Theater and taking the Lord's name in vain

[MrSnaith]

But there is also this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12832649

I think we should just never speak vainly about God, period.

Re: Bookcat’s response:

While hatred, reproach and defiance are referenced in the CCC definition, the phrase “in misusing God’s name” is a separate distinction. Thus, her limitation of blasphemy to “contempt or directed toward God” is incomplete, and should include any misuse of God’s name, as the Catechism directs.

Re: Fr. Serpa’s response:

I can only assume he interprets “in misusing God’s name” in such a way that it would not include all such usages. However, his statement that “phrases like “Oh, my God!” and “Oh, God!” and “Lord, have mercy!” and “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!” are never used to blasphemy” is simply not true. I have heard every one of these spoken in a clearly blasphemous manner.

The way it was explained to me by both a Franciscan priest and a Franciscan brother (neither of whom you’d know as they are not public figures), is this:

The word vain (the etymology of which you can check here for confirmation etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vain&searchmode=none) means “empty” or “idly.” Therefore, the meaning of the Second Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” literally means you shall not use God’s name idly, or without meaning, or emptily.

It might seem strange to suggest that this commandment could be violated by committing a worse sin than what it prohibits. That is, if blasphemy is only contemptible speech toward God, and that is always a grave matter, but vain use of God’s name is only sometimes a grave matter, then the commandment doesn’t even prohibit the worst kind of speech against God!

And, really, this is contrary to Church teaching. We understand the 10 Commandments to be Primary, and that all sins fall under these categories. We should remember Christ’s warning to us regarding lukewarmness. That is, God will spew the lukewarm out of His mouth. I would suggest that this kind of language, vain use of His Holy Name, falls under the category of lukewarmness. It is neither benevolent speech, nor malevolent speech toward God. It is the kind of language that suggests that He’s simply not all that important.

Frankly, I think Fr. Serpa is simply wrong on this point. I don’t mean to speak poorly of him. I respect him very much, and know that he is a good and holy priest. But as I read it, the Church speaks clearly on this.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Re: Bookcat’s response:

While hatred, reproach and defiance are referenced in the CCC definition, the phrase “in misusing God’s name” is a separate distinction. Thus, her limitation of blasphemy to “contempt or directed toward God” is incomplete, and should include any misuse of God’s name, as the Catechism directs.

Re: Fr. Serpa’s response:

I can only assume he interprets “in misusing God’s name” in such a way that it would not include all such usages. However, his statement that “phrases like “Oh, my God!” and “Oh, God!” and “Lord, have mercy!” and “Jesus, Mary and Joseph!” are never used to blasphemy” is simply not true. I have heard every one of these (with the exception of “Lord, have mercy!”) spoken in a clearly blasphemous manner.

The way it was explained to me by both a Franciscan priest and a Franciscan brother (neither of whom you’d know as they are not public figures), is this:

The word vain (the etymology of which you can check here for confirmation etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vain&searchmode=none) means “empty” of “idly.” Therefore, the meaning of the Second Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” literally means you shall not use God’s name idly, or without meaning, or emptily.

It might seem strange to suggest that this commandment could be violated by committing a worse sin than what it prohibits. That is, if blasphemy is only contemptible speech toward God, and that is always a grave matter, but vain use of God’s name is only sometimes a grave matter, then the commandment doesn’t even prohibit the worst kind of speech against God!

And, really, this is contrary to Church teaching. We understand the 10 Commandments to be Primary, and that all sins fall under these categories. We should remember Christ’s warning to us regarding lukewarmness. That is, God will spew the lukewarm out of His mouth. I would suggest that this kind of language, vain use of His Holy Name, falls under the category of lukewarmness. It is neither benevolent speech, nor malevolent speech toward God. It is the kind of language that suggests that He’s simply not all that important.

Frankly, I think Fr. Serpa is simply wrong on this point. I don’t mean to speak poorly of him. I respect him very much, and know that he is a good and holy priest. But as I read it, the Church speaks clearly on this.

So who will be the one to break the news out to Fr Serpa?

I know what I’m gonna do though.

I need to go and tell my confessor about this, and see what he says to me as advice.

