Should Movies Be Censored?

[Portrait]

Sorry, if you took my question as confrontational. And without a specific example, I posed my question broadly. As I know, moviegoers go to see a movie for various reasons and there are those who think it’s usually harmless and a way to pass the time, others go to see what message they might get from it based on the commercials and previews, or those that just forget about it and wait for the next one, because “everyone” goes to the movies out of habit or because it’s something to do. As Portrait has pointed out so clearly, the topic is, should movies be censored. This immediately provokes a knee-jerk reaction from some that the 100% evil government will get involved. As I wrote elsewhere, we don’t need the government but we do need standards. Bedrock standards for, at the very least, Catholics.

I’m not arguing against thought. But since you brought it up, how do you determine which thoughts are good or bad? I mean that as a polite, honest question. The producers of movies have clearly shown us that they want us to join them on the elevator headed down to more graphic sex, graphic violence and lots of profanity.

I don’t go to movies looking for some revelation. I think schools should teach us how to think, but sadly, too many schools are unconcerned and don’t care for us to develop standards regarding thoughts and actions to help us in our daily lives. They are amoral at best and immoral at worst.

What I am talking about is an identity handed down from parents to children in a line that remained unbroken for a long time. My father and mother were not born in this country but their ideas stretched back to great-grandparents, their own parents and on to us children. Fathers and mothers did their best to pass on values that they could show us in daily life as really being beneficial for everyone in the family and beneficial for the community as a whole. Since we, as children, growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s, could clearly see, others, including our government and media, were part of shaping a society that was moral and decent and that worked!!! Good was demonstrated as being good and worthwhile! What a concept! Kids benefited, young adults benefited and older people benefited.

No, I am not saying there were no social problems that needed to be addressed at the time. Or that we were all perfect but we were constantly reinforced to behave in a virtuous manner by our parents, our relatives, our schools, our media and our government. And it led to fewer problems and cast right and wrong and good and bad behaviors in a clearly defined light for all to examine. We were taught that imitating the bad kids would be bad, and imitating the handful of bad adults around us would be bad. We were to be polite to all but to avoid those who did wrong in public. Their private lives were not our concern - at all. We knew that people did some things in secret. We got that. The solution? Stay away. And for the good kids that tried being bad, the police and their parents got involved, and it was strictly none of our business to gossip, spread rumors or point fingers.

Of course, we would come to the aid of anybody in need. But if others chose a different way to live, it was not up to us to force them to do differently. It was up to all of us to be virtuous because only by being virtuous could we be sensitive to what was wrong and avoid the consequences. Modesty, decency, self-restraint - all these things were drilled into our heads and not just because we were Catholics or other Christians but because it was obvious that these things worked. You name the situation and they worked.

Snip/

But that line of thinking and living was brutally severed starting in the late 1960s. Our trust in others was abused, our government began to turn against the truth and then it turned on marriage and created the fictional “marriage is only a contract” through No-Fault Divorce. Starting in the late 1960s, movies began to examine the dark, the ugly, the private, the profane and the sexual. All the bad began to appear on the big screen mixed with some good until about the mid-1980s, then the downward spiral in movies accelerated rapidly. It seemed that most any attractive actress had to appear topless or partly or mostly or all nude, and appear in sex scenes and play a fornicator or prostitute or “call girl.” It was dirty, ugly and put people’s minds on the wrong way to live. In some cases, providing “instructive” examples of how to do it wrong.

The moment the media became infected with wrong, that was the moment it began a slide into degeneracy. And it needs the light of the truth to be brought to bear on it. NOW.

Peace,
Ed

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear and a hearty Amen to all of the above comments.

The present popular media is shaping our tastes, our language and our values and even professing Catholics have not, alas, remained unaffected by its godless and debased influence. This is why, dear brother, it is imperative that the Catholic faithful develop a properly formed conscience, as former generations did, so that they will be equipped to discern what is and what is not morally permissible media. However, this pre-supposes that they have not chosen to adopt a shameful worldly conformity (cf. Rom. 12: 2), which will mean that they will lack the strict discipline necessary and will unlikely be desirous to “want to form enlightened and correct consciences the easily to resist unwholesome influences” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2496).

