Marvel comic book to avoid

[AngryAtheist8]

I think that someone should buy it, scan it, and post it over internet, in this way the people that were planning to buy it get it for free and the other people will continue to ignore it.** That is a good way to cripple an industry that publishes garbage. Isn’t it? **

You mean theft?

 

[Portrait]

It should be noted that Ed is reviewing material that he has not even read/watched.

Which seems like a rather irresponsible thing for a reviewer to do.
And is a practice I do not consider intellectually credible.

Dear AngryAtheist8,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you.

There is this very modern notion, frequently heard on these boards, that a man must read a book from cover to cover or watch a film in its entirety before he is entitled to give any critical analysis. Quite frankly this is absurd and just plainly wrong. Not invariably it is a line of argument used for the purposes of scoring cheap debaters points to discredit one’s protagonist. It supposedly undermines their credibility and conveys the impression to others that they are indolent and untrustworthy. However, if the truth be known, those who resort to this sort of unfair argumentation would never in a month of Sundays apply it to themselves in any number of other issues. It is, dear friend, a tactic employed soley for polemical purposes, namely to close someone down and silence an opposing viewpoint with which one strongly disagrees.

The vast majority of people would accept that reading trusted reviews of books/films and in-depth analysis of any work suffices for the purposes of general debate, unless one is preparing a professional review for a broadsheet newspaper or a television arts programme. Thus, for example, dear friend, I have never read the Davinci Code, but I have read articles/reviews that clearly demonstrate that it is arrant nonsense of the first-rank. Therefore, I have no need to squander my time reading such worthless fiction. This is surely even more the case with material containing immoral or unwholesome content where I am also at risk of befouling my soul in addition to wasting my time.

Finally, dear friend, it is not a question of regurgitating hearsay or of being “irresponsible”, but merely leaning on trusted and respected reviews/articles, written by others, in order to better understand a given literary work or film. This is quite sufficient and acceptable for the purposes of ordinary debate, such as the kind which take place here on CAF.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I have a son and he’s now showing interest in comic books, so I thank you for the warning.

I’ve always been more Marvel than DC, but Marvel really lost me with the Red Hulk. I mean, what the…? Red Hulk? And then came, recently, Fabio Hulk where he was drawn with a neatly trimmed beard and long hair.

Super Hero Squad and Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes have helped me pass on my own comic book heroes to my son. I’m actually quite skittish about what’s been published recently.

 

[edwest2]

Dear AngryAtheist8,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you.

There is this very modern notion, frequently heard on these boards, that a man must read a book from cover to cover or watch a film in its entirety before he is entitled to give any critical analysis. Quite frankly this is absurd and just plainly wrong. Not invariably it is a line of argument used for the purposes of scoring cheap debaters points to discredit one’s protagonist. It supposedly undermines their credibility and conveys the impression to others that they are indolent and untrustworthy. However, if the truth be known, those who resort to this sort of unfair argumentation would never in a month of Sundays apply it to themselves in any number of other issues. It is, dear friend, a tactic employed soley for polemical purposes, namely to close someone down and silence an opposing viewpoint with which one strongly disagrees.

The vast majority of people would accept that reading trusted reviews of books/films and in-depth analysis of any work suffices for the purposes of general debate, unless one is preparing a professional review for a broadsheet newspaper or a television arts programme. Thus, for example, dear friend, I have never read the Davinci Code, but I have read articles/reviews that clearly demonstrate that it is arrant nonsense of the first-rank. Therefore, I have no need to squander my time reading such worthless fiction. This is surely even more the case with material containing immoral or unwholesome content where I am also at risk of befouling my soul in addition to wasting my time.

Finally, dear friend, it is not a question of regurgitating hearsay or of being “irresponsible”, but merely leaning on trusted and respected reviews/articles, written by others, in order to better understand a given literary work or film. This is quite sufficient and acceptable for the purposes of ordinary debate, such as the kind which take place here on CAF.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Portrait,

Thank you for your well reasoned argument. The examples of what Catholics and men of good will should avoid are many. And yes, we all should look to reliable and credible sources regarding the contents of any type of media to know what is worthwhile and what to avoid. The emotional aspect is hard to avoid at certain times and the generalization, or rule, that one must see or read something does not apply in all cases. Is there any porn movie we should see before commenting on it? Of course not.

