Should pornography be legal (faithful Catholics only)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Latinitas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To be clear, what I do not hope for is a society to my liking. Everyone has a vision. Not all visions are equal.

What I do hope for is a society more inclined to the mind of Christ. It’s not necessarily about the literal details, it’s about society having some sense of propriety, or some sense that standards are a good thing to pursue. We have lost even the sense that standards are of value.
Absolute tolerance is not a good thing. In fact there is no such thing as absolute tolerance. Our society is going to make judgments about life that become codified into law.

We should want a society that is more Christian.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
To quote Claire Booth Luce (a Catholic convert and strong defender of the faith) "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home. But, unlike charity, it should end there.

I do not approve of porn and applaud the efforts of entities like Mcdonalds’s to block it from being accessed in their facilities. But you can strongly oppose pornography and still feel uncomfortable with the idea of Big Brother looking over your shoulder, spying on you, going through your browsing history and telling yo what you may or may not download.

Effort to limit the harmful effects of pornography must be balanced with efforts to protect freedom of speech and expression and avoid expansion of state power into the lives of the private citizen.
Click to expand...
Porn is not speech or expression. It is only sexual acts in motion picture or still photo form.

The NSA and CIA already monitor every form of electronic communications. I suspect they’re looking for terrorists as opposed to masturbators. You have no privacy, except at home, and when not on any communication device.

Ed
 
Hello Deacon,

While I believe that Victoria Secret’s catalog is porn, because they market lust, I think that Victoria Secret & the old Playboy are hard to legally define as porn because of the extreme legal complications you mention. So the Catechism definition of porn would be OK with me.

The stuff I would really like to see removed is the “soft porn” we see on HBO, Cinemax, etc.

However, this is a total hypothetical conversation because the govt will never do it. The liberals and the libertarians would never support such legislation.
 
phil19034 said:
Hello Deacon,

While I believe that Victoria Secret’s catalog is porn, because they market lust, I think that Victoria Secret & the old Playboy are hard to legally define as porn because of the extreme legal complications you mention. So the Catechism definition of porn would be OK with me.

The stuff I would really like to see removed is the “soft porn” we see on HBO, Cinemax, etc.

However, this is a total hypothetical conversation because the govt will never do it. The liberals and the libertarians would never support such legislation.
Click to expand...
They still bleep out “bad” language used by “comedians.” I recently saw a bar covering the mouth area so you couldn’t read their lips.

Ed
 
I believe Ed was referring to “author intent” not financials per say.

Famous nudes in art museums were typically intended to reflect the beauty of the human body. They were also paintings.

Today, the majority (not all) of the sinful “art” is photograph or video, with the intent of being lustful & sexy – if not straight out porn.

To me, the major issue is that many people confuse beauty and sexy. They think being sexy = beauty. It doesn’t.

Sexiness comes from lust, with beauty comes from God.
 
edwest2 said:
They still bleep out “bad” language used by “comedians.” I recently saw a bar covering the mouth area so you couldn’t read their lips.

Ed
Click to expand...
Well, they are very selective on what they consider “bad language.”

At 8PM on network television, they can say the “b word” without any issue.
 
Right. Which is why I said that I would be fine the Catechism definition because I understand the law (especially in the American legal system) can’t be subjective.

We don’t have a system that supports the “spirit of the law” like Canon Law or like ancient Rome & Greece.

But again, this is simply a hypothetical because it won’t happen in today’s society.
 
Do we agree that decisions on these things are going to be made and put into law, subject to debate and moral evaluation?

If so, what is the role of Christian faith, or faith of any stripe, in helping form our laws?

It seems to me you are saying in effect: it’s messy and difficult, so we should not attempt to leaven society with Christian values, because more messiness may result.

It will be messy and difficult no matter what.
 
I agree that we are not in practice going to overcome gov’t by judiciary. It’s a done deal til our system crumbles (might not be long). So the word games played by justices are the last word.

The sex scenes with artistic value: might be artistic for some people.
On the whole: the benefits to society at large gained from banning pornography far outweigh the artistic expression that might benefit a few.

We make these marginal decisions all the time.
Feeding the hungry:
There are able bodied people who prove an exception to the wisdom of legislation that helps people. Essentially, we have “outlawed” hunger.
Should we still decide to help the hungry? Yes. We will make a decision one way or another. On principle, our society makes a decision to help people regardless of abuse.

Taxation: The government legislates my cooperation in supporting civil society with my tax dollars. I can support people more effectively and efficiently by helping people locally. But, I recognize that for the overall good of society, I should cooperate in this endeavor. It’s not a matter of my taste.

There is a principle involved in pornography that is not going to make everyone happy, and will not result in laws that adequately cover every situation.
The principle remains.
 
I believe that the biggest problem is the people who allow themselves to get sexually aroused by porn.
 
Parallel Verses
New International Version
“Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.”

New Living Translation
“Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.”

English Standard Version
“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.”