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut, Ed.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Kamaduck]

Sadly, the original 3 Star Wars films were the last SF films I would recommend to anyone. Minimum violence, no profanity, clearly defined good and evil and a love story.

You just condemned WALL-E. I’m going to assume you haven’t seen it, because I can’t remember anything even remotely objectionable. There is no sex, the violence is certainly no worse than Star Wars, and for a children’s movie, it is thought provoking and well done.

You also condemned Hunger Games, most of the Star Trek movies, and GATTACA. You probably don’t care about GATTACA, as it has a sex scene. I think. I don’t actually remember how explicit it is, I walk out for that part. The movie’s one of my favorites because of how well it tackles the idea of genetically engineering humans and basing our value on our genes. I’ll take my intelligent social commentary where I can get it, regardless of if I have to skip parts.

Sorry, if you took my question as confrontational. And without a specific example, I posed my question broadly.

Well, OK. But it’s easier for me to speak in terms of specific examples. I realize you probably haven’t seen Hunger Games, but it’s a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.

I’m not arguing against thought. But since you brought it up, how do you determine which thoughts are good or bad? I mean that as a polite, honest question.

Interesting question, though I think most thought (especially kinds we’re not used to) is good for us. And I’m talking about conscious thought here, though I know our subconscious minds are always engaged. In terms of morality:

If a thought/question better equips you to follow Christ and help people more effectively, it is good. (How can I fight oppression? Where do I see oppresion in my own life? Is it ever right to disobey authority? Under what circumstances?)

If a thought/question encourages sin, it is bad. (How many lies can I tell before people catch on? Lust and violent/angry thoughts might fall under this, but those don’t generally involve puzzling out a problem. I suppose what I’m really talking about is logical thought and thoughts that cause us to ask questions, so lust is pretty irrelivant to my argument.)

If a thought does neither, it is neutral. I think most neutral questions are still good for your brain, though.

I still agree with Baelor from the last thread we were on- it is up to the individual to determine which movies cause which kind of thoughts in him. However, this thread isn’t about that. It’s about whether Hollywood should self-censor, which I think would be beneficial. I simply think that judging movies without regard to the thoughts and questions they inspire is silly.

It’s my contention that movies like GATTACA and Hunger Games do more good than harm to our brains. Few movies are like that, and it’s silly to disqualify those two simply because of one (sorta) sex scene and violence, respectively.

I don’t go to movies looking for some revelation. I think schools should teach us how to think, but sadly, too many schools are unconcerned and don’t care for us to develop standards regarding thoughts and actions to help us in our daily lives. They are amoral at best and immoral at worst.

What, and you stop thinking when you get out of school? Everything should inspire thought! But movies can do it more easily than other things. Instead of relying on our own observations, they allow us to focus in on certain circumstances. They give us a chance to think about things that wouldn’t have spontaneously popped into our heads. This is a GOOD thing.

And I know most schools are bad, but not all are. Mine isn’t. It’s why I insist on thinking when I watch movies, and part of the reason you’re having so much trouble with me.

In all seriousness, I don’t really want to talk about the 60’s. I wasn’t there. Do you want us to all watch nothing but 50’s films? All the younger people would leave the theaters. Those movies don’t speak to our experience. No, movies don’t need to have violence, profanity, or sex to speak to a younger audience. They do need adults that aren’t always trustworthy, and heroes who don’t know what to do. That is our experience. That is what you see reflected on the movie screen. Yes, I know it’s a cycle. But it can be done well, and I think Hunger Games did that.

EDIT: PS: Idealistic stories where good wins out and kids do the right thing still exist, we just have to look for them. Why do you think boys anime is so popular in the schools?

Yeah, Hollywood’s broken. Doesn’t mean all media everywhere is just as broken.

 

[Portrait]

Of course this is true in a simplistic sense. But the arguments that are being made here are not simple.

I’m not a fan of censorship.

I don’t think there’s much the government can or should do.

I** think our culture is so morally bankrupt that even Catholics and Christians have become relativists and use the term “art” or “social commentary” or “thought provoking” to make themselves feel better that they are allowing subversive and morally vapid information to invade their own psyche and, most regrettably, the minds of their families.**

I’m losing this battle on a daily basis in my own home. I fight as much as I can. And I’m very careful not to fall into scrupulosity. But the war is being waged and so many folks don’t even understand they’re in a battle. I can’t even turn the radio on in my car at 8am dropping my kids off at school.