The moral of the story is “Don’t sin. And you’ll be set.”

 

[MrSnaith]

So who will be the one to break the news out to Fr Serpa?

I know what I’m gonna do though.

I need to go and tell my confessor about this, and see what he says to me as advice.

The moral of the story is “Don’t sin. And you’ll be set.”

Hah! I’ll take that lesson. I certainly need it.

 

[MrSnaith]

From the CCC:

“1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. **There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy **and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

And also:

"2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in **misusing God’s name. **St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.“78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. the misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.”

CCC 2142 to 2169 concern the Second Commandment.

I feel I have not been fair to Fr. Serpa.

As I re-read the above, I make note that perhaps the section beginning with “It is also blasphemous to…” may be an explanation of how God’s name may be misused. That is, “to cover up criminal practices, the reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime…”

If that is how the section is being read, then I can understand Fr. Serpa’s interpretation, though I still disagree with it, as I see the “vain use” as another form of misuse.

 

[DavidFilmer]

First of all, in order for a mortal sin to happen, grave matter must be present, not just that the action be sinful…

Yeah, that’s the other third of the equation, but I leave it off because nobody seems to know what it means. I sure don’t.

I opened a thread here a couple of years back asking for an example of a sin which could not be mortal (because it was not “grave” enough), regardless of knowledge and intent. In other words, is there such a thing as an act which can be venally sinful but never mortally sinful, based on the nature of the act alone?

I figured such sin must exist - or why stipulate “grave matter?” (why do we still say “grave matter?” That’s a bit of outdated English.)

Nobody could come up with an example that I thought withstood examination. I came away with the opinion that ANY act can be mortally sinful, given sufficiently evil knowledge and intent (and, likewise, ANY act can be venally sinful).

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Yeah, that’s the other third of the equation, but I leave it off because nobody seems to know what it means. I sure don’t.

I opened a thread here a couple of years back asking for an example of a sin which could not be mortal (because it was not “grave” enough), regardless of knowledge and intent. In other words, is there such a thing as an act which can be venally sinful but never mortally sinful, based on the nature of the act alone?

I figured such sin must exist - or why stipulate “grave matter?” (why do we still say “grave matter?” That’s a bit of outdated English.)

Nobody could come up with an example that I thought withstood examination. I came away with the opinion that ANY act can be mortally sinful, given sufficiently evil knowledge and intent (and, likewise, ANY act can be venally sinful).

By any act can be venially sinful, you mean grave matter without sufficient reflcetion or consent of will, correct?

Because there are acts that are intrinsically evil in of themselves…

Usually one should try to use one’s conscience to decide if an action would fit grave matter…

For instance, if I were to steal a french fry from a McDonald’s, it would normally not be grave matter, and one with a normal conscience should be able to realize that…unless it was stolen to do murder or another serious sin, was stolen specifically to spite our Holy God, etc.

 

[MrSnaith]

Yeah, that’s the other third of the equation, but I leave it off because nobody seems to know what it means. I sure don’t.

I opened a thread here a couple of years back asking for an example of a sin which could not be mortal (because it was not “grave” enough), regardless of knowledge and intent. In other words, is there such a thing as an act which can be venally sinful but never mortally sinful, based on the nature of the act alone?

I figured such sin must exist - or why stipulate “grave matter?” (why do we still say “grave matter?” That’s a bit of outdated English.)

Nobody could come up with an example that I thought withstood examination. I came away with the opinion that ANY act can be mortally sinful, given sufficiently evil knowledge and intent (and, likewise, ANY act can be venally sinful).

The reason for the “grave matter” proviso is to distinguish acts that under normal circumstances will be mortally sinful, whereas non-grave matters under normal circumstances will not be mortally sinful.

Just because any action may be mortally sinful, and any action may be venially sinful doesn’t make the proviso of graveness meaningless. Such circumstances are usually the outliers, and not the norm (i.e., a non-grave matter may be rendered mortal if there is a deliberately malicious intent involved, but that’s unusual).

