Seeing nudity in comic I regularly read - a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benjinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Very much with the hair splitting. There are no grey areas. To say there are is to assume no standards exist.
Click to expand...
  1. That’s not a logical assumption 2) what did nuance ever do to you, Ed?
edwest211 said:
I would never buy a painting of a woman breastfeeding. It would be boring and common.
Click to expand...
Not everyone has your special artistic insight to make these infallible decrees, it seems.
 
Last edited:
Most realistically, if anything it’s a near occasion for sin but it may not be for everyone.

But mortal sin would imply nudity in and of itself is an intrinsic evil and that is not true at all
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
There is no excuse for a comic book publisher to add nudity.
Click to expand...
Despite my views expressed to the OP, I entirely agree with you. Gratuitous skin is not at all necessary in any society in my opinion. In my original post I was saying that it’s difficult to avoid when studying art through the ages, and I would not consider it arousing in a comic book, but I don’t care for it at all.
 
Last edited:
I need to respond to some comments on here that greatly misunderstand how the devil drags so many people to Hell.
  1. First point. “Oh, but I’m not experiencing temptations at the present, so I do not need to flee (as a general rule), from the most extreme forms of near occasion of sin (nudity of any kind).”
The devil brings so many men to perdition from this deceitful artifice. This is the same way that, using St. Alphonsus’s anology, a bear eats an ape. The ape first runs up the trees and is saved. But the bear pretends to be dead, the apes descend from the trees, and the bear spring up at the last moment and devours the apes. So too, the devil is waiting for man to put his guard down. He will then throw a temptation at him, for which he is unprepared to resist, because he is not currently thinking he needs to avoid temptations to the degree that he did before, and he consents. And so in this way he will be devoured by mortal sin, separated from God, and potentially lost forever from a single lustful thought. Oh, but the devil would never do that? No, that is precisely something Satan would do.

I say as a general rule to show that it is not intrinsically evil. Therefore, insofar as it is not proximate occasion of sin, and it is justified by a proportionate reason: a doctor performing a medical exam, a nurse dressing a patient, a detective who is forced to look at child pornography to catch predator priests (for his job), it is not sinful. That being said, if the nudity is proximate occasion of mortal sin, then it is not justified, regardless of reason.
  1. Second point. But I am getting older. I am 40 years old. I am someone whose carnal drives have sufficiently decreased to the point that I do not need to flee from mortal sin like I did when I was younger.
This entirely misunderstands how the devil works. In the last days of life, as death approaches, the devil will recognize that he has little time left to secure a man’s damnation. The devil will tempt the man. Since the man will be on his death bed, exterior acts will be impossible. Therefore, bad thoughts will be the devil’s only weapon. If one were to take this evil advice, and for the last 40 years of his life, not maintain the habit of being vigilant and fleeing from sin, then how will he expect to save his soul when the devil launches an all out assault of bad thoughts on his deathbed? He will not maintain the tools of throwing them off!
 
Last edited:
  1. Third Point. The error of falsely convincing yourself that you are the rare exception who has never struggled with lust.
Answer this question first: have you ever struggled with pornography or sexual sins? If so, then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that upmost precautions are needed for the rest of your life!

Are you in the 5 percent that waited until marriage? Are you in the 4 percent that has never viewed pornography? Are you in the 1 percent of ‘asexuals?’

Lust is an infestation: polls show 75-80 percent of Christian males between the ages of 18-24 viewed pornography in the last month. And it’s hundreds of times harder to overcome thoughts than exterior acts! Therefore, even if the advice of “overcoming concupicence,” were possibile (it is largely not), still, much of G.P. Gury’s advice (like avoiding nudity altogether), applies to upwards of 90 percent of guys, for the rest of their lives!

It may be too difficult to avoid looking at women. But it is not too difficult to avoid nudity (or at least to look away as fast as possible when inadvertently exposed to it!)
 
Last edited:
An excellent post. Looking back at comic books in the 1940s and 1950s, a lot of things were not allowed. But the goal was always: show more skin. Find some excuse to add partial nudity. The same gradual approach was used in men’s magazines during the same time period. During the 1960s, things stayed the same except for the introduction of underground comix around 1968. All of the nudity and a lot of sexual perversion were there.

The devil works gradually, as you wrote. The further we are from God, the greater the risks we face.
 
we’re talking about comic books! lots of teenagers read them too, the enemy loves being subtle.
This reminds me of an ice cream commercial I saw once where the woman was moaning like crazy her enjoyment of the chocolate. I voiced my opinion of how disgusting that was and my friend said “it’s just a commercial”. Yeah right. It’s just a hot shaped naked woman on a piece of paper in a book geared mostly for teen boys.
oh gosh i hope this doesn’t start a “well comics are mainly geared towards men”. Well the point remains.

