A
anthony6
Guest
is there any guide lines to what is appropriate to see in movies especially in the area of nudity? thanks
- Status
R
r0ckclimber17
Guest
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
usccb.org/movies/
This site will describe what content is in the movie as well as give a Catholic rating. The Catholic rating system ranges from General Audience (A-I), to Limited Adult Audience (L) for films that may problematic content, and will rate certain films as Morally Offensive (O). Those films that have been rated morally offensive are vulgar to the point where there is no redeeming social value or dramatic justification. The films are also rated with regard to contradiction to the teachings of the Church.
I don’t really know of guide to go by beyond this site and a reminder to listen to your rightly formed conscience. After reading a review and it seems like there might be an occasion of sin if you see the movie then don’t go.
usccb.org/movies/
This site will describe what content is in the movie as well as give a Catholic rating. The Catholic rating system ranges from General Audience (A-I), to Limited Adult Audience (L) for films that may problematic content, and will rate certain films as Morally Offensive (O). Those films that have been rated morally offensive are vulgar to the point where there is no redeeming social value or dramatic justification. The films are also rated with regard to contradiction to the teachings of the Church.
I don’t really know of guide to go by beyond this site and a reminder to listen to your rightly formed conscience. After reading a review and it seems like there might be an occasion of sin if you see the movie then don’t go.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
Unfortunately, the USCCB has had a very bad history with their movie reviews. They have had to recall movie reviews more than once (Brokeback Mountain and The Golden Compass being examples) because they were too favorable towards morally offensive films. In general, I would never trust them.
( freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1934444/posts )
As to what is appropriate to see in movies, I think that it would have to be based on what causes lust. For myself, seeing a brief breast or buttocks would not generate lust and so is not a problem for me. I do not approve of it, but if the overall film is worth seeing I will put up with it.
I think that it is pretty clear that anything which shows the genitalia or has extended sex scenes (the kind of thing you would see on Cinemax late at night, for instance) is never acceptable. At that point, it qualifies as pornographic
( freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1934444/posts )
As to what is appropriate to see in movies, I think that it would have to be based on what causes lust. For myself, seeing a brief breast or buttocks would not generate lust and so is not a problem for me. I do not approve of it, but if the overall film is worth seeing I will put up with it.
I think that it is pretty clear that anything which shows the genitalia or has extended sex scenes (the kind of thing you would see on Cinemax late at night, for instance) is never acceptable. At that point, it qualifies as pornographic
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
while in general i agree with your post, i think you were a bit too general in your statements.
what about Schindler’s List that had quite a bit of full nudity, but i could hardly imagine anyone calling it pornographic. personally i think when there is nudity simply for the sake of nudity is the problem. then you get to the gray areas of is it truly art or plot essential?
C
curious4Christ
Guest
I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. Important questions to ask yourself are the following: What would Jesus think of the movie? Would I still watch the movie if my sister/brother or mother/father were playing the role (they are your spiritual relatives, that is, siblings in Christ; see 1 Tim 5:1-2)? What are the director’s intentions (this is a very important question)?
To see a movie and question if it leads to you to lust can sometimes (but not always) be selfish way of looking at things; it would be more selfless to ask how does the movie affect the actors, vendors, and other consumers (whether there is nudity or not)? As a result, is this movie something I want to support?
You might find yourself saying that the movie is not that bad. Well is it bad or is it not? If it’s partially bad, why watch it all? Do something totally good with your time.
Having answered these questions myself, I find myself watching almost no movies because there are really almost no good movies to watch, often thought of as being ridiculous or too extreme. I am convinced that Jesus would be more extreme.
A lot of the culture feels that we need to watch movies and television. Think about it. There are many other great things to do. God bless.
To see a movie and question if it leads to you to lust can sometimes (but not always) be selfish way of looking at things; it would be more selfless to ask how does the movie affect the actors, vendors, and other consumers (whether there is nudity or not)? As a result, is this movie something I want to support?
