E
edwest2
Guest
Using Church teaching as a guideline makes it quite easy.
Ed
Ed
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Here is a link to a blog by Sr. Helena Burns, a religious sister of the Daughters of St. Paul.
Interestingly, she considers Game of Thrones to be a manifestation of the third stage of the mainstreaming of porn. An excerpt:
Interestingly, she considers Game of Thrones to be a manifestation of the third stage of the mainstreaming of porn. An excerpt:
hellburns.blogspot.com/2017/07/game-of-thrones.html#.WXjsXemQzIV
V
Vouthon
Guest
It’s not porn - although earlier seasons probably did overdo the number of sex scenes but even then, it wasn’t porn.
As others have said, the number of raunchy episodes has actually went down since earlier seasons. The most recent sex scene in episode 2 of this seventh season, for instance (the premiere had absolutely no sex/nudity at all), was a loving and quite touching bit of acting involving two characters who had formerly been slaves and thus never had any control over the direction of their lives or the ability to express their love for one another, because other people decided such things for them as “chattel property”.
If that’s your definition of porn, then you must have lived the best part of your life in a convent imho.
I have only read one of the books, the first - A Game of Thrones (which I always thought was a cracking title). On a literary level, I liked it. A Song of Ice and Fire is a little bit like the Sopranos set in Middle-Earth with the fantasy-magic element kept to a bare minimum. It’s grittier than any other fantasy series I’ve seen, with believable characters that on average aren’t black and white but delightfully “grey”. The main emphasis is upon the political intrigues and machinations within the Seven Kingdoms and its surrounding lands.
Over and above this “game of thrones” for power among the elites, there is a second story arc involving a common threat facing the entire world (and the efforts of the few brave, inspired souls trying to defend everybody else from it and prepare the world) - which the Great Houses are unable to see, or unaware of, or simply don’t give a damn about because they are just too busy fighting amongst themselves to be able to see the bigger picture beyond their own petty, dynastic, partisan squabbles. The big question of the series is whether the “game of thrones” can be resolved in time before this greater threat sends everyone back to the stone age, or dissolves civilization as they know it. The jury’s out on that one.
Since the book material has run out, the show-runners have had to come up with their own dialogue and scenes while keeping to the general outline of how the plot should end that the author, Martin, has given them. Without his authorial (name removed by moderator)ut, the quality of the dialogue has declined a little…but there’s still incredible cinematography, quality acting and decent characterization. (In truth, the show-runners have the unenviable task of tying up all the loose-ends that Martin has left them with).
So it has my seal of approval.
As others have said, the number of raunchy episodes has actually went down since earlier seasons. The most recent sex scene in episode 2 of this seventh season, for instance (the premiere had absolutely no sex/nudity at all), was a loving and quite touching bit of acting involving two characters who had formerly been slaves and thus never had any control over the direction of their lives or the ability to express their love for one another, because other people decided such things for them as “chattel property”.
If that’s your definition of porn, then you must have lived the best part of your life in a convent imho.
I have only read one of the books, the first - A Game of Thrones (which I always thought was a cracking title). On a literary level, I liked it. A Song of Ice and Fire is a little bit like the Sopranos set in Middle-Earth with the fantasy-magic element kept to a bare minimum. It’s grittier than any other fantasy series I’ve seen, with believable characters that on average aren’t black and white but delightfully “grey”. The main emphasis is upon the political intrigues and machinations within the Seven Kingdoms and its surrounding lands.
Over and above this “game of thrones” for power among the elites, there is a second story arc involving a common threat facing the entire world (and the efforts of the few brave, inspired souls trying to defend everybody else from it and prepare the world) - which the Great Houses are unable to see, or unaware of, or simply don’t give a damn about because they are just too busy fighting amongst themselves to be able to see the bigger picture beyond their own petty, dynastic, partisan squabbles. The big question of the series is whether the “game of thrones” can be resolved in time before this greater threat sends everyone back to the stone age, or dissolves civilization as they know it. The jury’s out on that one.