Same goes for video games!
 
Last edited:
sometimes though (i hate to sound weird) some are drawn so explicit and shapely i don’t doubt it would cause lust to the reader and perhaps even to the one who drew it.
 
When the female form is exploited like this, we should all be concerned.
 
This depresses me so much. I deal with habitual sins. I was guilty of impure actions (porn and the solitary action) too many times to even count in the years I was away from the Church, and I have to go to confession yet again to confess that it happened five more times (solitary action). And I have to deal with a short temper, a fear that I’m too gossipy, that I get short with my parents, SSA, all sins I despise. But they happen a lot and now these posts yesterday prompted me to despair last night, because the thing i dread more than anything is hell, and now I’m terrified I might end up there.
 
Last edited:
Vbwc said:
This depresses me so much. I deal with habitual sins. I was guilty of impure actions (porn and the solitary action) too many times to even count in the years I was away from the Church, and I have to go to confession yet again to confess that it happened five more times (solitary action). And I have to deal with a short temper, a fear that I’m too gossipy, that I get short with my parents, SSA, all sins I despise. But they happen a lot and now these posts yesterday prompted me to despair last night, because the thing i dread more than anything is hell, and now I’m terrified I might end up there.
Click to expand...
Vbwc said:
This depresses me so much. I deal with habitual sins. I was guilty of impure actions (porn and the solitary action) too many times to even count in the years I was away from the Church, and I have to go to confession yet again to confess that it happened five more times (solitary action). And I have to deal with a short temper, a fear that I’m too gossipy, that I get short with my parents, SSA, all sins I despise. But they happen a lot and now these posts yesterday prompted me to despair last night, because the thing i dread more than anything is hell, and now I’m terrified I might end up there.
Click to expand...
  1. He’s overly-focused on the views of some doctors of the Church, not all of them, and they had no way of knowing how many people end up in Hell, no matter how revered they are, because they were mortal men when they wrote their postulates.
  2. The user you’re quoting is taking the verses out of context. Based on this passage, mocking God would be being unrepentant despite asking for forgiveness and expecting eternal glory because the forgiveness is eternal anyway. As long as that nagging feeling of guilt remains, you’re repentant and you aren’t mocking God. He will always forgive you if you’re sincerely sorry and repent, if anyone says otherwise they lack an understanding of the cited verses and are projecting serious scrupulosity.
 
Please do not despair, God does not want that for any of us nor does he want you to end up in Hell. We all struggle with something, it’s part of being in a fallen world, but there is always Hope. I will be honest, I too dread on hell, but, I also believe God is just and fair even to those who want to be in his Good Graces if you seek his forgiveness. Pray for the Holy Spirit to bring you peace, I also suggest asking for Our Holy Mother and St. Padre Pio’s intercessions. I usually pray to them when I feel a lack of Joy.

I hope you find peace ❤️
 
Last edited:
I want to say that I’m praying that you do not despair. Before I respond to the errors above, this is the most important thing that you hear right now. Regardless of how God judges, all that we can do his hope and pray.

Fear can be a very valid tool, but please do not let it lead you to despair. I’m here for you and I love you. I’ll pray for you:)

One thing I need to say. The Magisterium in Spe Salvi postulated that the “great majority” will be saved. It is not part of the Magisterium yet, because it said “we may suppose.”

I am not a conservative that rejects Church teachings just because they are new. Therefore, although the Magisterium has not clarified in any official capacity on the proportion of people saved, the Holy See does appear to be headed in the direction that the great majority will be saved. I hope this helps lessen your scrupulosity. I would “guess” that the great majority are saved too.

There are two reasons for this. 1. We now know that potentially many non-Christians are saved. 2. The Church is now showing more confidence, at least in “tone,” in salvation (where it didn’t before). This has implications for how God’s infinite Mercy interacts with his infinite justice. This certainty is a piece of the puzzle, a piece of knowledge, that Saints like Alphonsus did not have in the 1700s. Although, we still do not know this in any official capacity, so be vigilant! And even if we knew that the great majority are saved, that could still imply that up to 33-40 percent (at most) of people are in Hell. This should still put fear in our hearts. So let us still be vigilant!

I’m praying 🙏🙂
 
Last edited:
First, I quoted St. Alphonsus. Therefore, you are accusing a Doctor of the Church of misinterpreting the passage. I boldfaced “possibility” to show that I cannot be misinterpreting. Rather, I am throwing out possibilities.