You might find yourself saying that the movie is not that bad. Well is it bad or is it not? If it’s partially bad, why watch it all? Do something totally good with your time.
Having answered these questions myself, I find myself watching almost no movies because there are really almost no good movies to watch, often thought of as being ridiculous or too extreme. I am convinced that Jesus would be more extreme.
A lot of the culture feels that we need to watch movies and television. Think about it. There are many other great things to do. God bless.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Odd story about when Steven Spielberg and his crew were filming two scenes that are a sticking point for a lot of people (ie. the scene where the prisoners are undergoing a humiliating health inspection and are forced to strip down in front of not just a group of Nazi doctors, but also in front of a large crowd of guards, etc. and another where a group of female prisoners are herded into a shower which they aren’t sure at first is really a shower and not a gas chamber…). The camera crew, who’d filmed all kinds of stuff before, had a hard time watching while they were filming these scenes. And it wasn’t because they found the scene arousing, it was because, they later told Mr. Spielberg, it made them realize for the first time, just how dehumanized the Jewish people in the camps were…
P
Paul1961
Guest
I wish there were more details in a movie review.
Marking a movie “Brief nudity” tell me nothing useful. Was it part of a scene breastfeeding a baby? The 10 second skinny dipping scene at the beginning of Pollyanna. Or a variety of other nudity in a non-sexual context. That’s all fine for me and the children. I have no problem with them seeing non-sexual nudity on film or the locker room at the pool.
Language and Profanity concerns me more than the nudity.
And at the top of the list is graphic violence. I don’t want them seeing someone being bludgeoned with a baseball bat or having their head literally explode on-screen when they are shot.
I’d much rather them see nudity, even within a loving sexual scene, than graphic violence.
But his is America. We would rather watch two boxers pound each other. Two football teams batter each other. But if we somehow see part of a exposed breast, how horrifying. Call the FCC. Boycott the channel.
Marking a movie “Brief nudity” tell me nothing useful. Was it part of a scene breastfeeding a baby? The 10 second skinny dipping scene at the beginning of Pollyanna. Or a variety of other nudity in a non-sexual context. That’s all fine for me and the children. I have no problem with them seeing non-sexual nudity on film or the locker room at the pool.
Language and Profanity concerns me more than the nudity.
And at the top of the list is graphic violence. I don’t want them seeing someone being bludgeoned with a baseball bat or having their head literally explode on-screen when they are shot.
I’d much rather them see nudity, even within a loving sexual scene, than graphic violence.
But his is America. We would rather watch two boxers pound each other. Two football teams batter each other. But if we somehow see part of a exposed breast, how horrifying. Call the FCC. Boycott the channel.
C
Cat
Guest
One of the most popular (with good reason) movies of all time is “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.”
At the beginning of this movie, the T-1000, played by Robert Patrick, kills the police officer and “takes over” his body. For several seconds, Mr. Patrick is buck naked (back view only, and very handsome. The actor is 5’11" and weighed 165 pounds. and he was 33 years old–prime of life!–at the time he did this movie.)
I personally find nothing offensive or arousing or lustful about this scene. The T-1000 is a machine. Mr. Patrick played it perfectly and received rave reviews from critics and fans for his cold, dead-eyed, totally unemotional characterization of this “machine.” The nudity was not sexual at all. After all, your washing machine or garbage disposal isn’t sexual, is it?
Although…I suppose some people would say that machines can be “sexy.”–a car, e.g… I find a Camaro a lot “sexier” than my Saturn Vue! Not sure why.
Or a chainsaw or power drill–those are kind of sexy, I guess, compared to an electric knife or a dentist’s drill. Not sure why. Hmmm…
So maybe a machine IS sexual, and maybe T-1000 is sexy and maybe that’s part of the reason for his appeal to this day. But I don’t think it’s the nudity that made T-1000"sexy", I think it was the machine-like nature of the character. Often when someone is unattainable (e.g., a priest), he/she becomes sexy. Oh, the perversity of human beings and our sin nature!
