Ann Seton had a vision in which she saw a black box in every American home, through which the devil entered.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you can still own a television to watch sports and regular television shows that aren’t highly immoral. There are television shows and movies that are not highly immoral: Lost, Lord of the Rings, Monk, the EWTN network, Merlin, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. You may protest Everybody Loves Raymond, but I know a few very pious people that wouldn’t even watch The Lord of the Rings until someone explained to them that it wasn’t evil who watch it.

Everybody requires something to get them holier. For others it’s prayer and holy reading, for others it’s to get rid of their television completely. You are one of the ones that needed to get rid of the television. However, this certainly does not mean that everybody does. I believe the internet is an easier way to sin than television anyway.
 
‘Deny your desires and you will find what your heart longs for. For how do you know if any desire of yours is according to God?’

St. John of the Cross
 
Shin said:
‘Deny your desires and you will find what your heart longs for. For how do you know if any desire of yours is according to God?’

St. John of the Cross
Click to expand...
This doesn’t mean you cannot watch television. I think you’re taking quotes from the Saints and using them in a very extreme way. None of your quotes have declared that the television is evil. If it was there wouldn’t be television networks like EWTN. And there most certainly wouldn’t be Catholics making movies about the Saints and making movies/shows with a message to them.
 
I think watching certain shows, is dangerous to your faith.
No one is immune from desensitization.
If it hasn’t happened yet, you are very fortunate, that is all.
Click to expand...
Take a show like FRIENDS. Great young actors, attractive people,
well-written scripts.
Everything about this show, however, is anti-Christian Morality.
Continuous fornication, the characters regularly enjoy watching porn,
bed-hop with each other and everyone they meet, Ross’s ex-wife
is living in a lesbian marriage, I could go on and on and on.
I used to really love this show.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. My pastor puts it very simply. If we want to be pure and holy, we simply cannot allow our entertainment to consist of watching other people sin!

OP, while you may well have OCD, I surely don’t believe you’re being overly scrupulous here. You’re growing closer to Christ, and therefore more aware of what is offensive to him.

We have a limited amount of time during which our eternal soul is united with our body. Our soul will then live on into eternity. We need to determine whether or not our earthly activities are bringing us closer to the Kingdom.
 
I was there for television in the late 1950s and 1960s. You couldn’t say certain words, you couldn’t show a husband and wife in bed together, and a man would appear from the station’s Standards and Practices department, assuring viewers that all of the programming was monitored by them to make sure it was suitable for the entire family. I remember many great and entertaining TV shows and comedians were not vulgar or political. Starting in the 1970s with shows like All in the Family, and Mary Hartman, things went from off color to a little risque to a little scandalous, all the way up to what we have today.

Oh sure, it was common to take your date out to dinner and a movie in the 1950s and 1960s. That generally cannot be done anymore. Some parents think that the comic books their kids are reading today are like those they read growing up. Many are not. The hero is not heroic. Even in movies, sometimes the difference between the hero and the villain is one is less brutal than the other.

In the 1960s, “girlie magazines” were hard to get. I remember a recent post on another forum where someone wrote: “Does anybody remember when porn was considered dirty and hard to get? Now it’s everywhere.” On a forum where I’m a moderator, a small group declared that porn had gone “mainstream.” God forbid.

Dexter - a TV show about a sociopath who cuts people up in his spare time?

The “sexual revolution” wanted it their way. We are now the counter-culture. It may be difficult to break certain habits but hey, we will be called to account. And I’m a sinner, God knows. I have things in my life that I want God to keep me from. It’s taking a little time, but by God’s grace, a little progress has been made.

Peace,
Ed
 
Although television can be a bit nasty at times, it is not a sin to watch it. It may be a bit painful, but not a sin. You are most certainly not going to Hell for watching, owning, or even selling something like That 70’s show (or the Tonight Show). One must make up one’s own mind about what “crosses the line” and what does not. One person’s judgment can easily be different from someone else’s.

No Catholic should torture her/himself for watching shows with some offensive material in them. Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus says, in response to a question whether watching certain films with graphic violence or nudity in them is “sinful”:

“In the wise words of a priest of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, “The Catholic Church teaches authoritatively, has always taught authoritatively, and will always teach authoritatively, that the visual arts … are a grey area.”” (No absolute judgment is possible in this area, unless it is very obvious, like outright pornography.)