St. Alphonsus has an entire sermon on this. He backs it up with multiple, multiple verses, and other Doctors of the Church, who all taught similar things.

St. Alphonsus:
“St. Augustine says, that he who sins with the intention of repenting after his sins, is not a penitent but a scoffer. ”Irrisor est non pœnitens." But the Apostle tells us that God will not be mocked. ”Be not deceived; God is not mocked." (Gal. vi. 7.) It would be a mockery of God to insult him as often and as much as you pleased, and afterwards to expect eternal glory.”

In fact, St. Alphonsus is the Doctor of the Church who has gotten more Magisterial affirmation from the Apostolic See than any other person (in Denzinger 2725). The Sacred Penitentiary said that his opinions could be quietly accepted, without weighing the reasons on either side, just by virtue of him having held that position in his Moral Theology!

It is an argument from silence to say that I am misrepresenting the opinions of Doctors of the Church without referencing any Doctors of the Church to support your position. (Lets stick with Doctors for now). Second, I never claimed it was a certainity. I worded it very carefully to say that it is a possibility.

I would recommend reading this article from Cardinal Avery Dulles: The Population of Hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles | Articles | First Things

He lays it out very well and states two things. He shows that I am accurately reflecting the opinions of the consensus of Saints and Doctors of the Church before modernism kicked in around 1900.

Cardinal Dulles:
  1. “Several studies published by Catholics early in the twentieth century concluded that there was a virtual consensus among the Fathers of the Church and the Catholic theologians of later ages to the effect that the majority of humankind go to eternal punishment in hell. Even if this consensus be granted, however, it is not binding, because the theologians did not claim that their opinion was revealed, or that to take the opposite view was heretical. Nor is the opinion that most people attain salvation contradicted by authoritative Church teaching.”
  2. There is a minority, gravely erroneous counter opinion, of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa, that everyone is saved at the end of time. This is in error. Hell is eternal.
 
Last edited:
Well, OP, I guess to sorta ask, I hope there were some answers that have helped you with your question. If you’re still not fully sure, it’s always best to speak to your priest whenever you can. 🙂 Probably already the plan, but I wanted to comment a little more to the forum. Hope you have a good day or evening (it’s the evening for me).
 
Last edited:
Cricket13 said:
Well, OP, I guess to sorta ask, I hope there were some answers that have helped you with your question. If you’re still not fully sure, it’s always best to speak to your priest whenever you can. 🙂 Probably already the plan, but I wanted to comment a little more to the forum. Hope you have a good day or evening (it’s the evening for me).
Click to expand...
My best judgment is that what happened wasn’t really mortally sinful, at most a near occasion, based on the responses I got. There were opinions from both sides but I’d think a mortal sin would show more of a consensus. I’m going to bed now too.
 
alphonsus1 said:
St. Alphonsus’s rebuttal.

God is infinitely merciful, yes. But he is also infinitely just. And part of justice involves just punishment. His mercy moderates his justice, yes, but his justice also moderates his mercy. And we do not know how these two infinites interact together. It is possible the vast majority of people are saved (“mercy wins out”), but the reverse is also possible (“justice wins out”). God is 100 percent fair, but God cannot pardon the determination to commit sin. If we choose to go on offending and abusing his mercy, then we should be very fearful.

Read this blog to see the astounding number of Doctors of the Church (there are only 36 of them and they’re advertised to be “safe”) who thought that the vast majority of people went to Hell. So it is entirely possible (the Magisterium has not clarified on this). St. Augustine thought this, St. Gregory the Great thought this, St. Jerome thought this, St. John Chrysostom thought this, St. Thomas thought this, St. Bede the Venerable thought this, St. Alphonsus thought this. So many Doctors of the Church thought that the vast majority of people went to Hell. Should this not be considered as at least a “possibility” in the absence of Magisterial clarification?
http://saintsquotes.net/selection - fewness.html
  1. We have a relationship with God. Can you mortal sin against your wife (adultery) and be forgiven an infinite number of times? NO! So too, you cannot mortal sin against God as often and long as you please and expect eternal glory.
  2. Most important. God’s Mercy is infinite, but, if St. Alphonsus is correct, and he very well could be with so much Magisterial affirmation on his side, then perhaps God only pardons a finite number of times. That is, his “acts of mercy” are finite!
Click to expand...
There’s another aspect I realized later.
Saying that God’s infinite justice could win out over his infinite mercy, or the other way around, is a contradiction. Since both are infinite, neither one could ever win over the other. If one could, that would imply either his mercy or justice is finite, neither of which is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top