By “normal circumstances” I mean that sufficient knowledge (of the sin and its graveness) and sufficient will (generally understood as deliberate consent), without necessarily any contempt or malice toward God. In other words, it’s an error to suggest that a sin is only mortal if there is sufficient malice toward God, which is what you would have to do if you removed the “grave matter” stipulation. Therefore, the Church in Her wisdom has delineated that in everyday activities, wherein there isn’t necessarily a hatred toward God, we may still sin mortally if the matter is grave (such as skipping Mass on Holy Days of Obligation for no good reason).

 

[DavidFilmer]

Just because any action may be mortally sinful, and any action may be venially sinful doesn’t make the proviso of graveness meaningless. Such circumstances are usually the outliers, and not the norm (i.e., a non-grave matter may be rendered mortal if there is a deliberately malicious intent involved, but that’s unusual).

It might not mean that the nature of the matter is meaningless, but it does mean that the nature of the matter is contingent, and it’s contingent of the same other two factors, knowledge and intent. What MAKES it grave in the first place is knowledge and intent.

Killing a Pope is not even sinful if it was a non-negligent accident (however unlikely that might be). We have to add adverbs like “deliberate” or “negligent” which have nothing to do with the act itself (the act could be anything), but the circumstances under which it was committed.

Therefore, I don’t know how these statements differ in the scheme of things:

• The matter must be evil in nature
• The matter must be both grave and evil in nature

If the definition of “grave” depends entirely on knowledge and intent, and has nothing to do with the act itself (provided the act is, in some way, evil).

It just seems redundant and adds unnecessary complexity.

 

[MrSnaith]

What MAKES it grave in the first place is knowledge and intent.

This is untrue. Knowledge and intent change the impugnability of the action (that is, how much guilt can be assigned to the sinner), they do not make the action grave.

Killing a Pope is not even sinful if it was a non-negligent accident (however unlikely that might be).

While it may not be sinful (or only very slightly sinful), the action itself is still an evil.

We have to add adverbs like “deliberate” or “negligent” which have nothing to do with the act itself (the act could be anything), but the circumstances under which it was committed.

Again, such adverbs assign impugnability. They do not, of themselves, speak to the nature of the act as evil, or grave.

Therefore, I don’t know how these statements differ in the scheme of things:

• The matter must be evil in nature
• The matter must be both grave and evil in nature

An action is evil if it 1) is an offense against God, and is thus 2) an improperly ordered (i.e., is disordered) action. While I am not 100% certain regarding how gravity is defined by the Church, I’m fairly certain it has to do with these two main factors: 1) How directly the action pertains to God (in the case of sin this would be how directly the action is an offense against God, and His will), and 2) The degree to which the action is disordered.

With these definitions in mind, the two statements you’ve listed do mean very different things.

If the definition of “grave” depends entirely on knowledge and intent, and has nothing to do with the act itself (provided the act is, in some way, evil).

It just seems redundant and adds unnecessary complexity.

As demonstrated above, gravity is not dependent entirely on knowledge and intent, and these statements are not redundant nor unnecessary.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

The reason for the “grave matter” proviso is to distinguish acts that under normal circumstances will be mortally sinful, whereas non-grave matters under normal circumstances will not be mortally sinful.

Just because any action may be mortally sinful, and any action may be venially sinful doesn’t make the proviso of graveness meaningless. Such circumstances are usually the outliers, and not the norm (i.e., a non-grave matter may be rendered mortal if there is a deliberately malicious intent involved, but that’s unusual).

By “normal circumstances” I mean that sufficient knowledge (of the sin and its graveness) and sufficient will (generally understood as deliberate consent), without necessarily any contempt or malice toward God. In other words, it’s an error to suggest that a sin is only mortal if there is sufficient malice toward God, which is what you would have to do if you removed the “grave matter” stipulation. Therefore, the Church in Her wisdom has delineated that in everyday activities, wherein there isn’t necessarily a hatred toward God, we may still sin mortally if the matter is grave (such as skipping Mass on Holy Days of Obligation for no good reason).

First of all, I realizae that there are many scrupulous people on this forum, and they could possibly think that they are having malice towards God; there must be a way to comfort them.