At the beginning of this movie, the T-1000, played by Robert Patrick, kills the police officer and “takes over” his body. For several seconds, Mr. Patrick is buck naked (back view only, and very handsome. The actor is 5’11" and weighed 165 pounds. and he was 33 years old–prime of life!–at the time he did this movie.)
I personally find nothing offensive or arousing or lustful about this scene. The T-1000 is a machine. Mr. Patrick played it perfectly and received rave reviews from critics and fans for his cold, dead-eyed, totally unemotional characterization of this “machine.” The nudity was not sexual at all. After all, your washing machine or garbage disposal isn’t sexual, is it?
Although…I suppose some people would say that machines can be “sexy.”–a car, e.g… I find a Camaro a lot “sexier” than my Saturn Vue! Not sure why.
Or a chainsaw or power drill–those are kind of sexy, I guess, compared to an electric knife or a dentist’s drill. Not sure why. Hmmm…
So maybe a machine IS sexual, and maybe T-1000 is sexy and maybe that’s part of the reason for his appeal to this day. But I don’t think it’s the nudity that made T-1000"sexy", I think it was the machine-like nature of the character. Often when someone is unattainable (e.g., a priest), he/she becomes sexy. Oh, the perversity of human beings and our sin nature!
S
Show
Guest
My thoughts on this?
It depends on the kind of nudity. Sexual nudity to me is a no-no in all situations. It’s just lustful there. Non-sexual nudity? I guess it can be tolerated if necessary. If the movie is redeeming aside from that, I guess it can be overlooked. I guess it also depends on the intention. Is it done for a reason or just for lust?
Side note: If the USCCB site is unreliable, what Catholic movie review site IS reliable?
It depends on the kind of nudity. Sexual nudity to me is a no-no in all situations. It’s just lustful there. Non-sexual nudity? I guess it can be tolerated if necessary. If the movie is redeeming aside from that, I guess it can be overlooked. I guess it also depends on the intention. Is it done for a reason or just for lust?
Side note: If the USCCB site is unreliable, what Catholic movie review site IS reliable?
E
edwest2
Guest
Nudity in movies is never acceptable. There was a Catholic Legion of Decency that was formed in the 1930s in response to vulgar movies. Mae West was known to play morally loose women, with phrases like, “Why don’t you come on up and see me sometime?” And who also said that she didn’t mind restraint as long as it didn’t go too far.
Catholic standards should not have changed but a slow, gradual “pushing off the envolope” of what was considered acceptable by the general public was a goal of the media as the Legion of Decency disappeared in 1973. After that, the floodgates opened and porn was legalized.
No, just saying a brief look at this or that doesn’t arouse me is not enough. It’s a real tragedy when a young woman like Britney is exploited and photographed in a see-through “dress” that appears on the cover of People magazine. What’s the big deal? Modesty. It’s still a word and it still means what it always meant and that goes for men and women.
I talked with artists and other creatives in the late 1960s and during the 70s about their “freedom” and how nudity could be done “tastefully.” Uh uh. The moment they got their chance - adult bookstore everywhere.
A prostitute is now called a ‘sex worker.’ No. That person is a prostitute. The same goes for porn star.
Peace,
Ed
Catholic standards should not have changed but a slow, gradual “pushing off the envolope” of what was considered acceptable by the general public was a goal of the media as the Legion of Decency disappeared in 1973. After that, the floodgates opened and porn was legalized.
No, just saying a brief look at this or that doesn’t arouse me is not enough. It’s a real tragedy when a young woman like Britney is exploited and photographed in a see-through “dress” that appears on the cover of People magazine. What’s the big deal? Modesty. It’s still a word and it still means what it always meant and that goes for men and women.
I talked with artists and other creatives in the late 1960s and during the 70s about their “freedom” and how nudity could be done “tastefully.” Uh uh. The moment they got their chance - adult bookstore everywhere.