(continued) “Catholic moral theology does not support the conclusion that all nudity (or profanity or violence) in art, including cinema, must always be considered morally wrong, or that Catholics must always avoid all art that includes such nudity (or profanity), even if that nudity is at times morally problematic.”

Here are links to Steven Greydanus’ official film review homepage. Read it thoroughly. Greydanus knows his theology, and has written for Catholic Answers in their Magazine, “This Rock.” His reasoning is well-balanced and non-threatening. It should answer all your questions.

decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-14/132
decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-19/199
decentfilms.com/articles/criticism.html
decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms.html
decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-9/4

And remember, even if this all seems a bit overwhelming, the visual arts are, no matter what, “a grey area.” God is not going to condemn you for watching, owning, or even selling films with problematic content in them. As long as they are not outright pornography or erotica, you have nothing to worry about.

Some Catholic ratings providers, like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, will issue certain ratings on films. Some films classified as “O” are regarded as “morally offensive.” Some people take this to mean that Catholics are forbidden to watch these films. This is absolutely wrong. Steven Greydanus weighs in here too, saying:

“The USCCB ratings are advisory, not authoritative. An O rating is certainly a good reason to be cautious about watching a given film. At the same time, it’s a factor informing your decision, not a dictate you are expected to follow. The USCCB review database is a useful resource with an enormous library of reviews — far more than I will ever cover — and it’s both appropriate and prudent that Catholics should make use of it, particularly regarding older films. But it’s a resource to be used, not a law to be followed.”

You can read his full explanation here: decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-18/190

Greydanus elaborates further in his essay “No Movies, Please, We’re Catholic:”

“ (Like movies and television),…a lot of things (are grey areas) in this world. Not everything—pornography, for instance, or the Bible. But after a short list of black and whites, there are an awful lot of greys out there.”

(continued) “Some people are suspicious of all “grey areas,” but that’s a mistake. “Grey areas” range from Shakespeare to Dan Brown, Thomas Aquinas to Hans Küng, Benedict XVI to Christopher Hitchens—not to mention this website and every article in it, including this one.”

(continued) “Grey area” doesn’t mean that everything is equally worthy of suspicion, or that it makes no difference what we embrace or reject. It does mean that there’s no getting around the need to exercise prudential judgment, and that embracing or rejecting anything should be a qualified and critical act.”

(continued) “We speak of the “canon of Western literature,” but unlike the biblical canon, even classics of Western literature, from Aquinas to Shakespeare, aren’t above criticism. (That’s not to say that all criticisms are equally valid!) Conversely, even Küng or Hitchens may have a valid point now and then. (I don’t know if Dan Brown has ever had a valid point, but I wouldn’t dogmatically write off the possibility that he might.)”

(continued) “No critic can offer a one-size-fits-all approach for all committed Christians. I can’t, and have never tried to, tell anyone what to think or watch, or make definitive pronouncements about good or bad movies (or television). I’m not the Pope; I’m not even the pope of movies. There is no pope of movies. Even the Pope isn’t the pope of movies.”
Being afraid of going to Hell for watching films or television with sexual or violent content is utterly ridiculous. Greydanus 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. Put it out of your mind. Fear in this area is totally baseless, and a complete waste of time.
 
Madeline616 said:
Amen to that. My pastor puts it very simply. If we want to be pure and holy, we simply cannot allow our entertainment to consist of watching other people sin!
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t that apply to books, as well? What about murder mysteries, even cozies?
 
Heuchler said:
I wouldn’t think so. SNL isn’t the best thing out there (spiritually and in comedic sense unfortunately). I started watching SNL a year back and after seeing some of the old skits on youtube I really wish this group was better. But to get back to your question, unless you start copying SNL and it leads you to sin, then no its fine to watch the show.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the same SNL that yielded frequent FoxNews commentators Victoria Jackson and Dennis Miller? Also, Chris Farley was Catholic (source: St. Monica’s Church page).
 
