This link answers directly the question of WATCHING the types of movies referenced in this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13588&highlight=imperfect+movie
I’ve seen this answer before, and while I agree with most of what the apologist in this post is saying, I don’t agree with it in full. First, I will address the question of nudity.
Nudity is not in itself intrinsically evil, nor is even public nudity intrinsically evil. Therefore, the portrayal of nudity is not necessarily sinful, nor is the viewing of nudity necessarily sinful. This is why the Church cannot ban all movies with nudity, and even endorses a select few. However, we shouldn’t just take the Church’s non-universal ban as an open door for any kind of nudity. There are two principles which ought to be followed when considering this.
The first is with regards to the nudity being portrayed, and with this we can ask two questions. Is the nudity being portrayed in a titillating manner, and if a sexual act is being portrayed is it simulated or unsimulated? If the nudity/sexuality is non-titillating and simulated, then there isn’t necessarily (and probably not) any sin taking place. However, if the nudity/sexuality is deliberately titillating, and/or not simulated, then we are talking about sin on the parts of the producers of the portrayal (whether that be film, theater, television, magazines, paintings, etc.).
The second is with regards to the viewer of the nudity, and with this we can ask two questions. If the nudity being portrayed is sinful, as defined above, is the viewer aware of this, and even if the portrayal is not sinful, as defined above, does nudity itself represent an occasion of sin for the viewer? If it is sinful, and the viewer is aware of this, then the viewer is complicit in the sin by allowing it to enter into his “inner sanctuary” (his home, or his heart, or his mind, etc), if you will. If the viewer has nudity as an occasion of sin, then simply viewing it, whether the portrayal itself is sinful or not, constitutes a sin, since we are always to avoid the near occasion of sin.
The apologist in the above quoted thread makes the argument, and again I’ve heard this before, that “just because something is imperfect does not mean that it must be shunned. Christ scandalized his contemporaries by enjoying the company of sinners and tax collectors.” I very strongly disagree with this line of reasoning.
Yes, just because something is imperfect does not mean that it must be shunned. No doubt. But to justify the viewing of what is an actual sin, and not by accident, because Jesus was found in the company of sinners is really an invalid comparison. It is so on at least a few levels.
First, sinners are people, a film is not. Certainly, the actors in the film are people, but by watching a movie, you’re not really keeping their company, you viewing a bit of their art. So the comparison fails at that really basic level.
Second, Jesus didn’t just keep their company, He called them to repent of their sins. Jesus was never satisfied with leaving people as they were. We cannot do this with a movie. Indeed, since once a movie is made/released, it cannot be changed (unless you want to suggest some kind of massive recall), your participation in it is a participation in it as it is, without the possibility of redeeming it of its imperfections. So the comparison fails on that level as well.
Third, Jesus is God, and as such draws all people to Himself, saints and sinners alike. We are not to draw all movies unto ourselves, perfect and imperfect alike. So the comparison fails on that level also.
Fourth, though Jesus, Himself, kept the company of sinners, He was sinless and could not be drawn into their sins. And while we are called to reach to sinners in order to draw them to Christ, the Church does advise that we keep wholesome company and avoid unwholesome company
in general in order not to be drawn into their sins. So the comparison fails again on this level.
So, while nudity may or may not be sinful depending on the type and the occasion of sin it represents, the same cannot be said of profanity and blasphemy. These are always sinful, regardless of the degree. The best you could argue is that, if the sin is profanity (and thus not mortal) on the part of the actor, then at worst the viewer of the profanity is participating in a venial sin, which, though sinful, one might argue is “not that big a deal” (which I disagree with). The example given in the quoted thread is the movie
Babe. I can tell you, as a youth when I watched that movie it put a dark cloud over the entire film for me, and put in me the desire not to watch it again. Sure, the rest of the movie is great, but that one word violated my conscience, and I don’t think I was being scrupulous about it.
One final caveat, which I think is very important to make. In all of this discussion, I
am not suggesting that all viewings of such movies, period, are sinful. And this, I think, is highly dependent on the reason your watching the movie. If it is for entertainment, then all of the above applies. However, if it is for research, or perhaps you’re a film critic by trade, or you have some other reason for viewing the film outside of a participation in its story, then all of the above argumentation does not necessarily apply.