Ed
 
goout said:
I agree that we are not in practice going to overcome gov’t by judiciary. It’s a done deal til our system crumbles (might not be long). So the word games played by justices are the last word.

The sex scenes with artistic value: might be artistic for some people.
On the whole: the benefits to society at large gained from banning pornography far outweigh the artistic expression that might benefit a few.

We make these marginal decisions all the time.
Feeding the hungry:
There are able bodied people who prove an exception to the wisdom of legislation that helps people. Essentially, we have “outlawed” hunger.
Should we still decide to help the hungry? Yes. We will make a decision one way or another. On principle, our society makes a decision to help people regardless of abuse.

Taxation: The government legislates my cooperation in supporting civil society with my tax dollars. I can support people more effectively and efficiently by helping people locally. But, I recognize that for the overall good of society, I should cooperate in this endeavor. It’s not a matter of my taste.

There is a principle involved in pornography that is not going to make everyone happy, and will not result in laws that adequately cover every situation.
The principle remains.
Click to expand...
The principle remains.

Ed
 
Latinitas said:
Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking about this question a little bit lately. I used to think that this was a no-brainer - of course, it should be illegal. However, I thought about Augustine’s famous quote, which St. Thomas agrees with, that if harlots be done away with, the whole world would be convulsed in lust, and that therefore, prostitution should be tolerated. So now, I’m not so sure, and am open to hearing other opinions on this question.

So, my question to all of you is, do you think the government should tolerate pornography, or should forbid it, partially or entirely? I should say, of course, that I’m talking about ‘normal’ pornography, not child pornography, or other pornography that depicts rape/violence.

Please, besides answering the poll, explain your thoughts below.

As said in the title, this thread is only for Catholics who accept all Catholic teachings.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
Click to expand...
Pornography should be banned from Internet and Cable TV because it can’t be controlled from Kids and Teens seeing it. Pornography should be legal only in sealed off back rooms where proof of age is required to enter. Pornography should also be taxed like Cigarettes.
 
PassingSoul said:
Pornography should be banned from Internet and Cable TV because it can’t be controlled from Kids and Teens seeing it. Pornography should be legal only in sealed off back rooms where proof of age is required to enter. Pornography should also be taxed like Cigarettes.
Click to expand...
The problem with “sin taxes” is that the gov’t usually becomes reliant on them. What starts out as simply a “penalty tax” becomes an important source of tax revenue.

A sin tax is supposed to be a tax placed on the community to discourage a behavior. However, it often doesn’t do what’s it’s supposed to because the tax is often low enough so it doesn’t discourage the behavior and simply becomes a new stream of revenue.

And honestly… sin taxes can sometimes lead to a growth in the behavior, like it did with gambling.
 
If I understand you correctly you are concerned that the Church is OK with publication of nudes because sexual acts are not simulated?

I do not think so.
The traditional definition above is I believe well thought out.
All pornography is regarded as immoral by the Church.

So if pornography extended to nudes then the Church would be bound to whitewash parts of the roof of the Cistine Chapel (a work of art) and cover a number of statues with fig leaves (which rigorists have in the past attempted).

By drawing a line at sexual acts the Church leaves room for prudential judgements by local authority and informed personal conscience when it comes to nudes.
It does seem difficult to rigidly define the line between offenses to chastity and legitimate art when it comes to nudes and discretely presented sexual activity.

Clearly the CCC is not saying that the boys can go for it re material that does not fit the definition of pornography. It then becomes a matter that falls under considerations of personal chastity. In short if you seek it and get turned on by it and you are single then you are clearly sinning against chastity. If one is married there may be a place for such provocative images in assisting a person to consummate with ones partner. Unlikely methinks.

I believe the other consideration re pornography as defined by the Church is that it is a description of sin aimed at the publishing industry rather than consumers.

For consumers, as above, the sin is defined by the usual Catholic considerations re chastity.

While we heard what the OP said I think we all know what he/she meant.
 
How is chastity served by pornography being widely available? On TV and in the Movies, and real life, sex acts are trivialized or regarded as normal or neutral among nonmarried persons. Do I need to see some stranger’s boobs? Or behind? Seriously, this issue has to be dealt with because not dealing with it, by default, makes it OK - AS IF WE HAVE NO BRAINS.

Do I need to see simulated or actual sex acts for any reason? No. Somehow, long before photography, human beings knew how to reproduce. Turning any human being into a collection of body parts for the purpose of sexual arousal is an offense against the dignity of that person. Human dignity requires human decency. Sure, I can look at a beautiful young lady but that’s it. If we end up in a relationship, I must treat her with the dignity and respect she deserves. And not treat her as a sex object. She is a 360 degree person. She has a soul.

The idea of “Is it porn? I don’t know” is ridiculous in the extreme. Anyone have copies of the Sistine Chapel art or photo of the Venus de Milo statue under their bed? Or bought Playboy “just to read the articles”? “Girlie” magazines of the past got rid of any artistic merit. Just buy it to look at the girls.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top