The comic book description I posted was from the highly reputable icv2.com web site:

"Humphries promises that the book will be “dark, dirty, morally sticky, edgy, bloody, and sexy.”

There is a strong opinion by some that our free will and our own judgment must be our guide. However, in too many cases, while Church teaching, or the letter of the law, is mentioned, I can’t help but wonder how the spirit of the law is followed. The ‘exception finders’ are anxious to say, in a few cases, that unless it’s carved in stone, then it doesn’t apply, and we are free to ignore, reinterpret or suit to ourselves, not just Church teaching but what the Bible tells us about fleeing immorality. I do not wish to claim that I have any particular authority or that I can judge anyone. My point is to always to describe what is obviously wrong.

One more observation. There seem to be a few people that get a positive emotional feeling about long debates. But what is the value of any debate based only on poorly informed or uninformed opinions? Of course, there are those seeking the truth, but, it is obvious that, at times, an excuse, a loophole, or new interpretation is sought that does not lead to the truth but a justification for doing wrong. God knows I’m a sinner, and I am tempted daily. But everyone here needs the truth, including those that lurk here looking for truth. Without truth, how can we properly live our faith? Or how can we have a truly functional society?

I encourage you to continue posting here.

Many thanks.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

There is a strong opinion by some that our free will and our own judgment must be our guide. However, in too many cases, while Church teaching, or the letter of the law, is mentioned, I can’t help but wonder how the spirit of the law is followed…My point is to always to describe what is obviously wrong.

And what is obviously wrong to you is not what is obviously wrong to the Church, otherwise, she would speak on the matter.

You still have provided no evidence whatsoever that the spirit of the law does not coincide with the letter of the law.

 

[edwest2]

I have a son and he’s now showing interest in comic books, so I thank you for the warning.

I’ve always been more Marvel than DC, but Marvel really lost me with the Red Hulk. I mean, what the…? Red Hulk? And then came, recently, Fabio Hulk where he was drawn with a neatly trimmed beard and long hair.

Super Hero Squad and Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes have helped me pass on my own comic book heroes to my son. I’m actually quite skittish about what’s been published recently.

You’re welcome. The media seems to be heading in a continuing downward spiral. Comic books have gay characters and even gay marriages. The argument from a few in the comic book industry (and I do know people at Marvel and DC) is that their comics should reflect what is happening in society. They seem to have forgotten or chosen to ignore the fact that children go through various stages of mental, emotional and social development for every year of their lives. And they should not be exposed to certain themes or ideas.

Marvel and DC have forgotten what the word hero means, as in, superhero. A superhero, by definition, has certain obvious qualities that are beyond the norm, and they are all good qualities. So a boy can read about his hero and admire the traits he has. Developing an active imagination is a good thing. Pretending to be Spider-Man or Superman is a good thing in play with other kids. It creates an imagination, an imagination that might lead a boy to become a comic book artist or writer later in life, so he can pass on the fun, the awe and wonder of being a superhero and fighting evil aliens or saving people from giant mutant insects, and traveling to the future or alien worlds.

But what happens when an established hero or group of heroes go Dark? I was shocked a few years back when I went to a local comic book store and saw a poster for Dark X-Men. How is that possible? Why?

As a boy reading comic books, I grew to love and admire the courage, honesty and desire to protect and serve people that were a part of the superheroes I grew up with. And while reading that comic book, I was drawn into their world, filled with incredible devices and beings. No matter how often the basic story of good fighting evil and good winning, was presented, I felt it, and it inspired me. It led me to good thoughts. To thoughts of doing good and to virtue.

Some companies have now decided that a hero can also also include those that beat the bad guy to a bloody pulp - graphically depicted. Or a “hero” is a guy that has killed fewer people in one issue than the bad guy.

Read what your kids read. Find out about that cool stuff your boy is talking about. Look into it and see if it contains messages you don’t approve of. Kids are like sponges and they are often prompted by others their age to check out this comic book or game or TV show. Find out where their heads are at today because the media has made a lot of changes over the years and they’ve mostly been bad ones.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Dear edwest2,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Hear, hear, jolly well said and thankyou for bringing to our notice the moral declension within the media at the present time, dear brother.