EDWEST2 WROTE: “I invite everyone to read the following: vatican.va/holy_father/pi…i-cura_en.html
  • This, incidentally, is a link to the “ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE PIUS XI ON THE MOTION PICTURE - VIGILANTI CURA.” This is an extraordinarily dated and outmoded document. Its usefulness ended long ago. It details the formation of something called the “Legion of Decency.” This was a film ratings review organization that critiqued older films for their “moral value.”
The “Legion of Decency” strikes me as one of the more bizarre attempts to monitor and control films. It required Catholics to take a public vow in their Churches to avoid films deemed “immoral” by the Legion. This was an odd form of self-censorship – and it broke down very quickly. No doubt you mention “Legion” here to try and guilt people reading this into avoiding certain films. Such a tactic is doomed to failure. The “Legion of Decency” was absorbed into the Conference of Catholic Bishops years ago. Its ratings are most certainly NOT binding on individual Catholic consciences.

Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus wrote an essay about the Legion on his website, “Decent Films:”​

“The Legion of Decency was founded in 1933.”

“Cracks in the system began to appear from the post-war years onward. The rise of foreign film and independent theaters showed that it was possible to make and distribute movies without the PCA seal — and such films might have considerable artistic or even moral substance while treating subject matter in ways not permitted by the Code. With changing social mores, the line between violations of morality and violations of decorum became harder to find.”

“The effort to apply moral concerns in an objective, codifiable way, whether by the PCA or the Legion, was always problematic.

“In the 1960s the Legion of Decency was absorbed into the US bishops conference, and eventually became the Office for Film and Broadcasting as we know it today. It still carries on the work of classifying movies for moral and age-based appropriateness, including classifying some films as morally offensive. 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.”

“Nor do I think that responsible adult Catholics today should consider themselves bound by any one verdict on movies. In 1960, for example, the Legion 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. 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. **Organized controversy over a film today arguably helps rather than harms it at the box office. Finally, not only movie production but also distribution — including DVD and the Internet — is far too decentralized for studios or exhibitors to feel intimidated by boycotts.”​

You can read the full essay here:

decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-9/4

In summary: The “Legion of Decency” is gone for good. And for some very excellent reasons, as Greydanus points out above. I say good riddance.
  • Regards.
 
I am not speaking of “Indifference” at all. Most television literally IS a “grey area.” Not everything in it is morally offensive. Most of It is not outright pornography, for example (there are some very specific channels that show garbage like that.) You are simply stating your opinion and nothing else. Such a position is what Greydanus identifies as a “rigourist” view. This is very common, and misleading.

(Also, since Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus has actually WRITTEN reviews for the Conference of Catholic Bishops (the “Legion of Decency” today, as he mentions in my post above,) I would say HE is not “Indifferent” either. Absolutely not.)

Just because a show has elements that you might find objectionable does not merit condemning the entire show. Just because television may not be as “pure” as you wish does not justify condemning most television. There is absolutely nothing in all Catholic theology that forces us to do so. You are wrong…

Philosopher/priest Father Robert Lauder, one of the technical advisors on Steven Greydanus’ website “Decent Films,” says:

“One film will not change anyone’s life but a constant diet of the same type of film has to affect people”.
  • In other words, watching most television in and of itself is NOT going to somehow turn you into a nihilist, for instance. It is not going to turn you into an atheist. It will not definitively convince atheists to avoid Catholicism. Such a position is unsupportable, and wrong.
Also, just because YOU personally might not approve of a particular show does not mean that others will share the same view. You will never get me or anyone else to agree with this.

From the essay “No Movies, Please, We’re Catholic:”

decentfilms.com/blog/no-movies-please

**“Part of this balance includes accepting that discerning between good and bad in cinema, as in other art forms, is a matter where sincere Catholics may disagree. **In the wise words of a priest of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary, “The Catholic Church teaches authoritatively, has always taught authoritatively, and will always teach authoritatively, that the visual arts … are a grey area.”

(continued) “So are a lot of things in this world. Not everything—pornography, for instance, or the Bible. But after a short list of black and whites, there are an awful lot of greys out there.”