Secondly, I feel as if the conversation on blasphemy has not ended yet. When talking to a priest, I was told that saying God’s Holy Name in vain is usually not grave matter, but blasphemy is.

 

[MrSnaith]

First of all, I realizae that there are many scrupulous people on this forum, and they could possibly think that they are having malice towards God; there must be a way to comfort them.

Secondly, I feel as if the conversation on blasphemy has not ended yet. When talking to a priest, I was told that saying God’s Holy Name in vain is usually not grave matter, but blasphemy is.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm), one may commit the sin which they refer to as blasphemy uttered with “no advertence,” which is speaking God’s name without directing your mind toward Him (i.e., using His name in vain). Of this, the Encyclopaedia says:

“Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst” (emphasis mine).

So, while what the priest has said, and what Fr. Serpa says is true, that uttering blasphemy is not always mortal, it is nevertheless always a grave matter. Of course, it’s not always mortal for the same reason that not all grave matters are mortal: because full will or full knowledge may not be present. In the cases cited by the Encyclopaedia, inadvertently uttering God’s name, perhaps from an angry outburst, or by force of habit, full will is not present.

 

[MrSnaith]

First of all, I realizae that there are many scrupulous people on this forum, and they could possibly think that they are having malice towards God; there must be a way to comfort them.

Secondly, I feel as if the conversation on blasphemy has not ended yet. When talking to a priest, I was told that saying God’s Holy Name in vain is usually not grave matter, but blasphemy is.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm), one may commit the sin which they refer to as blasphemy uttered with “no advertence,” which is blaspheming God’s name without directing your mind toward Him (i.e., using His name in vain). Of this, the Encyclopaedia says:

“Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst” (emphasis mine).

So, while what the priest has said, and what Fr. Serpa says is true, that uttering blasphemy is not always mortal, it is nevertheless always a grave matter. Of course, it’s not always mortal for the same reason that not all grave matters are mortal: because full will or full knowledge may not be present. In the cases cited by the Encyclopaedia, inadvertently uttering God’s name, perhaps from an angry outburst, or by force of habit, full will is not present.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm), one may commit the sin which they refer to as blasphemy uttered with “no advertence,” which is blaspheming God’s name without directing your mind toward Him (i.e., using His name in vain). Of this, the Encyclopaedia says:

“Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst” (emphasis mine).

So, while what the priest has said, and what Fr. Serpa says is true, that uttering blasphemy is not always mortal, it is nevertheless always a grave matter. Of course, it’s not always mortal for the same reason that not all grave matters are mortal: because full will or full knowledge may not be present. In the cases cited by the Encyclopaedia, inadvertently uttering God’s name, perhaps from an angry outburst, or by force of habit, full will is not present.

Yes, blasphemy is always grave matter.

But in the part I have bolded, doesn’t it say that grave sin (ie: grave matter) is **not **committed if it is used inadvertenly (although you still have to stop the habit)?

And it also uses different terminology b/t mortal sin and grave sin…are they synonymous or are they not? (I’m actually unsure, not trying to be rude )

Also, it talks about grave guilt, but still says no mortal sin is committed… does this mean not attempting to stop saying those words is mortal sin, but saying it still won’t be?

Thanks for a good “debate”/conversation by the way. I’m learning a TON of Catechism from this alone.

 

[JoeT777]

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm), one may commit the sin which they refer to as blasphemy uttered with “no advertence,” which is blaspheming God’s name without directing your mind toward Him (i.e., using His name in vain). Of this, the Encyclopaedia says:

“Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst” (emphasis mine).

So, while what the priest has said, and what Fr. Serpa says is true, that uttering blasphemy is not always mortal, it is nevertheless always a grave matter. Of course, it’s not always mortal for the same reason that not all grave matters are mortal: because full will or full knowledge may not be present. In the cases cited by the Encyclopaedia, inadvertently uttering God’s name, perhaps from an angry outburst, or by force of habit, full will is not present.

What does it say about the virtuous graces we’ve received when we can blaspheme habitually, ‘inadvertently’ so to speak, without thinking? Wouldn’t we have matters more grave to be concerned about?

JoeT

 

[MrSnaith]

Yes, blasphemy is always grave matter.