As long as you continue to work within this field it affords you an opportunity to be a witness to Christian morality and goodness. Do keep up this noble and vital work, for it is indispensable given the cultural and moral deterioration of our age.

God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

Thank you. Thank you very much.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Portrait]

And what is obviously wrong to you is not what is obviously wrong to the Church, otherwise, she would speak on the matter.

You still have provided no evidence whatsoever that the spirit of the law does not coincide with the letter of the law.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you.

It is unreasonable as well as un-Catholic to expect Holy Mother Church to pronounce upon every single issue upon which doubt may exist. She leaves it to the faithful to exercise their prudential judgment or good old fashioned sanctified common sense as regards their decision making. This is all well and good, dear friend, but problems are likely to arise when men have radically defective consciences as a consequence of becoming thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the age. In this instance it is more than probable that they will make catastrophic errors of prudential judgment on a whole range of issues, owing to their conformity to the godless world (cf. Rom. 12: 2). Moreover, their powers of discernment will be exceedingly dulled and blunted and thus they will probably be always seeking justification for their worldly outlook, which will reveal itself in choice of leisure activities, including their choice of films, television programmes and books. If they are severely desensitized to immorality, then they might well convince themselves that decidedly unwholesome content is not necessarily at variance with the Church’s call to holiness (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2013-2015). They will also stubbornly close their ears to the fact that holiness involves renunciation and spiritual battle against those things that are contrary to a profession of godliness.

At any rate, to always demand official pronouncements or Catechism citations for every possible matter is surely not consonant with the spirit of Catholicism. Our Church often gives the faithful guiding principles (as in the issue of modest attire) and from these a well-formed conscience should be able to make the correct choice and not fall into a relativistic cast of mind, which comes perilous near to asking “what is truth?”. To inform our decision making, dear friend, we also require Sacred Scripture and the extrinsic tradition of the Church, throughout the ages, as well as the current Catechism. If due regard is had to these then we will be unlikely to take a wrong path.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dear Portrait,

Thank you. Thank you very much.

God bless,
Ed

Dear edwest,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. You are most welcome, dear friend. Keep up the good work, thats the spirit, old chap. As a dear brother now departed this life used to say, “God’s truth will prove correct no matter who questions it”. A hearty Amen to that, I say.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

It is unreasonable as well as un-Catholic to expect Holy Mother Church to pronounce upon every single issue upon which doubt may exist.

The Church does pronounce upon every single issue when taken broadly enough. If watching any immorality in media were sinful, we would know because the Church would teach this.

She leaves it to the faithful to exercise their prudential judgment or good old fashioned sanctified common sense as regards their decision making.

Indeed, and there is inherent in such cases an acceptance of relativism, for if there were in its place an assertion of absolutism, the Church would have spoken clearly thereupon.

At any rate, to always demand official pronouncements or Catechism citations for every possible matter is surely not consonant with the spirit of Catholicism.

No one is asking for this. But you sound foolish when you say that something as comprehensive and fundamental as consuming culture is so “obvious” that the Church need not pronounce anything at all on it, despite the number of perfectly specific and perfectly obvious moral issues upon which the Church does speak with a great deal of specificity. Furthermore, one could argue that those resulted from circumstances requiring such pronouncements. This contradicts your statements that the spirit of the age has degraded our consciences so much that Catholics are incapable of discerning properly, for surely such a circumstance would justify teaching by the Church.

Incidentally, the Church repeatedly speaks out against violence and pornography, but never once in any of those documents speaks out against the other “morally binding” aspects of media which you and edwest espouse.

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

Thank you for those encouraging words. They are appreciated.

Here is Pope Benedict making his usual nuanced comments about culture and the spirit of our age. And what “truth” has become.

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-renounce-culture-that-disguises-falsehood-as-truth

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Not at all. As Portrait has clearly addressed the point. No Catholic needs a big warning label about porn, but music CDs have them, games have them and movies have them. That’s why they’re there. All it has to say is “explicit lyrics” and it goes back on the shelf.

