On good vs bad in entertainment?

[fakename]

Is it true that we Catholics are allowed to watch anything (and I mean literally anything) as long as it doesn’t serve as an occasion to sin? And this is because images seem to be morally neutral in themselves so they cannot be per se wrong or extrinsically wrong?

Why is watching pornography not included in this rule (that is,why is it that porn would still be bad to watch even if the watcher were unaffected by it)?

Thanks

 

[1ke]

Is it true that we Catholics are allowed to watch anything (and I mean literally anything) as long as it doesn’t serve as an occasion to sin? And this is because images seem to be morally neutral in themselves so they cannot be per se wrong or extrinsically wrong?

No, it is not true.

Why is watching pornography not included in this rule (that is,why is it that porn would still be bad to watch even if the watcher were unaffected by it)?

Because:

a) There is no such rule.

b) You are only fooling yourself if you believe you can watch pornography and be unaffected by it.

c) The sinfulness does not lie in whether or not you are “affected” by it.

 

[bmullins]

Is it true that we Catholics are allowed to watch anything (and I mean literally anything) as long as it doesn’t serve as an occasion to sin? And this is because images seem to be morally neutral in themselves so they cannot be per se wrong or extrinsically wrong?

Not true. We should judge what we are watching based on the morality of what we are watching, and not just our own personal spiritual fortitude.

Why is watching pornography not included in this rule (that is,why is it that porn would still be bad to watch even if the watcher were unaffected by it)?

Thanks

Even if it were a rule, pornography detracts from the dignity of the people involved. By watching him/her/them during sexual encounters or self pleasing, you are reducing them to an object of lust instead of the loving relationship that should entail during those intimate moments.

 

[Della]

Ps.101:3a I will not set before my eyes anything that is base.

Matt.18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Matt.5:28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is impossible for anyone to make a habit of viewing porn and not sin, if not physically, then in his heart.

We should avoid “occasions of sin” as much as sin itself. Our goal should be, as Jesus commanded us: “Be holy/perfect as your Father in heaven is holy/perfect” (Mt. 5:48) not see how much we can “get away with”, deceiving ourselves that we’ll be fine.

 

[fred_conty]

Certain images detract from the dignity of man and are to be avoided.
Others contrary to the spirit of Jesus are to be avoided.
However certain images which would be wrong for some might be all right for others because of their maturity or other factors.

Just a thought.

 

[carguy]

Well would it then be wrong to watch a movie like Saving Private Ryan or a James Bond movie? Well I agree with the watching of porn to be wrong, but what about other entertainment.

 

[fred_conty]

Well would it then be wrong to watch a movie like Saving Private Ryan or a James Bond movie? Well I agree with the watching of porn to be wrong, but what about other entertainment.

Depends on what presents temptation. James Bond may be wrong for some who are struggling with purity when they see his movies. Private Ryan may not be right for someone who has difficulty handling violence. So the person must judge what are acceptable limits for various kinds of movies. The Exorcist would be a problem for a sensative person in this area, but for others it is not harmful. It would be a lot easier if we
were all alike, but then we aren’t.

Just a thought.

 

[carguy]

Thank you I was just wondering. I have always liked action and war movies, but do not condone violence not to say that I have not been in fights in my life.

 

[fakename]

Certain images detract from the dignity of man and are to be avoided.
Others contrary to the spirit of Jesus are to be avoided.
However certain images which would be wrong for some might be all right for others because of their maturity or other factors.

Just a thought.

So some images are intrinsically bad and others aren’t?

and what makes an image “contrary to the spirit of Jesus”?

 

[fakename]

Oh and do these rules also apply to the things we see outside of movies (reality)?

And why do some people say that images are morally neutral? Are they just wrong?

 

[AHapka]

Why is watching pornography not included in this rule (that is,why is it that porn would still be bad to watch even if the watcher were unaffected by it)?

Because you are not addressing the question of WHY you would be watching it.

Your title speaks of entertainment. Which means you watch it for enjoyment. That alone is the first problem.

Then, you must consider the fact that you are creating a demand for something that has no possible good use. You say the images are morally neutral? Unless it is all computer generated, there are people behind those images. People who were in all liklihood sinning in the making of it. So it’s not neutral to begin with.

Now I will be willing to concede that there may be very rare, non-entertainment reasons to watch pornography (i.e. by those who prosecute sex trafficers, etc). But that’s on a whole different level than you raise.

 

[thistle]

Is it true that we Catholics are allowed to watch anything (and I mean literally anything) as long as it doesn’t serve as an occasion to sin? And this is because images seem to be morally neutral in themselves so they cannot be per se wrong or extrinsically wrong?

Why is watching pornography not included in this rule (that is,why is it that porn would still be bad to watch even if the watcher were unaffected by it)?

Thanks

You can watch anything you want EXCEPT Pornography.