Since the book material has run out, the show-runners have had to come up with their own dialogue and scenes while keeping to the general outline of how the plot should end that the author, Martin, has given them. Without his authorial (name removed by moderator)ut, the quality of the dialogue has declined a little…but there’s still incredible cinematography, quality acting and decent characterization. (In truth, the show-runners have the unenviable task of tying up all the loose-ends that Martin has left them with).
So it has my seal of approval.
V
Vouthon
Guest
A good quotation from the first book, which shows up in the TV series, is the following, it illustrates some of the “themes” that are at the heart of the series - not simply “*****, dragons and blood*”:
And this one:
Or indeed: “In life, the monsters win.” Sansa (VI)
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Did the scene show graphic nudity and simulated sex?
If so, that sounds like pornography to me (based on the definition given in the Catechism). The back story heading into it doesn’t strike me as particularly relevant to whether or not a given scene is pornographic.
But let’s say that we call it something else. We don’t have to use the word “pornography.” Is it good, bad, or morally neutral for a person to regularly view scenes where they view two naked people simulating a sexual act?
Whatever we call it, we have to ask ourselves that question and be honest about the answer.
V
Vouthon
Guest
In a work of art or fiction, it depends for me on whether or not its purely gratuitous - solely intended to stimulate the viewer sexually - or if it moves along the plot and serves a purpose in the broader story arc.Did the scene show graphic nudity and simulated sex?
If so, that sounds like pornography to me (based on the definition given in the Catechism). The back story heading into it doesn’t strike me as particularly relevant to whether or not a given scene is pornographic.
But let’s say that we call it something else. We don’t have to use the word “pornography.” Is it good, bad, or morally neutral for a person to regularly view scenes where they view two naked people simulating a sexual act?
Whatever we call it, we have to ask ourselves that question and be honest about the answer.
The sex scene in question was the culmination of years of unrequited love between two characters who had been dominated by others their whole lives, and lacked any agency to make “romantic” decisions about their own bodies or who they wanted to be with.
Given the context, I don’t see it as gratuitous.
Sometimes sex does advance the plot. The paintings in the Sistine chapel by Michelangelo that all of us will have seen depict both nude men and women, scantily clad, representing the last judgement of humanity. It serves a purpose, as do church portraits of the Magdalene (however erroneous in fact) that depict her as a prostitute, often quite provocatively.
Consider the 1995 Vatican “approved” film list. One of the “approved” movies about Rublev depicts a ritual pagan sex orgy, with nude pagans running through the forest and coupling on the ground and a naked witch sensuously kissing an Orthodox priest bound cruciform. Another film in the list The Sacrifice, includes a somewhat bizarre sequence depicting a man having sex with a witch (levitating in midair above the bed) in order to avert the end of the world.
Are you tell me that the Vatican is authorizing pornography for mature and judicious viewing?
Obviously, it doesn’t want or expect that mature viewers would watch the movie and ignore the wider plot or message being conveyed and say, “hey, that’s really turned me on, I’d like to find a nice witch and…”, umm. No. I think we should give the intelligence and judgement of viewers greater respect than that. The broader contexts of these films were deemed to be of great artistic and more value for the faithful.
If you personally find that a TV show is tempting you with an “occasion for sin”, then certainly avoid it if you want. But the discernment is up to you. Other people can make their own mind up imho.
E
edwest2
Guest
And for those artists, I would admire their sedate work, or at least, find it it within the bounds of human dignity. Erotica is right out. Paintings and actual people performing simulated sexual acts and women exposing what should be covered are two separate things.
Ed
Ed
V
Vouthon
Guest
True, art and porn have nothing in common.
Hence why the 1995 Vatican list of the most important films of all time, in its estimation, included one in its “Religion” category (of all places) that involved…
decentfilms.com/reviews/andreirublev
…because it was a wonderful, moving piece of dramatic “art” overall, not pornography, indeed a film about:
Would you disqualify it and regard the movie simply as pornographic filth because of the orgiastic, nude scenes included within it? Thankfully the Vatican scholars did not.