I saw The Kids are All Right. I’m sorry I did. I should read have the following from www.imdb.com:

“Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language and some teen drug and alcohol use.” I found it sickening.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

Not at all. As Portrait has clearly addressed the point. No Catholic needs a big warning label about porn, but music CDs have them, games have them and movies have them. That’s why they’re there. All it has to say is “explicit lyrics” and it goes back on the shelf.

Did the comic book say that there was pornography inside? I do not remember reading that.

 

[Portrait]

The Church does pronounce upon every single issue when taken broadly enough. If watching any immorality in media were sinful, we would know because the Church would teach this.

Indeed, and there is inherent in such cases an acceptance of relativism, for if there were in its place an assertion of absolutism, the Church would have spoken clearly thereupon.

No one is asking for this. But you sound foolish when you say that something as comprehensive and fundamental as consuming culture is so “obvious” that the Church need not pronounce anything at all on it, despite the number of perfectly specific and perfectly obvious moral issues upon which the Church does speak with a great deal of specificity. Furthermore, one could argue that those resulted from circumstances requiring such pronouncements. This contradicts your statements that the spirit of the age has degraded our consciences so much that Catholics are incapable of discerning properly, for surely such a circumstance would justify teaching by the Church.

Incidentally, the Church repeatedly speaks out against violence and pornography, but never once in any of those documents speaks out against the other “morally binding” aspects of media which you and edwest espouse.

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your reply above.

What the Church gives to the faithful is guiding principles which can be applied to diverse issues, save for those major moral issues of paramount importance such as, for example, homosexual acts of depravity, abortion and birth prevention, on which she has unequivocally pronounced upon. We do not, dear friend, require the Church to specifically teach us that viewing immorality in the media is unacceptable and unbefitting for those who profess the holy religion of Christ. Those with a good spiritual formation, earnestly pursuing holiness in the fear of God, ought surely to be fully cognizant of that. It is manifestly self-evident that if a man is thinking upon those things that are honourable, just, pure, lovely and gracious (Phillip. 4: 8), he will hardly relish watching media containing salacious content.

It is not, dear friend, a question of “absolutism”, more an issue of striving after personal sanctity and keeping “oneself unstained from the world” (Jam. 1: 27). This will necessarily involve keeping ourselves pure and holy amidst all of the distracting and demoralizing influences of the godless world, such as unwholesome films and debased sensory material, which are not conducive to the pursuit of holiness but rather appeal to our baser passions.

If men become worldly as a consequence of assimilating the godless spirit of the age, then it is a fact that their consciences will, at length, become radically defective and their decision making is almost next to certain to be wrong. Moreover, their thinking is bound to be skewed as a result of their conformity with the world because they are so earthbound in their outlook. The faithful are enjoined not to be conformed to the world but rather to be transformed by the renewing of their minds, for it is only by so doing that they will “prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12: 2). We Catholics properly belong to the high mountain land above and so must refuse to descend to the level of those who habitually wallow in filth and whose outlook is circumscribed only by that which is temporal. Only an interior transformation of the mind will aid us in discerning what is good and acceptable and what is not, dear friend. Even if the Church did pronounce upon every single issue, without this inward renewal of the mind, worldly men would ignore the teaching, as many do today, even with regards to the teachings that Holy Mother Church has officially pronounced upon.

Again, we should not be looking to be spoon fed by morally binding directives when it comes to this whole issue of sanctity and separation from the godless world. We have, in Sacred Scripture and the call to holiness in our Catechism sufficient guiding principles, if only we are prepared to listen and obey. Baelor, I recommend for your perusal the article linked by edwest, where our Holy Father speaks about renouncing our godless culture. Films, television programmes, literature, and RPG’s containing unsavoury and indecent material are a part of this godless culture and that is why the devout Catholic will give them a very wide-berth. However, as I have said above, if we have a well-formed conscience that is not defiled by the world, we will not need the Church to specifically teach this, for we ourselves will be able to prove what is good and acceptable by the renewal of our minds.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

What the Church gives to the faithful is guiding principles which can be applied to diverse issues, save for those major moral issues of paramount importance such as, for example, homosexual acts of depravity, abortion and birth prevention, on which she has unequivocally pronounced upon.

That is not true – sexual temptation, respect for others, political theory, pornography, violence, the structure of the family, etc. have all been explained in the CCC and other authoritative Church documents.