(continued)” Some people are suspicious of all “grey areas,” but that’s a mistake. “Grey areas” range from Shakespeare to Dan Brown, Thomas Aquinas to Hans Küng, Benedict XVI to Christopher Hitchens—not to mention this website and every article in it, including this one.”​

  • Your (EDWEST2’s) objections remind me of something else on Steven Greydanus’ film critic website. A reader wrote him a question, saying:
“As a Catholic rediscovering her faith and using the internet to reconnect with many Catholics, I’ve come across many people who are very intolerant of “frivolous” art. As an artist myself, I just love a good piece of fiction, and felt so torn at such comments. I thought for sure my enjoyment of a compelling film was going to send me to hell! But reading through your site has been a wonderful eye-opener!”

“My question lies with movies given a minus-4 in morality (a rating system used by Greydanus.) If labeled minus-4, does it make the film morally wrong to watch? Does it put it on the list of films that cross the line and shouldn’t be viewed? For example, I greatly enjoy the film V for Vendetta, despite its many flaws, because I found the characters very powerful and moving, and loved trying to get into their heads, find their motivation, feel what they were feeling. And I saw that on artistic merit, you rated it highly. But, does being given such a morally inept show make it morally wrong to have enjoyed it? Such as when the USCCBA gives a film an O rating? (I’ve been told that films rated O shouldn’t be seen because we’d be supporting the making of a corrupt film).”​

(Here is Greydanus’ response:)

“I’m gratified that you’ve found my work helpful, and doubly so that it’s been a part of your reappropriation of your faith.

The moral-spiritual ratings, like the other ratings, are only a quick index of my opinion, representing my response to the film in question. The ratings are less important than the point of view and the arguments presented in the review itself. Even then, the point of view and the arguments of the review represent my opinion and my response to the film. Other people may have different responses which may be equally valid.

That’s not to say that different responses are always equally good, or that none are more adequate or insightful than another. But I don’t automatically assume that my response is better than a reader’s response; the reverse may easily be the case. And it’s not always a matter of better or worse. Tastes differ from one person to another, and often vary with age, experience, state in life and other circumstances. My taste in movies today is different from ten years ago when I started Decent Films, and certainly from 20 years ago. I don’t necessarily decry my 20-year-old taste, but I write as the man I am, even if my experience of the man I was broadens my perspective. Of course, my perspective is necessarily limited by other experiences I haven’t had, if you follow me.” (continued)
 
(continued from above) “To take the example you gave, V for Vendetta, I don’t say you’re wrong to enjoy it. You’ve evidently seen the film a number of times, and I’ve only seen it once. I’m sure you see things in the film that I didn’t. I evidently saw some things in a different light than you do. I hope that you consider my response thoughtfully, and that my review highlights certain questions and issues for you as you watch it; but you’re free to come to your own conclusions about them, and in principle they may be as good as mine or better. I might be curious to know how your response to the film potentially changes over the next decade or two — but I don’t assume that you will necessarily feel more like I do about it, or that it would necessarily be better if you did. I don’t mean to invalidate your response to the film, or the attachment you feel to the characters.”

"The USCCB ratings are advisory, not authoritative. An O rating is certainly a good reason to be cautious about watching a given film. At the same time, it’s a factor informing your decision, not a dictate you are expected to follow. The USCCB review database is a useful resource with an enormous library of reviews — far more than I will ever cover — and it’s both appropriate and prudent that Catholics should make use of it, particularly regarding older films. But it’s a resource to be used, not a law to be followed.”

decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-18/190
 
Well, to quiet everybody up about this, I talked to a very good and holy Priest yesterday in the confessional. I told him that I had a three joke rule, and that if a show or comedian had told three dirty jokes, I turned it off. I asked him if this was good enough, and if I should turn it off before then, and he said that was a good rule. He said that most of the shows and comedians lean towards these sorts of jokes, and that this rule was good in almost all cases, except when a show or comedian is trying to get me to visualize or think deeply about something inappropriate. I’ll take this Priest’s reasonable advice, as I would recommend everyone else to.
 
Well, whoever told you you were being scrupulous was rude. It is a legitimate concern, and shows maturity.

I have similar fears having allowed my children (and still do now that they are grown up) watch a whole host of programs that joke about fornication and what have you. And, now they play those shot-and-kill games which I really hate.

I love reruns of Seinfeld, but, there are some programs I just know I can’t watch. I think it is spiritually dangerous, and, given the fact that we’re all probably on shaky ground, at best, probably wise to avoid.
 
What Would Jesus Watch?

🙂

Probably not Southpark, or The Boondocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top