Dear Virtus Transitus,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. The bolded paragraph is bang on target. Jolly well said and my sentiments entirely.

There is, dear brother, much nonesense spoken in contemporary Catholic circles regarding the issue of scrupulosity. Not infrequently it is uttered by those who have adopted the actual relativistic and worldly stance of which you speak above. This is not to deny that scrupulosity, or what used to be termed being ‘righteous overmuch’, can be a real issue for some men, especially if it develops into some sort of compulsive disorder. However, this does not mean that there can never be a* healthy* scrupulosity, by which I mean a godly vigilance against anything which may present an inducement to sin or which may hamper the earnest pursuit of holiness. It is surely quite obvious that given our fallen estate and the fact that Satan and his forces have deeply invaded man’s social and cultural structures, such a healthy watchfulness is imperative. Clearly, if one is not on one’s guard against evil influences, from whatever source, then one is more likely to be influenced by them:

Help me to guard my immortal soul
By active constant self-control
cleanse my thought, my speech, my play.
O Lord God, keep me pure from day to day.

There is nothing prudish or ‘Puritan’ in wishing to protect our souls from the debased elements of unwholesome media, for these are decidedly incompatible with the devout life and the Catholic call to holiness. We have a duty to live up to the arduous demands of our most *holy *religion and this will necessarily involve being vigilant and keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world” (Jam. 1: 27). Given the corrupting influence of popular culture, dear brother, how can we afford to abandon a healthy scrupulosity and drop our guard? True, personal sanctity and separation from the world is never an easy or popular option, especially given the Laodicean times in which our lot is now sadly cast. However, we are called to it, nonetheless, and are enjoined to “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14 cf. CCC 2013-2015).

This will be my final post in this thread, dearly beloved friends, but I pray that all of us, viewers and contributors alike, will ponder carefully and prayerfully the corrupting and unwholesome influences of the modern media. If, for example, we have been lax as to our film and television choices, then let us resolve to exercise a stricter discipline that will promote rather than impede our pursuit of holiness. Let us focus our affections upon more nobler things that will cause us to soar upwards and away from the filth of this world; let us acquaint ourselves with these nobler things and esteem them above everything and so prepare oursleves for the perpetual enjoyment of them (cf. Col. 3: 1-3)

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Kamaduck]

This is not to deny that scrupulosity, or what used to be termed being ‘righteous overmuch’, can be a real issue for some men, especially if it develops into some sort of compulsive disorder. However, this does not mean that there can never be a* healthy* scrupulosity, by which I mean a godly vigilance against anything which may present an inducement to sin or which may hamper the earnest pursuit of holiness.

I am 98% sure you’re using the word scrupulosity incorrectly. It’s not healthy, and it doesn’t keep you from sinning. It just causes you to waste time worrying and believing you might go to hell over silly things.

Other than that, your post was fine. Just wanted to point that out.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I am 98% sure you’re using the word scrupulosity incorrectly. It’s not healthy, and it doesn’t keep you from sinning. It just causes you to waste time worrying and believing you might go to hell over silly things.

Other than that, your post was fine. Just wanted to point that out.

You are 100% correct in the Church’s use of the term scrupulosity, for which I give to a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. As a general term in the English language, however, the word may and is used in quite a different light. Below is Merriam-Webster’s definition–

Definition of SCRUPULOSITY
1 : the quality or state of being scrupulous
2 : scruple

which leads us to the word "scrupulous–

1 : having moral integrity : acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper
2 : punctiliously exact : painstaking

which has quite a different meaning from the specialized use by the Church. I have the distinct pleasure to declare both of you 100% correct. I know, I know, who gave me the right to pass judgment! Sheesh!

 

[Kamaduck]

You are 100% correct in the Church’s use of the term scrupulosity, for which I give to a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia. As a general term in the English language, however, the word may and is used in quite a different light. Below is Merriam-Webster’s definition–

Definition of SCRUPULOSITY
1 : the quality or state of being scrupulous
2 : scruple

which leads us to the word "scrupulous–

1 : having moral integrity : acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper
2 : punctiliously exact : painstaking

which has quite a different meaning from the specialized use by the Church. I have the distinct pleasure to declare both of you 100% correct. I know, I know, who gave me the right to pass judgment! Sheesh!

