nudity in movies

[Show]

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.

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

I am not back to that. I am back to church teaching. Do you deny that alcohol is an occasion to sin for some, and not others? It is a church teaching that the occasion to sin is not the same for all.

And you can show plenty of fornification without showing ANY nudity, and on the converse, can show plenty of nudity without showing ANY fornification. And some movies that are good cannot be watched by anyone. Would you show a toddler The Passion of the Christ? Some movies are meant for mature adults and not children, just like some sacraments are not meant for children.

And are you telling me that Schindler’s List and The Mission are fornification movies? It seems to me like you define what I say but can’t answer my claims beyond labeling them.

And if nudity in film is bad, than so is all nudity, and thus doctors cannot see it, we can’t shower in gyms, and from the youngest of ages, we must bath alone with our eyes closed. Since we are going by absolutes, those fall into the SAME category. You can’t justt single out nudity in entertainment as wrong but nudity outside of it is perfectly ok. If you want to see that there are no exceptions to the No Nudity In Film rule that you seem to have made up(It’s certainly not taught by the church), than you also have to concede that all Nudity in real life is wrong to see.

And no, what got our culture in trouble is that ‘SEX’ in movies is not so bad. The problem is that people can’t distinguish nudity from sex. You’ve yet to answer how The Mission or Schindler’s List are overtly sexual movies. Sure they contain nudity, but it’s nonsexual nudity. How are they sexual movies that should be avoided? Should we avoid The Nativity Story for showing a baby’s behind? You seem quick to pass judgment for nudity of all kinds in film, but are quick to excuse it outside of that(oddly enough, in the medical field, which you worked in. Excusing it within your career? ), even if the context is the same. But when your generalizations are incorrect, you don’t seem to have an answer.

The Church’s teaching does not anywhere reject nudity as an absolute. It rejects lust. Not all nudity arouses lust, and plenty of other things arouse lust besides nudity. Each person’s occasions to sin are different. It is not moral relativism, it’s Church Teaching, and common sense too. Of course an alcoholic drinking one cup of wine is an occasion to sin, for him. With others, they can have an occasional cup of win, and it won’t be an occasion to sin for them. Not moral relativism, Church teaching, and common sense. The definition of occasion to sin is something that leads to sin, but the devil tempts each of us in different ways and thus by very definition, nudity, which itself is not a sin, can be an occasion to sin for some, and for others not.

I ain’t speaking from what I believe, it’s what I’ve been taught in church teaching. (And for the record, if ALL nudity is bad in all forms, I’d stop reading my Bible if I were you cause the Bible has a lot of nudity, most notably with Adam and Eve. If you’re going to be absolute, you cannot read that part of the Bible)

The Church just doesn’t teach that all nudity is bad in all cases. All lust is bad, not all nudity is lustful. If somebody can watch The Mission without feeling lust, how is it a sin? How is that nudity in any way sexual or fornification? Instead of labeling my argument something, answer the claims please.

My beliefs are perfectly in line with Catholic teaching, and the very two movies I mentioned have been mentioned by Catholic Answers as OK. Even the Vatican Oks them. (But what do they know about the Church teachings right?) So obviously, the Church Teaching doesn’t agree in full with the absolutes you seem to have set up.

Anyway, I’ve said all I can on the matter. If my points will not be answer, it’s senseless to continue matters. I’ve kept my arguments within Church Teaching. So I will have to kindly not follow your advice over what the church teaches. That is what I follow. And it is that same Church teaching which has led me to the conclusions I have presented.

 

[edwest2]

You are using the, if I can find an exception then it’s OK argument. Most people do not use discernment. Hollywood only cares about making a buck. Pick up a copy of Variety. The only criteria for a successful movie is a number followed by lots of zeros. The more zeros, the more successful the movie.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Show]

You are using the, if I can find an exception then it’s OK argument. Most people do not use discernment. Hollywood only cares about making a buck. Pick up a copy of Variety. The only criteria for a successful movie is a number followed by lots of zeros. The more zeros, the more successful the movie.

Peace,
Ed

As expected, you totally ignored everything I said. (I notice you conceded my point, admitting my exceptions) You addressed none of my points.

Please note that I don’t condone most nudity in films. I argued that it can have a purpose, and it can be used in a good film. I never once stated that it is always OK. And I have no doubts about Hollywood, but we can’t generalize every film as Hollywood.

For my last post to you, I submit this. It summarizes my thoughts on the matter: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp You aren’t interested in discussion from what I realize, thus why you’ve ignored every point I made, not even giving me the respect of trying to refute them. Perhaps then, reading something from catholic.com(You trust them don’t you?) will be more up your alley. Take care, and have a blessed day!

 

[aggiecatholic05]

ed, im trying to get a little perspective on your side in this discussion. have you seen Schindler’s List?

if so was that specific nudity completely unacceptable?

if not please watch it and then answer the above questio if you would. i am quite curious as to your answer.

 

[edwest2]

ed, im trying to get a little perspective on your side in this discussion. have you seen Schindler’s List?

if so was that specific nudity completely unacceptable?

if not please watch it and then answer the above questio if you would. i am quite curious as to your answer.

Yes, I’ve seen Schindler’s List.

In my college Art Appreciation class, there were no Hollywood images. And I hung out with ‘fine artists’ who, in the end, mainly wanted to make a buck. I watched how their highly ritualized internal culture contained the trappings of a religious order. The high priests had to be pleased. These were called ‘art critics.’ Once their approval was received, there was the possibility of being hung in a place of semi-worship, the art gallery, but the gallery owner also had to be convinced. I’m not saying they weren’t sincere, only the criteria for success ended up being money and acclaim from a small clique of critics.