But in the part I have bolded, doesn’t it say that grave sin (ie: grave matter) is **not **committed if it is used inadvertenly (although you still have to stop the habit)?

The distinction is that “grave matter” and “grave sin” are not synonyms. A grave matter may not always result in a grave sin. By “grave sin” here they mean “mortal sin.” So, yes, even if you have not committed a grave (mortal) sin, the act is still a grave matter, even if the sin is venial.

And yes, lack of full will (inadvertence and habit) reduces the culpability of the sin, lessening it to venial.

And it also uses different terminology b/t mortal sin and grave sin…are they synonymous or are they not? (I’m actually unsure, not trying to be rude )

Yes, you’re right here, they are synonymous.

Also, it talks about grave guilt, but still says no mortal sin is committed… does this mean not attempting to stop saying those words is mortal sin, but saying it still won’t be?

Yes, that’s right, and this is specifically with reference to habit. This is because a habit lacks the condition of full will, and therefore each time you “fall” to the habit, you commit only a venial sin. However, if you choose not to curb the habit, that is itself a mortal sin, even if each instance of the habitual sin is not.

Thanks for a good “debate”/conversation by the way. I’m learning a TON of Catechism from this alone.

Thank you too! I always enjoy delving into these kinds of things. Doing this reminds me of things I’d forgotten, and usually clarifies some finer points that were somewhat murky before. Of course, not everyone enjoys such discussions, so thank you!

 

[MrSnaith]

What does it say about the virtuous graces we’ve received when we can blaspheme habitually, ‘inadvertently’ so to speak, without thinking? Wouldn’t we have matters more grave to be concerned about?

JoeT

I’m not sure what you mean here. Habitual blasphemy is a vice, which is the opposite of virtue (in this case, the virtue would be habitual praise). If any graces are gained through sin, that is by God’s decision alone, and not a “by product,” so to speak, of the vice. I would very strongly caution against a mindset that thinks, “habitual blasphemy has an upside.”

Actually, blasphemy is considered one of the chief matters of gravity against religion. Regardless, if this is a vice for you, it’s a personal matter to weigh it against other grave matters in your life. For some, there may be more serious sins to attend to. For others, maybe not so. It would not be prudent to make a blanket statement saying we all have more important things to worry about. For some, this issue might be the knife’s edge that brings them into God’s rest, or into eternal sorrow.

 

[catholicmoviene]

Catholic films critic Steven Greydanus has some thoughts on this; he may be talking about film here, but it can still apply to theater:

decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms

Like all things human, films and other works of art and culture are subject to limitations, imperfections, and flaws. Some are so flawed that they are unwholesome and should be avoided. But a thing can be basically wholesome without necessarily being perfect.

As an example, consider the family film Babe, a delightful film with no potential drawbacks other than a few scenes of menace that might frighten the very young and very sensitive, and a single line in which the farm couple’s city-slicker son-in-law ends a sentence with the phrase “for Christ’s sake.”

Profanity is always wrong, but of course we make characters in stories do all sorts of bad things without necessarily approving of them, and profanity is no exception. In principle, an actor can recite a line involving profanity without being personally profane, just as a Christian actor playing St. Peter on Holy Thursday might swear that he has never heard of Jesus, or indeed as faithful Catholics all over the world on Good Friday utter the damning line, “We have no king but Caesar.” This kind of sin is a matter of intention, not just syllables, and an actor who says “for Christ’s sake” is not necessarily profane.

That’s not to say that profanity in drama is neither here nor there. It can be morally objectionable, especially if used gratuitously or in a way likely to contribute to its casual acceptance in society.

Is the brief profanity in Babe justified or unjustified? It might be argued, on the one hand, that the line underscores a cultural divide between the farm couple and their callow son-in-law. On the other hand, it might be answered that this point doesn’t justify the use of profanity in a family film of this sort.

Let’s assume the latter view, that the line is gratuitous and unjustified. Babe is, then, an imperfect film. It would be better if that objectionable line had been omitted. But does this one line make the difference between a wholesome film and an unacceptable one? Does it neutralize Babe’s positive themes of treating others with courtesy and respect, overcoming prejudices, facing challenges, and so forth? Would the world be better off had this movie never been made?