Ah, I see! Thank you. English is simply confusing.

I was thinking about what I’ve been saying to ed, and it occurred to me that we both agree that it’s wrong for Hollywood to put unnecessary violence and sex in its movies. We agree on the question this thread asks- we both think it would be good for Hollywood to adopt some harsher standards and self-censor to some extent.

Where we disagree (apart from where we draw our personal lines) is in whether it’s also wrong to view this questionable material. He seems to think that even a small bit of immorality outweighs any other positive qualities or effects the work may have. I’ve heard this before in the form “Would you eat just a little bit of poison?”

I think a work’s good effects can outweigh it’s harm, so it’s not automatically a bad idea to watch something with questionable elements. At least, I think that’s what a lot of our disagreements come down to. (We also disagree on whether writing antiheroes and not classifying every character as good or evil is wrong, but that seems a comparatively minor point.) Just wanted to explain that.

I’m still against watching works that have sex and violence in them without redeeming qualities, though I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say viewing such works is always sinful. I just think redeeming qualities should be factored in.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Ah, I see! Thank you. English is simply confusing.

I was thinking about what I’ve been saying to ed, and it occurred to me that we both agree that it’s wrong for Hollywood to put unnecessary violence and sex in its movies. We agree on the question this thread asks- we both think it would be good for Hollywood to adopt some harsher standards and self-censor to some extent.

Where we disagree (apart from where we draw our personal lines) is in whether it’s also wrong to view this questionable material. He seems to think that even a small bit of immorality outweighs any other positive qualities or effects the work may have. I’ve heard this before in the form “Would you eat just a little bit of poison?”

I think a work’s good effects can outweigh it’s harm, so it’s not automatically a bad idea to watch something with questionable elements. At least, I think that’s what a lot of our disagreements come down to. (We also disagree on whether writing antiheroes and not classifying every character as good or evil is wrong, but that seems a comparatively minor point.) Just wanted to explain that.

I’m still against watching works that have sex and violence in them without redeeming qualities, though I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say viewing such works is always sinful. I just think redeeming qualities should be factored in.

Eating a little poison would be dumb, but what I hear you saying is that you don’t eat the poison-- you see it, and you avoid it, dismiss it, refuse to accept it. So long as it is not a near occasion of sin, you are all right. But we all need to be cautious that we are not deceiving ourselves, imputing a strength to ourselves to resist sin that we do not possess. It is not smart to play with mortal sin,

For a man, simply seeing nudity is not sinful, however, entertaining impure thoughts regarding that scene is sinful, gravely sinful. A wise man will avoid any scene that is a near occasion of sin, and what constitutes a near occasion of sin varies from man to man. .We should train ourselves to turn away at the first sight of something that we think may be a near occasion of sin. But our resistance to temptation can vary from time to time. One day the smallest scene or suggestion may bother us, and the next day, hardly any sight or suggestion would have an effect. So a person has to know themselves and always be alert. Again, playing with mortal sin is not smart. One should not test their limits. If it bothers them a little, they should nip it in the bud.

Some movies I like have bad scenes. It’s like a perfect apple except for that one small bad spot. If one can cut it out without risk, do so. If it poses a threat, that is, constitutes a near occasion of sin, leave it alone. This is part of our daily carrying of the cross. Until we get to the point that we love the cross more than sin, we will have trouble in every area of living a moral life. We show our love of Jesus by taking up our cross and following Him. It’s that simple.

 

[Kamaduck]

Eating a little poison would be dumb, but what I hear you saying is that you don’t eat the poison-- you see it, and you avoid it, dismiss it, refuse to accept it. So long as it is not a near occasion of sin, you are all right. But we all need to be cautious that we are not deceiving ourselves, imputing a strength to ourselves to resist sin that we do not possess. It is not smart to play with mortal sin,

For a man, simply seeing nudity is not sinful, however, entertaining impure thoughts regarding that scene is sinful, gravely sinful. A wise man will avoid any scene that is a near occasion of sin, and what constitutes a near occasion of sin varies from man to man. .We should train ourselves to turn away at the first sight of something that we think may be a near occasion of sin. But our resistance to temptation can vary from time to time. One day the smallest scene or suggestion may bother us, and the next day, hardly any sight or suggestion would have an effect. So a person has to know themselves and always be alert. Again, playing with mortal sin is not smart. One should not test their limits. If it bothers them a little, they should nip it in the bud.