A prostitute is now called a ‘sex worker.’ No. That person is a prostitute. The same goes for porn star.
Peace,
Ed
P
Paul1961
Guest
“It’s a real tragedy when a young woman like Britney is exploited and photographed in a see-through “dress” that appears on the cover of People magazine.”
Tragedy. Let’s not get too melodramatic about it and swoon.
I reserve the word tragedy for things like…
a airplane wing icing up and killing 50 people in Buffalo.
The Austrailian wildfires
The sexual abuse of children by Priests
Darfur.
etc etc etc
A girl immodesty dressed is not a tragedy.
"photographed in a see-through “dress”
BTW. I don;t know if you are aware of it or not. Many many of these see through shots are the effect of high intensity strobe flashes transmitting certain frequencies of light that pass through the weave pattern of the material. The light then bounce back off the skin through the material to the filtered lens. You get a picture of a breast through a see through dress. The camera photographs a breast that cannot be seen by the naked eye. The camera sees what we cannot.
About 10 or 15 years ago, Sony had to make adjustments to their “Nightshot” setting on their camcorders. The “Nightshot” infrared was doing the same thing. Seeing through clothing.
Tragedy. Let’s not get too melodramatic about it and swoon.
I reserve the word tragedy for things like…
a airplane wing icing up and killing 50 people in Buffalo.
The Austrailian wildfires
The sexual abuse of children by Priests
Darfur.
etc etc etc
A girl immodesty dressed is not a tragedy.
"photographed in a see-through “dress”
BTW. I don;t know if you are aware of it or not. Many many of these see through shots are the effect of high intensity strobe flashes transmitting certain frequencies of light that pass through the weave pattern of the material. The light then bounce back off the skin through the material to the filtered lens. You get a picture of a breast through a see through dress. The camera photographs a breast that cannot be seen by the naked eye. The camera sees what we cannot.
About 10 or 15 years ago, Sony had to make adjustments to their “Nightshot” setting on their camcorders. The “Nightshot” infrared was doing the same thing. Seeing through clothing.
S
Show
Guest
But let’s remember, is seeing the naked human body what the sin is? No, if that were the case, parents could never bathe their children or OBGYN’s would be out of work.
It is not the seeing of the naked human body that is the sin, but the lust it arouses. And think about this, is nudity the most sexual thing you can show? What is more sexual, a show scene showing somebody fully nude, but making no references to sexuality, or a scene with no nudity at all shown, but with the clothing being just revealing enough and the suggestion explicit? They say wearing revealing clothing is more dangerous because it forced the mind to fill in the blanks.
So I think it’s hasty to say that all nudity is bad always, cause nudity is not the most dangerous thing to the soul. If one can see a naked human body without lustful thoughts, and the nudity in the movie is not overtly sexual, is there really a problem?
It seems to me that nudity in a film depends on the viewer and whether or not it is a sin for them.
It is not the seeing of the naked human body that is the sin, but the lust it arouses. And think about this, is nudity the most sexual thing you can show? What is more sexual, a show scene showing somebody fully nude, but making no references to sexuality, or a scene with no nudity at all shown, but with the clothing being just revealing enough and the suggestion explicit? They say wearing revealing clothing is more dangerous because it forced the mind to fill in the blanks.
So I think it’s hasty to say that all nudity is bad always, cause nudity is not the most dangerous thing to the soul. If one can see a naked human body without lustful thoughts, and the nudity in the movie is not overtly sexual, is there really a problem?
It seems to me that nudity in a film depends on the viewer and whether or not it is a sin for them.
E
edwest2
Guest
Oh, please. I have a background in photography. What you are saying is pure baloney. Plus, if I was an editor at People and saw that picture, I would not have allowed it to be published.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Having worked in a hospital for nearly 10 years, there are things doctors are allowed to do. My point is, for the purpose of entertainment, nudity is out. Whether it’s a strip club or a movie.
For Catholics, we are to avoid every occasion for sin. To quote a Saint: “No fuel, no fire.”