The Church has spoken unequivocally on a variety of moral issues ranging from the most grave to the very venial. Furthermore, the Church does not state that there are sins outside of those delineated in Church teaching or those to which our consciences draw our attention.

We do not, dear friend, require the Church to specifically teach us that viewing immorality in the media is unacceptable and unbefitting for those who profess the holy religion of Christ.

Indeed we do not, because the Church does not teach that viewing immorality in the media is unacceptable and unbecoming. The reason that She does not teach this is because it is not true, and the Church is a holy paragon of the Truth. Of course She does not teach falsehood, which is why a faithful Catholic would not find a condemnation of that sort in Church teaching.

Those with a good spiritual formation, earnestly pursuing holiness in the fear of God, ought surely to be fully cognizant of that. It is manifestly self-evident that if a man is thinking upon those things that are honourable, just, pure, lovely and gracious (Phillip. 4: 8), he will hardly relish watching media containing salacious content.

“Salacious” is too narrow of a term for immoral actions being depicted in the media. Furthermore, those with good spiritual formation, earnestly pursuing holiness are indeed fully cognizant of the Church’s understanding of sin and the media, i.e. that pornography and pornographic violence are sinful but many other depictions of immoral activity are not sinful.

It is not, dear friend, a question of “absolutism”, more an issue of striving after personal sanctity and keeping “oneself unstained from the world” (Jam. 1: 27).

The Church is absolutist where such is appropriate, e.g. pornography. It is indeed a matter of absolutism.

This will necessarily involve keeping ourselves pure and holy amidst all of the distracting and demoralizing influences of the godless world, such as unwholesome films and debased sensory material, which are not conducive to the pursuit of holiness but rather appeal to our baser passions.

I am not speaking only about sexual immorality in film. Unless you broaden the scope of your discussion, we cannot have one.

We Catholics properly belong to the high mountain land above and so must refuse to descend to the level of those who habitually wallow in filth and whose outlook is circumscribed only by that which is temporal.

You err in believing that watching any immorality of any sort (not only sexual) in the media will induce others. Perhaps you suffer from a particularly weak spiritual constitution and are easily drawn into sin, but for many others, a strong faith formation and knowledge of the faith permit exposure to reality without corruption of the soul. I will pray that you become stronger in your faith.

Again, we should not be looking to be spoon fed by morally binding directives when it comes to this whole issue of sanctity and separation from the godless world.

Indeed not. And yet, the Church’s understanding of sin and morality is expressed in Her teachings. They are up-to-date.

We have, in Sacred Scripture and the call to holiness in our Catechism sufficient guiding principles, if only we are prepared to listen and obey. Baelor, I recommend for your perusal the article linked by edwest, where our Holy Father speaks about renouncing our godless culture.

I have examined it thoroughly. It agrees with me and disagrees with you, which makes sense because I have Church teaching on my side and you admit that you do not.

 

[Portrait]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Quite correct, dear friend, ‘antagonist’ was the noun that I should have used. Thankyou for bringing that to my notice.

Whether the argument is based on insufficient knowledge would largely depend upon the quality of reviews or articles upon which it is based. This is why I spoke of reading trusted reviews and in-depth analysis. Of course we have to be jolly judicious as regards our source material and this I would not stop to deny.

If one is preparing an article/review for say a broadsheet newspaper or an arts programme on the BBC, then yes it is incumbent upon one to do one’s homework. However, dear friend, for the purposes of general discussion on an internet forum I do not think that most men would demand that sort of extensive research. Those who do churlishly demand it are invariably trying to discredit their opponent and, yes, make him appear unscholarly and lax.

Those who on a public forum insist upon an immense amount of research, and that a man watch an entire film, before he earns the right to comment upon it are, dear friend, being jolly unreasonable, if not uncharitable. That really admits of no doubt. After all, a public internet forum, such as CAF, is not the exclusive domain of scholarly film reviewers, but of all sorts and conditions of men. Surely these chaps should be able to contribute to the discussion, based upon their albeit limited study of sources, assuming those sources are trustworthy and sound?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

However, dear friend, for the purposes of general discussion on an internet forum I do not think that most men would demand that sort of extensive research. Those who do churlishly demand it are invariably trying to discredit their opponent and, yes, make him appear unscholarly and lax.