Some movies I like have bad scenes. It’s like a perfect apple except for that one small bad spot. If one can cut it out without risk, do so. If it poses a threat, that is, constitutes a near occasion of sin, leave it alone. This is part of our daily carrying of the cross. Until we get to the point that we love the cross more than sin, we will have trouble in every area of living a moral life. We show our love of Jesus by taking up our cross and following Him. It’s that simple.

Yeah, I think you’re right. I do think that those who choose to avoid all possible temptations in their media, even at the expense of thinking new thoughts, have made a fine descision. I also think those who carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each movie and occasionally choose to, as you say, cut out the bad part of the apple, have made a fine descision, too. We can’t know for certain sometimes whether a movie will be a near occasion of sin for someone else, and I think there are some movies that would benefit some viewers but hurt others. It has to do with the individual.

So I do think that ed’s descision to avoid all movies that contain nudity and excessive violence is fine and even admirable. I also think my descision to carefully read reviews before I watch something, turn away if it becomes too much, and analyze all foreign ideas and morality, is fine. The important thing is to always be aware of the possibility of temptation and sin, and not to take our strength for granted. So while people who declare movies I like “immoral” bother me, those who say “violence is fine, I don’t want to kill anybody” bother me even more, because I think that is a dangerous way of thinking- essentially, a lack of thought and caution.

So, to reiterate, I think ed is right to work against violent and sexual scenes in media. I also think it’s a fine descision for him to avoid all movies that contain such scenes. I just don’t agree with his opinions on specific movies or the idea that a small imperfection destroys the entire work, along with a few minor details. I believe the important thing is that everyone recognizes the effects of movie imagery and questions what they are seeing and the messages being preached. As long as a viewer can do that, and can reliably assess which movies will be a near occasion of sin for them and avoid such movies, I see no reason why we can’t let each viewer decide which movies are good for them and which are bad.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yeah, I think you’re right. I do think that those who choose to avoid all possible temptations in their media, even at the expense of thinking new thoughts, have made a fine descision. I also think those who carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each movie and occasionally choose to, as you say, cut out the bad part of the apple, have made a fine descision, too. We can’t know for certain sometimes whether a movie will be a near occasion of sin for someone else, and I think there are some movies that would benefit some viewers but hurt others. It has to do with the individual.

So I do think that ed’s descision to avoid all movies that contain nudity and excessive violence is fine and even admirable. I also think my descision to carefully read reviews before I watch something, turn away if it becomes too much, and analyze all foreign ideas and morality, is fine. The important thing is to always be aware of the possibility of temptation and sin, and not to take our strength for granted. So while people who declare movies I like “immoral” bother me, those who say “violence is fine, I don’t want to kill anybody” bother me even more, because I think that is a dangerous way of thinking- essentially, a lack of thought and caution.

So, to reiterate, I think ed is right to work against violent and sexual scenes in media. I also think it’s a fine descision for him to avoid all movies that contain such scenes. I just don’t agree with his opinions on specific movies or the idea that a small imperfection destroys the entire work, along with a few minor details. I believe the important thing is that everyone recognizes the effects of movie imagery and questions what they are seeing and the messages being preached. As long as a viewer can do that, and can reliably assess which movies will be a near occasion of sin for them and avoid such movies, I see no reason why we can’t let each viewer decide which movies are good for them and which are bad.

I think it can be tricky to get it right. We have to ask ourselves, why is it that we want to watch this particular film? How will I benefit by it? Is it edifying? Is it the kind of entertainment that Our Lord would be happy with? If not, what kind of entertainment would He approve of? Does the world have my attention, or does Christ?

I like this Bible verse (1 John 2):

15Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever.

Maybe I’m going overboard, but it seemed to speak to me. I am finding more and more that everything in the world is vanity, and the only things that really make my life full are the things I do for God and other people. Everything else just seems like so much waste of time. Of course, I am a lot older now. Maybe I’m starting to get it right. lol If so, bout time!