A movie like Schindler’s List depicts history. I understand that. However, I am also very aware of how pornography was introduced to the public. A lot through “art instruction” and “photography instruction” magazines. Many of the models went on to “men’s magazines.” And so the pattern emerged: Start the public with something labeled “serious art” and then gradually take it further and further away from anything with any redeeming value.

Peace,
Ed

 

[aggiecatholic05]

if so was that specific nudity completely unacceptable?

you completely skipped this question. we werent discussing art galleries or magazines, but movies. since you so catagorically deny any redemptive qualities of nudity i was curious as to this specific case. so i will ask again.

was the nudity in Schindler’s List completely unacceptable?

 

[Epistemes]

Dear Edwest,

I think you’ve made your point. Repeatedly. And repeatedly some more. (I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you, but…)

Please allow others to make theirs. Is commentary upon every person’s opinion truly necessary?

Thank you for caring for our souls.

 

[Cat]

You are using the, if I can find an exception then it’s OK argument. Most people do not use discernment. Hollywood only cares about making a buck. Pick up a copy of Variety. The only criteria for a successful movie is a number followed by lots of zeros. The more zeros, the more successful the movie.

Peace,
Ed

This is not true. There are movies (also television shows and plays) that are financial failures, but are critically acclaimed. I suppose it depends on what your definition of “success” is. To an actor, screenplay writer, director, techie, or anyone associated with a movie, the “critical acclaim” is awful nice to get, even though it doesn’t pay bills.

One example of such a movie is A Texas Funeral:

apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CID=3131

The movie made no money, but reviews are all along the same lines as the one I linked above, very positive.

I would highly recommend this movie. It has a very “pro-life” feel to it, and the acting is amazing. It’s not a kids’ movie, BTW.

 

[vs_trumpet]

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?

If you are worried about those kinds of things, I recommend

kids-in-mind.com/

It details sex, nudity, violence, language, religiously offensive language, etc.

 

[duhtruth]

Yes, I’ve seen Schindler’s List.

In my college Art Appreciation class, there were no Hollywood images. And I hung out with ‘fine artists’ who, in the end, mainly wanted to make a buck. I watched how their highly ritualized internal culture contained the trappings of a religious order. The high priests had to be pleased. These were called ‘art critics.’ Once their approval was received, there was the possibility of being hung in a place of semi-worship, the art gallery, but the gallery owner also had to be convinced. I’m not saying they weren’t sincere, only the criteria for success ended up being money and acclaim from a small clique of critics.

A movie like Schindler’s List depicts history. I understand that. However, I am also very aware of how pornography was introduced to the public. A lot through “art instruction” and “photography instruction” magazines. Many of the models went on to “men’s magazines.” And so the pattern emerged: Start the public with something labeled “serious art” and then gradually take it further and further away from anything with any redeeming value.

Peace,
Ed

 

[duhtruth]

Ed, lighten up a bit. Sex is great. Sex is good. Violence, no good. What better than sexual sensations between sincere men and women. Eros is our life blood. But is the portrayal of it in any honest way verboten? Isn’t it real life? What is worse, a bare breast that may cause arousal or portrayal of blood soaked people that causes disgust? Both are life. Sexual arousal has always been the height of depravity according to the Church. Catholic leaders have never embraced “Make love, not war.” Otherwise we wouldn’t have had the Crusades.

During the times of the Legion of Decency, it was like the thought control police were at work 24/7, while the altar boys ran scared. Do not ever have a sexual thought or even think about acting on it. Nudity?!! The fires of Gehenna await you, my depraved son. I never want to see this hypocritical era of Catholicism return. There was too much restriction on free though and real life. When I found out what some priests, who brow beat me as an impressionable 13 year old in confession were into, I was appalled, disgusted and hurt. The restriction of sexual expression results in a build up of sexual tension resulting in possible perversion. We must allow life to be portrayed in a sincere way. We must learn to live according to our principles in the midst of real life. And when we do everything we can in living as a Christian, a flawed human, we then ask God, forgive my failings, Lord.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I don’t understand why genitalia would have to be shown to get one’s point across in something like Schindler’s List. Why not show an apparently nude person from an angle in which the genitalia are not shown? It is easily done and just as effective.

No…there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to show genitalia in movies. None.

 

[edwest2]

In the late 1960s, all the Hippies had to say about us Catholics was that we were ‘sexually repressed.’ No. We had marriage. And most of us got married and had children. That is the life God had for most of us. A legitimate outlet for our sexual expression. A private outlet meant for man and wife.

There is no need to portray any of that in movies, especially fornication movies. There is no need to portray nudity as entertainment.

Peace,
Ed

 

[vs_trumpet]

The Vatican newspaper (Feb 20 – it’s confusing how they date and publish it) features a review of The Reader

vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/text.html
[it’s in Italian and this is the DAILY edition, so you’ll need to visit it quick to see it]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[from the same DAILY edition; I’ve no idea how long they’ll keep this image on the Vatican website]

Anyway, the review, unless I am missing something in the Italian, seems largely positive.

And yet this movie according to

kids-in-mind.com/r/reader.htm

is rated 9/10 in the Sex/Nudity category (with 0/10 being no sex/nudity)

So it seems at least the Vatican does not have any problem in principle with sex/nudity in film.

Schindler’s List (another film related to the Holocaust), is on the Vatican Best Films List which was compiled in 1995. Maybe they’ll make a new one in the future to include more recent films. Not just Schindler’s List, but several other films on this list feature sex, nudity or sensuality.

Don’t let sex/nudity stop you from patronizing film. If it bothers you, shutter your eyes and then open them again. If you go with a friend who doesn’t have these moral qualms, he can even tell you when it’s safe to open your eyes again.