No. That would be the same kind of thinking that would result in refusal to enjoy the company of imperfect people, to attend an imperfect church, to or eat imperfect food. That’s no way to live.

 

[MrSnaith]

Catholic films critic Steven Greydanus has some thoughts on this; he may be talking about film here, but it can still apply to theater:

decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms

These are some interesting thoughts, but I have a problem with a few bits of his reasoning.

Profanity is always wrong

A distinction should be made between profanity and blasphemy. One might be profane without being blasphemous, and one might be blasphemous without necessarily being profane. These do overlap to some degree, but the degree of gravity that belongs to blasphemy far outweighs that of profanity. In fact, profanity isn’t even a grave matter, whereas blasphemy is.

An actor who uses vulgar language does not sin mortally (except if it were done in conjunction with a blasphemy), but an actor who blasphemes certain can.

but of course we make characters in stories do all sorts of bad things without necessarily approving of them

Again, another distinction should be drawn here. If we’re talking about literature, then reading literature that contains such language is questionable, sure, but we’re not talking about literature here. We’re talking about acting, and in this medium, a real person is really uttering these words when the film is being recorded. This is a vastly different question, then.

In principle, an actor can recite a line involving profanity without being personally profane, just as a Christian actor playing St. Peter on Holy Thursday might swear that he has never heard of Jesus, or indeed as faithful Catholics all over the world on Good Friday utter the damning line, “We have no king but Caesar.”

This is a false corollary. Normally speaking, faithful Catholics reciting scripture have a very different intention than an actor (Christian or otherwise) probably has when reciting a blasphemous line in a film or play that is not recounting the life of Christ. The Gospel should not be compared to other literature or media in this way.

Moreover, while an actor may not be intending to blaspheme, the definition of blasphemy includes such utterances of the Holy Name for which the mind is not directed to the Lord in reverence and respect (no advertence, as mentioned a few posts back). This means that while the actor may not intend to blaspheme, he/she still does, though not necessarily in a gravely sinful way.

Is the brief profanity in Babe justified or unjustified? It might be argued, on the one hand, that the line underscores a cultural divide between the farm couple and their callow son-in-law. On the other hand, it might be answered that this point doesn’t justify the use of profanity in a family film of this sort.

Except, he’s missing the third “option,” which is that, on the third hand, that it is a family film is irrelevant; blasphemy shouldn’t be considered permissible in acting, except whereby it is done to recount the Holy Word with reverence and love for He Who gave up His life for us.

But does this one line make the difference between a wholesome film and an unacceptable one?

Actually, probably yes. The Church teaches that if you know a film contains objectionable material, such as blasphemous language, then if you proceed to view the film (or show or play, etc.) then you participate complicitly with the sin being committed. The same can be said of nudity and sex (I don’t actually want to enter into a discussion on this subject… I’m merely making an appropriate corollary).

Does it neutralize Babe’s positive themes of treating others with courtesy and respect, overcoming prejudices, facing challenges, and so forth?

Of course not, but it does cast a shadow on all of it.

Would the world be better off had this movie never been made?

I don’t think this has to be the logical conclusion. The world would certainly be better off if the line had been omitted. But just because the film contains this line doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be made altogether. Rather, it should be made without the objectionable line, especially if the rest of it is good and worthwhile.

No. That would be the same kind of thinking that would result in refusal to enjoy the company of imperfect people, to attend an imperfect church, to or eat imperfect food. That’s no way to live?

Except, we have the ability to offer fraternal correction toward our brethren, something not possible with a film. Moreover, when it comes to putting anything into your body, the Church certainly does proscribe to avoid foods that are known to be deleterious to your health.

 

[catholicmoviene]

Actually, probably yes. The Church teaches that if you know a film contains objectionable material, such as blasphemous language, then if you proceed to view the film (or show or play, etc.) then you participate complicitly with the sin being committed.

Proof?

And did you read the entire article?

 

[catholicmoviene]

And what about the Vatican film list?

decentfilms.com/articles/vaticanfilmlist