Portrait, we both know that you are being dishonest here. JC was not asking for “extensive research,” he was pointing out that edwest did not actually read the very text he is condemning. That is not “extensive research,” that is having familiarity with your topic.

I would not want to take a class with a professor who has not read any of the texts being considered. Would you trust the opinion of someone making comments about the Bible without having read a single word of it?

Those who on a public forum insist upon an immense amount of research, and that a man watch an entire film, before he earns the right to comment upon it are, dear friend, being jolly unreasonable, if not uncharitable.

You are making no sense. A film is a two-hour commitment. Only an ignoramus suffering from intense mental flaccidity would even consider making a definitive normative statement about a film he has not seen. That is not an immense amount of research; that is not an unreasonable burden. No one is suggesting that all posters obtain doctoral degrees in Film Studies in order to comment.

Why should I listen to the opinion of someone about something with which he is unfamiliar?

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

True, the Church does make absolute statements about sin, but it is from such statements, dear friend, that we are able to apply what the Church specifically affirms more broadly to certain actions. However, we need to ensure that we do not look upon Holy Mother Church as a sort of answer machine for every question respecting life and morality, for that is a Fundamentalist mindset and has no place within Catholicism.

It is supremely important, dear friend, that we always keep before us the Church’s call to holiness and the obligation laid upon us to make spiritual progress so as to cultivate a more intimate union with our Blessed Saviour. This I cannot emphasize enough for it is key in all these types of discussions. However, “There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace of the Beatitudes” (CCC. para. 2015). Now a part of that renunciation will surely include avoiding media that features immorality and extreme violence, as this sort of unwholesome material will not be conducive to our sanctity and will only serve to desensitize us to that which is sinful. How sad it is that many modern Catholics (including those who identify as conservative) want to wholeheartedly embrace secular culture and adopt a hand in hand with the world sort of religious profession that is more free and easy.

If we have radically defective consciences then, dear friend, it is most unlikely that they will draw our attention to that which is unsavoury and contrary to the holy religion of Christ. Conscience is that innate faculty which enables a man to distinguish right from wrong but if he has become imbued with worldliness then it is highly improbable that he will be able to follow the dictates of his conscience, because it has become blurred and dulled. This in turn leads him to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgment. For example, the unspiritual man will not be unduly concerned with the growing portrayal of unspeakable sexual depravity and cruelty on film or DVD, indeed, he might well be found ardently rationalizing and defending it. Fallen man has a tendency to rationalize morally when he knows that his motives are doubtful and when he is desperately searching for some false justification to delude not only himself, but others also. This is not genuine moral decision-making, but merely an excuse for worldly conformity. Alas, we are, I feel, increasingly witnessing this tendency among contemporary Catholics, certainly if these boards are any true index.

What is your source for your comment that the Church does not teach that immorality in the media is unbecoming and unbefitting for those who profess the holy religion of Christ? Forgive me, dear friend, but this is jolly confusing. Surely the modern media is permeated with verbal and visual images of uncontrolled and undirected sexual activity, which undoubtedly entices people to recreational sex (often in acts of fornication) - sex without a lawful union and with no moral vision of where carnal relations fit appropriately into human life. Moreover, the same media is saturated with malicious violence, which surely engenders a climate in which uncontrolled anger is seen as acceptable and even glorified. Now how do we reconcile all of this with the Catholic call to holiness and the renunciaion of our debased secular culture? Moreover, how do we reconcile it with St. Paul’s exhortation: “Finally, brethren, 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, bolded text mine)? Debasing elements, be it in the media or literature, will inevitably at some point leave a blot on the conscience and a stain upon the character. As St. Paul says elsewhere, “Bad communications corrupt good manners” - let us not delude ourselves, dear friend, viewing immorality and scenes of graphic violence on film/TV will, at length, if not immendiately, poison the mind and demoralize the life. A Catholic with a well-formed conscience would be fully aware of this, without needing official pronouncements from the Church, for it is a matter of sanctified common sense.

On the contrary, the adjective ‘salacious’ is an apt description of what is seen in the entertainment industry today, for much film and TV does have a strong tendency to stimulate sexual desire, which often results in unchaste thoughts and illicit carnal relations outside of wedlock.