Peace,
Ed
S
Show
Guest
I feel comparing a strip club to a movie could open up some issues. For one, a strip club has one purpose, lust. This is not so with nudity in all cases. An example is Schindler’s List, where the nudity shows the extent of the humiliation those in the camps were subjected to. What is an occasion for sin to some may not be one to another.I mean, if somebody is moved to lust by women covering everything but eyes, that would be his near occasion of sin. Some people may be able to see non-sexual nudity and not feel any feelings of lust. Kind of like alcohol is a near occasion of sin to some, but others are not going to be destroyed by it.
I think context is also important. Calling a movie like Schindler’s List or The Mission porn would be a bit rash don’t you think? I think nudity can have a non sinful purpose, not in all instances certainly, but in some. It need not always be sexual or lustful. I mean would you call seeing a baby’s rear end in The Nativity Story to be lustful nudity?
So I think each individual is different. And when you’re dealing with the near occasion of sin, it’s not the same for each people. And nudity itself is not the sin, lust is. If a non-sexual nude scene arouses lust in you, then I agree, stay away from it. If it doesn’t, and the scene is not sexual, I can’t necessarily see a problem with it.
And from I’ve seen, you can arouse a lot of lust without showing any nudity at all, or show people nudity without arousing lust a all. I think that is what one needs to judge a scene by, the lust it arouses.
And as for things doctors are allowed to do, what if the doctor’s job brings them into an occasion of sin? Lust comes from their job, that can happen. Sure, it may not, but it can. If it happens, is that doctor not in just as much danger from the nudity in front of their eyes as they are seeing it on a screen? On the other hand, if a person is not moved to lust by seeing it right in front of them, would they be any more effected by seeing it in a similar context on the screen?
I chose to stay away from that stuff as much as I can, but that of course, is for my own reasons. I can’t condemn all nudity in film because it is not all lustful.
P
Paul1961
Guest
Dear Ed,
“Oh, please. I have a background in photography. What you are saying is pure baloney.”
Using google, I quickly came upon websites such as this
kaya-optics com/products/overview.shtml
Kaya Optics, Inc., having specialized in manufacturing special optical devices for the past 30 years, would like to take this opportunity to introduce a newly developed product called the “Infrared See-Through Filter PF”. The PF is a special optical device that helps to visually penetrate an object’s surface in order to view whatever lies below. The PF makes it possible for you to see images that are normally invisible to the human eye. It sounds like science-fiction but it isn’t; this fantastic new product has been developed using the most highly advanced optical technologies available. From here on in, we would like to show you the amazing results of the PF. Armed with sufficient knowledge, you will be able to experience the real power of the PF for yourself
Go to the website if you want a full technical explanation.
“Oh, please. I have a background in photography. What you are saying is pure baloney.”
Using google, I quickly came upon websites such as this
kaya-optics com/products/overview.shtml
Kaya Optics, Inc., having specialized in manufacturing special optical devices for the past 30 years, would like to take this opportunity to introduce a newly developed product called the “Infrared See-Through Filter PF”. The PF is a special optical device that helps to visually penetrate an object’s surface in order to view whatever lies below. The PF makes it possible for you to see images that are normally invisible to the human eye. It sounds like science-fiction but it isn’t; this fantastic new product has been developed using the most highly advanced optical technologies available. From here on in, we would like to show you the amazing results of the PF. Armed with sufficient knowledge, you will be able to experience the real power of the PF for yourself
Go to the website if you want a full technical explanation.
E
edwest2
Guest
Your technical info is appreciated. The point that you are trying to avoid is this: I would never, ever want to take pictures of anybody with that kind of equipment. And, if for some reason, I did not know that such equipment could create such pictures, but found out it could, I would never use it. You are making an unprovable connection between the People magazine photo I mention and such equipment. Second, if I was an editor at people and you tried to sell me a photo like that, I’d refuse to buy it.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
You are using the moral relativism argument, i.e. what might be bad for you might be OK for me. I believe in absolute truth and the setting of standards. In the specific case of movies, there was a Catholic Legion of Decency that ran from the 1930s to 1973. Catholics need to see a return of such an organization.