CCC 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

 

[AHapka]

You can watch anything you want EXCEPT Pornography.

Really? Anything? Pretty sure movies like the Saw series aren’t pornography, but all about killing people in the most painful way possible.

And I would argue that’s wrong, because it all becomes about the most painful and tortuous way to kill a human being.

 

[bmullins]

I dunno. To me shows like Tosh.0, Beavis and Butthead, Chelsea Lately, etc are not pornography, but I also think that we shouldn’t be watching them. Can they be funny? Yes. Is it the kind of humor we as Christians should be watching? Not in my opinion.

For me there is a fine line between freedom and abuse.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

You can watch anything you want EXCEPT Pornography.

CCC 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Would this include such things as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue?

 

[bmullins]

Would this include such things as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue?

I think in some cases yes. For me personally, I know that looking at such things does not generate ‘kosher’ thoughts, nor edify and uplift me. As Paul addresses several times in the 1 Corinthians, sometimes even things that are ‘lawful’ should be avoided.

1 Corinthians 10:23 - All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

All things are lawful. This is the same sentiment he has expressed in chap. vi. v. 12. and in chap. viii. v. 8. 9. wherein he teaches us, that on some occasions it is necessary to abstain even from things in themselves lawful, as in the case of meats consecrated to idols. Calmet. — Two excellent rules that can serve as guides on these occasions, are the edification of the Church, and the spiritual good of our neighbour. Without the aid of these guides, we go astray ourselves and decoy others, in doing what the letter of the law permits, but what the spirit of the law, charity, forbids.

 

[Della]

I dunno. To me shows like Tosh.0, Beavis and Butthead, Chelsea Lately, etc are not pornography, but I also think that we shouldn’t be watching them. Can they be funny? Yes. Is it the kind of humor we as Christians should be watching? Not in my opinion.

For me there is a fine line between freedom and abuse.

Springing off your last sentence and agreeing completely I just wanted to remark that there is also a fine line between freedom and license. People often confuse the two. For instance, just because I may have freedom of speech, I do not have license to destroy another’s good name or shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire.

We moderns think we can do anything “as long as it hurts no one”, but we don’t seem to realize that we are hurting someone, even if it’s only ourselves. Freedom entails self-control whereas license does not. Certain freedoms have limitations, license ignores proper limitations.

We have the freedom to view anything, but for the proper reasons. Law inforcement people have to see a lot of ugly things, for instance, but they certainly aren’t getting their jollies from seeing half naked people, drunks, crash victims, people wounded by gunshots or rape, etc. To want to view such things to get some kind high from it is disordered.

There is a vast difference between admiring the good looks of a pretty girl or handsome man, real or in pictures, and making such images a source for sin. The human form is beautiful but it can be exploited and misused, just as fire is beautiful in the hearth or campfire but only a fool would want to stand in the middle of it.

 

[fakename]

user "AHapka":

Because you are not addressing the question of WHY you would be watching it.

Your title speaks of entertainment. Which means you watch it for enjoyment. That alone is the first problem.

Then, you must consider the fact that you are creating a demand for something that has no possible good use. You say the images are morally neutral? Unless it is all computer generated, there are people behind those images. People who were in all liklihood sinning in the making of it. So it’s not neutral to begin with.

Now I will be willing to concede that there may be very rare, non-entertainment reasons to watch pornography (i.e. by those who prosecute sex trafficers, etc). But that’s on a whole different level than you raise.

The images appear to be morally neutral since the good or bad of seeing them seems to differ at different times. For instance, the post above me seems to imply that images are okay to see if they are computer generated and not of people sinning or if they are made by people who are not sinning. It wouldn’t be neutral if it was either always okay or always bad to view said images, regardless of circumstances.

And again, the images have to be morally neutral since there are apparent non-entertainment reasons to watch porn, etc. But I again wonder for theoretical reasons, would an asexual (or someone who was born without sexual drive) be sinning by viewing porn? If yes, then the porn is bad simply but if not, then the porn is bad for some external reason.

 

[fakename]

We should also remember that things like following “legion of decency” ratings are also not morally binding. So if they were not morally binding, then the ratings are not judgments on the intrinsic bad/good of something. So it must be a judgment of something external.

 

[Della]

We should also remember that things like following “legion of decency” ratings are also not morally binding. So if they were not morally binding, then the ratings are not judgments on the intrinsic bad/good of something. So it must be a judgment of something external.

Not morally binding does not mean they are innocent and contain merit, either. Besides, there no longer is a “legion of decency” but rather a rating service for Catholics so we can decide what is best for us and our families to view. Just because we are free to view anything we want doesn’t follow that it is all right to do so. If it were black and white issue the Church would say so, but the Church tells us we are to form our consciences according to the moral teaching of the Church and act accordingly. That seems plain enough to me, and quite sensible.