Now, Game of Thrones obviously isn’t on a par with such a classic dramatic production - its a popular TV show - but this does help to illustrate my point.
Here’s the list from the U.S. Bishops website:
archive.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml
Rublev is the first film listed under the religion category.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Don’t fall into the trap of considering all simulated sex scenes as pornography.Did the scene show graphic nudity and simulated sex?
If so, that sounds like pornography to me (based on the definition given in the Catechism). The back story heading into it doesn’t strike me as particularly relevant to whether or not a given scene is pornographic.
But let’s say that we call it something else. We don’t have to use the word “pornography.” Is it good, bad, or morally neutral for a person to regularly view scenes where they view two naked people simulating a sexual act?
Whatever we call it, we have to ask ourselves that question and be honest about the answer.
decentfilms.com/articles/vaticanfilmlist
Schindler’s List, The Sacrifice, Andrei Rublev, The Decalogue and possibly more on that list have sex and nudity.
decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms
And as a couple examples.
archive.usccb.org/movies/f/funeralthe1996.shtml
Several graphic sex scenes. Only got a modern day L rating.
archive.usccb.org/movies/m/mouchette1970.shtml
A disturbing rape scene occurs in the movie. Very positive review.
archive.usccb.org/movies/u/underthesand.shtml
Some graphic nudity and a graphic sexual scene. They call the film ‘stirring.’
And so on.
V
Vouthon
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
S
StudentMI
Guest
And I was addressing a poster who was verging on saying any simulated sex in art is porn.
E
edwest2
Guest
S
StudentMI
Guest
Which shows you did not read any of the 5 links I posted. I trust those sources and my priest more than you, Ed.
S
SolicitorPirate
Guest
PornHub’s traffic drops everytime a big new mass entertainment thing comes out. I swear I recall reading that their traffic dropped when the latest Pokemon game came out earlier this year
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t have the time or desire to watch all of the movies being mentioned and then also Game of Thrones in order to offer a detailed explanation of the difference between them. I haven’t seen any of those and I don’t anticipate that changing any time soon.
I’ll just point out that the Catechism does not mention an exception clause for depicting simulated sex so long as the work as a whole has sufficient artistic merit.
I’ll also ask a few questions. Do you think it’s possible for a film or TV show that is otherwise well-written, well-acted, artistic, etc. to still contain a pornographic scene? Does the fact that the scene “moves along the plot” mean that it is therefore impossible for the scene to be pornographic?
These are just meant to be general questions. I’m not trying to bait anyone. As I said, I haven’t even seen Game of Thrones or the scenes being discussed, so for all I know they really aren’t that bad.
It does strike me as a bit odd to see Catholics defending the use of nudity and simulated sex in visual media, though. I mean, I can understand if someone says, “I really like the show because of the story/acting/etc, but I wish they didn’t include that one (or more) scene(s). I just fast forward through those parts.” But, instead, we have people defending their inclusion while simultaneously trying to assuage objections by saying that the nudity and sex isn’t even shown as frequently as it used to be. If it were that acceptable to include it, why would it be necessary to say that it isn’t shown as frequently anymore? It shouldn’t matter if it is included in every episode if none of those scenes are actually pornographic.
I haven’t seen any of those and I don’t anticipate that changing any time soon.I’ll just point out that the Catechism does not mention an exception clause for depicting simulated sex so long as the work as a whole has sufficient artistic merit.
I’ll also ask a few questions. Do you think it’s possible for a film or TV show that is otherwise well-written, well-acted, artistic, etc. to still contain a pornographic scene? Does the fact that the scene “moves along the plot” mean that it is therefore impossible for the scene to be pornographic?
These are just meant to be general questions. I’m not trying to bait anyone. As I said, I haven’t even seen Game of Thrones or the scenes being discussed, so for all I know they really aren’t that bad.