In order to have a fully functioning society, we need standards.
Peace,
Ed
S
Show
Guest
We do need standards. I also believe in absolute truth. I also believe that when it comes to the near occasion of sin, everyone’s is different. That is what I have seen the church’s teaching. Since we are talking near occasion of sin, it is very possible that what is an occasion for you may not be one for somebody else. The perfect example is alcohol. Another example would be heterosexual women. I doubt they’d get moved to lust by seeing another woman. Same is likely true with men. If such things were untrue, than situations in real life, such as showers at gyms and in the army, they’d be sinful too.
If you believe in absolutes, you cannot just single out nudity in film as unusually wrong. You’d have to be all nudity in all situations, in order to argue absolutes. You’ve already made exceptions, and thus, I think you’ve already shown that when it comes to this one issue, the absolute is in regards to lust, not nudity.
If you generalize all nudity as bad, you have to say that movies like Schindler’s List and The Mission are also bad. I’ve even heard on Catholic Answers that such movies are not sinful because they are not lustful.
I think it’d be funny if babies in film were born in baptismal outfits. I mean, they show babies naked during their births, even in a religious movie like The Nativity Story. Yes, even Catholic acclaimed movies sometimes have some nudity. You gonna tell me that those are wrong too?
I believe in moral absolutes, but that absolute is what the church teaches, and the church has never condemned nudity itself, it’s condemned lust. And nudity and lust are not always synonymous. Sometimes yes, but that can apply to many things besides nudity as well.
And another issue, if the nude scene is brief and the movie is good otherwise, God did us eyelids.
So in summary: Know YOUR occasion of sin, and avoid it.
E
edwest2
Guest
You are back to relativism. I reject this. It is the old, what is bad for you might be OK for me. On Catholic Answers, I gave you a Catholic answer. I don’t want to use my eyelids, ever. For years, Hollywood produced movies that could be watched by anyone, now it produces fornication lifestyle movies. I cannot see most movies.We do need standards. I also believe in absolute truth. I also believe that when it comes to the near occasion of sin, everyone’s is different. That is what I have seen the church’s teaching. Since we are talking near occasion of sin, it is very possible that what is an occasion for you may not be one for somebody else. The perfect example is alcohol. Another example would be heterosexual women. I doubt they’d get moved to lust by seeing another woman. Same is likely true with men. If such things were untrue, than situations in real life, such as showers at gyms and in the army, they’d be sinful too.
If you believe in absolutes, you cannot just single out nudity in film as unusually wrong. You’d have to be all nudity in all situations, in order to argue absolutes. You’ve already made exceptions, and thus, I think you’ve already shown that when it comes to this one issue, the absolute is in regards to lust, not nudity.
If you generalize all nudity as bad, you have to say that movies like Schindler’s List and The Mission are also bad. I’ve even heard on Catholic Answers that such movies are not sinful because they are not lustful.
I think it’d be funny if babies in film were born in baptismal outfits. I mean, they show babies naked during their births, even in a religious movie like The Nativity Story. Yes, even Catholic acclaimed movies sometimes have some nudity. You gonna tell me that those are wrong too?
I believe in moral absolutes, but that absolute is what the church teaches, and the church has never condemned nudity itself, it’s condemned lust. And nudity and lust are not always synonymous. Sometimes yes, but that can apply to many things besides nudity as well.
And another issue, if the nude scene is brief and the movie is good otherwise, God did us eyelids.
So in summary: Know YOUR occasion of sin, and avoid it.
To my brothers and sisters in Christ - I encourage you to reject the false idea that nudity in movies “is not so bad.” That’s what got our culture in trouble in the first place. Once nudity is allowed for “high” artistic reasons, others will take this and use it to produce crude, useless, sinful trash. Practice virtue.
Peace,
Ed
- Status