Question on Endorsing Sin

[DilemmaUser]

For me, this came up in the context of media taking the Lord’s name in vain, but it could really apply to many other Commandment issues with paid-for/advertisement-supported media.

So after using the search bar for awhile I couldn’t find an answer to this question as it’s not quite the normal one that seems to be asked with this issue.

The issue I’m running into is supporting media that violates this Commandment, such as movies, television, games, e.t.c. If you are consuming media that you have to pay for or is supported by advertisements, aren’t you encouraging the breaking of this Commandment? By encouraging and supporting breaking it aren’t you breaking it yourself?

As an example, let’s say we have Movie A that violates the Commandment. It also has artistic/entertainment merit independently of that. You purchase a ticket to see it. You’re not trying to support the violating content.

The effect, however, is the studio sees more profit. They don’t know you only made a purchase due to the other aspects, so they order more of the same. Thus, the actuality of your action is to encourage the creation of violative content.

Is this not akin to telling a friend in seriousness “It’s awesome you stole that watch” or “You should cheat on your spouse”? In all scenarios you are providing an endorsement/encouragement to the breaking of a Commandment in a tangible fashion.

In short, does paying for or supporting via advertisements media that breaks the Law the same as breaking it? The same as openly encouraging or egging someone on to break it?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Depends.
Why is the offensive content in the piece of media? Does it serve an artistic purpose for character development or telling the story, or is it just gratuitous?

Why are you supporting the piece of media? Do you think it has artistic merit? Do you have a scholarly interest? Are you planning to write a tract about why it’s unacceptable, and you need to see it in order to be able to write about it? With respect to the ads, do you as the person paying for an ad for your business have any control over where the ad agency chooses to run your ad?

How “bad” is the piece of media? Does is just have one questionable scene or a couple swear words, or are people committing immorality all through the film?

I think in general, most of us who enjoy film and TV do not expect or even want every program to be squeaky clean family viewing hour stuff. Many of the older movies I watch have themes like murder, infidelity, fornication, horrors of war, theft/ fraud, illegal abortion, incest, homosexuality, etc. Since these are movies that are several decades old, does my paying to see an old classic movie or someone else paying for ads so I can see it “free with ads” encourage anyone to make similar themed movies today? Even if it did, would this be a bad thing as we’re talking about the human condition, not gratuitous porn thrown into the middle of a movie for no reason?

A person could drive themself crazy worrying about this stuff. Which is why I leave it as “does this movie seem in general to be reasonable for me, as an adult Catholic who is watching it for artistic/ entertainment value and isn’t going to be influenced by it, to see?” And leave it at that.

 

[DilemmaUser]

Let’s point to a one of several episodes of the West Wing, as an example, where the president, despite having almost been a priest, uses profanity that would violate the 3rd Commandment. Alternatively, for a more modern audience, just about every block busting Marvel film has some variant on similar language at least once.

Your inquiry is sound as an inquiry, but I guess I’m just wondering where the Commandments allow for that type of discretionary decision making. The way I view it:

1. The 3rd Commandment is mandatory (“shall not”). You could, in theory, stop the analysis at that.
2. To keep going though, the greatest commandment is to love God with everything you have (paraphrasing).
3. We love Him by keeping His commandments.

So wouldn’t we be breaking the greatest commandment by not taking a mandatory view here?

In my researching I’ve seen reasoning that violence/stealing/e.t.c. in media isn’t a violation because it’s fake (aside from documentaries I’d guess). Which is technically true. No one is actually being killed, robbed, e.t.c. That doesn’t work for all of them though as His name is being brought up in the dialogue. That’s one of the reasons I harp on the 3rd Commandment so much in these posts.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First, you mean the 2nd Commandment, since you’re on a Catholic forum. The 3rd Commandment for Catholics is “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.” Protestants might use some other numbering that we don’t.

Second, we don’t take a legalistic approach to our faith in the way you are doing. “Shall not” in its legal usage is very familiar to me. But I don’t sit down and analyze my relationship with God like I do a legal contract.

God knows my heart and he knows that when I watch “1776” with one character taking Jesus’ name in vain off and on through the whole thing, I’m not doing it to disrespect him and that the movie further was not intended to disrespect him but to tell a generally family-friendly story. And that’s the end of the matter.

 

[Vico]

…
In short, does paying for or supporting via advertisements media that breaks the Law the same as breaking it? The same as openly encouraging or egging someone on to break it?

See the definition of indirectly voluntary.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Indirect Voluntary (Definition)

The unintended but foreseen consequence of something that is deliberately willed. This consequence is not desired either as an end or as means, but a person sees that he cannot get something else without getting it. He wills the cause of which this is a necessary effect.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them :
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.

 

[DilemmaUser]

@Tis_Bearself : I apologize. I was not trying to take a shot at you, as it were. I’ve been wrestling with this for awhile and I’m trying to get a resolution.

@Vico : It seems the Catechism and dictionary definition would say not to do it then.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There’s no need to apologize. I wasn’t upset. I do happen to be a lawyer who deals all day with the difference between “Shall not”, “Must not”, “May not”, “Should not” etc. If you’re new here you wouldn’t have known that. I don’t generally announce or discuss it much anyway.

At the same time, Western Catholicism aka the Roman Catholic Church is often criticized for being too legalistic. Sometimes we are indeed legalistic, but nowhere near the level you’re setting forth, in my experience.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

That doesn’t work for all of them though as His name is being brought up in the dialogue. That’s one of the reasons I harp on the 3rd Commandment so much in these posts.

I don’t think God is so lacking in common sense (given that God has perfect sense) that He fails to distinguish between an actor using His name in vain when everyone understands it’s just acting and someone doing it in the real world.

 

[Vico]

@Tis_Bearself : I apologize. I was not trying to take a shot at you, as it were. I’ve been wrestling with this for awhile and I’m trying to get a resolution.

@Vico : It seems the Catechism and dictionary definition would say not to do it then.

We should not break just laws. It is difficult to say exactly what your scenario is, since you have a question of legality.

 

[DilemmaUser]

That would make two of us in the legal field then. It might be why I am so legalistic about the process.

The catechism does seem to cover this from the Catholic point of view though. It seems I have my answer for here. Thank you all.

 

[DilemmaUser]

@RolandThompsonGunner : Where I run into an issue there is that the Hebrew used for Exodus 20:7 includes “uselessly” (to use taking the Lord’s name in vain as an example again). Wouldn’t pretending for media constitute uselessness barring some fringe scenarios (documentary, research, e.t.c.)?

@Vico : I’m trying to avoid heavy specifics since I’m looking for a broadly applicable rule. As Tis_Bearself would probably understand, I’m trying to find the black letter law so that application can then be made whenever a situation arises in the future.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

@RolandThompsonGunner : Where I run into an issue there is that the Hebrew used for Exodus 20:7 includes “uselessly” (to use taking the Lord’s name in vain as an example again). Wouldn’t pretending for media constitute uselessness barring some fringe scenarios (documentary, research, e.t.c.)?

I don’t think that doing it while acting or quoting someone constitutes the act in the first place, uselessly or not.

 

[Vico]

…
I’m trying to avoid heavy specifics since I’m looking for a broadly applicable rule. As Tis_Bearself would probably understand, I’m trying to find the black letter law so that application can then be made whenever a situation arises in the future.

You have that now.