It does strike me as a bit odd to see Catholics defending the use of nudity and simulated sex in visual media, though. I mean, I can understand if someone says, “I really like the show because of the story/acting/etc, but I wish they didn’t include that one (or more) scene(s). I just fast forward through those parts.” But, instead, we have people defending their inclusion while simultaneously trying to assuage objections by saying that the nudity and sex isn’t even shown as frequently as it used to be.
If it were that acceptable to include it, why would it be necessary to say that it isn’t shown as frequently anymore? It shouldn’t matter if it is included in every episode if none of those scenes are actually pornographic.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Because I trust my priest and those sources. In addition, Mouchette received an award from a Catholic organization when it premiered and as I said contains a disturbing rape scene. The Italian film Teorema received an award as well from a Catholic organization and it contains several graphic sex scenes. The award was withdrawn not because of those scenes but because of a concern over heretical content regarding God, partly inspired I believe from the background of the director Pier Paolo Pasolini.I don’t have the time or desire to watch all of the movies being mentioned and then also Game of Thrones in order to offer a detailed explanation of the difference between them.
I’ll just point out that the Catechism does not mention an exception clause for depicting simulated sex so long as the work as a whole has sufficient artistic merit.
I’ll also ask a few questions. Do you think it’s possible for a film or TV show that is otherwise well-written, well-acted, artistic, etc. to still contain a pornographic scene? Does the fact that the scene “moves along the plot” mean that it is therefore impossible for the scene to be pornographic?
These are just meant to be general questions. I’m not trying to bait anyone. As I said, I haven’t even seen Game of Thrones or the scenes being discussed, so for all I know they really aren’t that bad.
It does strike me as a bit odd to see Catholics defending the use of nudity and simulated sex in visual media, though. I mean, I can understand if someone says, “I really like the show because of the story/acting/etc, but I wish they didn’t include that one (or more) scene(s). I just fast forward through those parts.” But, instead, we have people defending their inclusion while simultaneously trying to assuage objections by saying that the nudity and sex isn’t even shown as frequently as it used to be.
That those films weren’t criticized as containing porn, that the movies on the Vatican’s film list that contain sex weren’t condemned as pornographic, that the Catechism says what it says and yet there has been no Vatican document on such things tells me and those sources that there is a difference.
As for GOT, Bishop Barron’s website included an article analyzing the use of religion in the series without condemning it as pornographic. All this shows ambiguity. As laity we’re not the supreme interpreters on one paragraph in the Catechism. Which is why I trust my priest on this matter.
I brought up all these other things because this thread seems to be heading towards a Puritanism that should be alien to Catholicism.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Like I said, I cannot comment on those films on the Vatican film list nor how they compare to Game of Thrones.
The claim of heading towards Puritanism is unfair, though. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a Catholic to be disturbed by graphic nude sex scenes. No Puritanism necessary. People aren’t calling Game of Thrones “pornography” simply because it has scantily clad women or suggestive innuendo.
I’m glad you trust your priest, and I certainly won’t tell you not to. But you admit he was going based off of what you described to him, not from first-hand knowledge. So I wouldn’t necessarily hold that out to others as the final Catholic say on the matter.
As I’ve admitted, I’ve never seen the show, so for all I know it’s as you say. My main point is to ask questions I think any of us should ask ourselves when consuming any sort of entertainment. I know that I have a capacity to deceive myself when it comes to music or TV shows that I like. It’s a lot easier for me to gloss over the objectionable. Just because something contains artistry and has redeeming merit doesn’t mean that it cannot also contain objectionable elements—even extremely objectionable elements. Whether that applies to Game of Thrones is for those who have seen the show to answer.
E
edwest2
Guest
Well said. For decades, calling objectionable material “art” tends to dull the point. Objectionable means exactly that. In the case of GOT, I’ve seen more than a few episodes and it certainly contains material no Catholic should accept as "art."Or be indifferent toward.
Ed
S
StudentMI
Guest
Where did I say he’d never seen the show?
- Status