Sadly, dear friend, fallen men and women are subject to concupiscence and therefore viewing immorality can be an inducement to sin, in any one of us - “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall”. You will recall that St. Paul had just been speaking of the shameful fall of the Jews after their deliverance from Egypt, including indulgence in immorality (v. 8). Why would a devout Catholic wish to deliberately place himself in a situation that could make sinful conduct much more likely? We must needs act virtuously if we do not wish to be drawn into sinful behaviour and that means avoiding media with immoral content. The Church would certainly want the faithful to be sensitive to occasions of sin surrounding us and threatning our hearts and souls these days.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

True, the Church does make absolute statements about sin, but it is from such statements, dear friend, that we are able to apply what the Church specifically affirms more broadly to certain actions.

Not at all. The Church speaks clearly on what is sinful and what is not. Our understanding of sin beyond our own consciences is reflected in Church teaching; if the Church believed something to be absolutely true (i.e., coincidental in all well-formed consciences), it would be reflected in Church teaching.

However, we need to ensure that we do not look upon Holy Mother Church as a sort of answer machine for every question respecting life and morality, for that is a Fundamentalist mindset and has no place within Catholicism.

It is not Fundamentalists would reject Church teaching, since Fundamentalism is antithetical to Catholicism. Perhaps you mean fundamentalist, which can apply to any religion. And no, it would still not be fundamentalist, because authentic understanding of the Truth is reflected in Church doctrine and teaching. No one is advocating for mindless obedience. And yet, we are called to be obedient because the Truth is reflected (perhaps imperfectly) in Church teaching. That is, Church teaching is independently verifiable through natural law and our consciences. The flip side is that the Church teaching is indeed an answer machine on a great number of issues because of the historical process that led to that teaching. I feel bad that you cheapen our Church by saying that we cannot trust the Church’s teaching. The fact that the Church does or does not teach a particular thing is indeed proof of the understanding of morality about the same.

Now a part of that renunciation will surely include avoiding media that features immorality and extreme violence, as this sort of unwholesome material will not be conducive to our sanctity and will only serve to desensitize us to that which is sinful.

Define “immorality.”

For example, the unspiritual man will not be unduly concerned with the growing portrayal of unspeakable sexual depravity and cruelty on film or DVD, indeed, he might well be found ardently rationalizing and defending it.

Define “unspeakable sexual depravity and cruelty.”

Fallen man has a tendency to rationalize morally when he knows that his motives are doubtful and when he is desperately searching for some false justification to delude not only himself, but others also.

How does one distinguish between those who are rationalizing and those happening upon the Truth?

What is your source for your comment that the Church does not teach that immorality in the media is unbecoming and unbefitting for those who profess the holy religion of Christ?

The fact that the Church does not condemn “immorality in the media.” You will not be able to find that phrase anywhere in Church doctrine at that broad of a level.

Forgive me, dear friend, but this is jolly confusing.

I believe that increasing your knowledge of Church teaching will help reduce your confusion.

Surely the modern media is permeated with verbal and visual images of uncontrolled and undirected sexual activity

“Uncontrolled and undirected sexual activity” is not synonymous with “immorality,” q.v. my statement below:

Baelor:

I am not speaking only about sexual immorality in film. Unless you broaden the scope of your discussion, we cannot have one.

which undoubtedly entices people to recreational sex (often in acts of fornication).

Not necessarily.

Moreover, the same media is saturated with malicious violence, which surely engenders a climate in which uncontrolled anger is seen as acceptable and even glorified.

“Malicious violence” is not synonymous with “immorality,” q.v. my statement above.

Debasing elements, be it in the media or literature, will inevitably at some point leave a blot on the conscience and a stain upon the character.

Not necessarily.

On the contrary, the adjective ‘salacious’ is an apt description of what is seen in the entertainment industry today, for much film and TV does have a strong tendency to stimulate sexual desire, which often results in unchaste thoughts and illicit carnal relations outside of wedlock.

Persons consuming media in order to feel sexually stimulated are sinning.

Sadly, dear friend, fallen men and women are subject to concupiscence and therefore viewing immorality can be an inducement to sin, in any one of us.

Indeed it can.