Theater and taking the Lord's name in vain

[MrSnaith]

First of all, one would have to ask: IS this sinful cooperation?
This is material cooperation:

"Material Cooperation is assistance provided to the immoral act of a principal agent
in which the cooperator does not intend the evil. The elements needed to define material
cooperation are, first, the free and knowing assistance to the evil act of another, and,
second, the absence of intending the principal agent’s evil acts. If these two factors obtainin any given case, then the moral agent is engaging in material cooperation. However, not all cooperation defined by these factors is morally permissible.

Some types of material cooperation are immoral. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate."

Immediate material cooperation in intrinsically evil actions is sinful.

“Mediate Material Cooperation. Mediate material cooperation occurs when the
cooperator participates in circumstances that are not essential to the commission
of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation.
Mediate material cooperation in an immoral act might be justifiable under three
basic conditions:”

The three basic conditions are

1. If some great good were to be gained (or prevented from being lost) or
   if some great evil were to be avoided…the article goes on to say that the four principles of double effect
2. . The reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal
   proximity of the cooperator’s action and the principal agent’s action
   (the distinction between proximate and remote).
3. The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading
   others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.

Only one of these could potentially apply, so if indeed one is watching movies with blasphemy knowingly, I would presume it is mortal sin. However, it would be quite hard to find a movie that blasphemes.

If it is profanity (using God’s Name, but not blaspheming) then it is venial sin.

However, while profanity (not blasphemy) itself is a venial sin, if an actor is unaware of the Church’s teaching on profanity or blasphemy and its sinfulness, he has “invincible ignorance,” so he might not be sinning at all. So watching such films isn’t simply black and white venial or mortal sin, it can also be no sin.

Finally, here is a good thread with further discussion of the topic. I don’t mean to look like I’m stubbornly refusing to believe you, I just want to present all sides of the issue.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567924

I don’t think you’re stubborn. You’re just fleshing things out, which is great. It helps me too!

I appreciate your inclusion of mediate material cooperation on this thread. It’s important. I would say that of the three conditions listed above, which justify mediate material cooperation, the only one that might allow for it is condition 2) proximate vs remote. If the cooperation is remote, that would arguably justify the cooperation because your influence on it happening would be negligible.

So, a good question to ask ourselves is: if every Catholic regularly refused to attend films with this kind of content, how would that impact the film industry? I think in most cases, the kind of remoteness I, as an individual consumer, have on the production of any given film would normally justify mediate material cooperation if it were any other kind of sin. However, this is an oft repeated sin, and I am often in the situation of mediate material causation with this particular sin. Moreover, our world is in a unique kind of situation, given how corporate it is, how integrated it is through our communications technologies, and how advanced statistical data gathering is within both the marketing and the financial analytics departments of corporations have become. We have seen, in a big way in recent decades, how powerful a united front can be on influencing corporate (and even governmental) policies. While my mediate material cooperation with this sin alone might be remote, the mediate material cooperation of Catholics as a corporate body in NA is not at all remote.

And as regards invincible ignorance, invincible ignorance prevents a) mortal sin altogether, and b) venial sin, but only when the action itself is not intrinsically evil. But we know that profanity is an intrinsic evil, so the act itself is still sinful, regardless of the person’s level of ignorance. His fault is minute, but it is not non-existent.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Ok.

So let’s take an example of viewing a film with profanity.

I’m going to watch Avengers: Age of Ultron. I read the Catholic News Service Movie Review by John Mulderig.

He states that “The latter defects include a remark about Ultron "multiplying faster than a Catholic rabbit.” While Whedon may be able to claim a vaguely pontifical pedigree for that one-liner, taken together with the other elements listed below, it renders his picture inappropriate for impressionable youngsters."

He also says "The film contains pervasive but bloodless violence, brief irreverent and anti-Catholic humor, fleeting sexual banter and some crude and crass language. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III – adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 – parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. "

My reasoning is this:
The remark about the “Catholic rabbit,” that I think I won’t get that offended and let it slide FOR ONE REASON: because I actually think it’s a testimony to how far we (as Catholics) have come and actually may help spread our pro-life message (my opinion only though).
The anti Catholic humor, I don’t know what it will be. Will it be blasphemous or profanity?
I believe what I will do is, after watching the movie, I will learn what it is. If any members of my family are scandalized (I would be surprised, at their age nothing scandalized me ) I will correct it.
If I find anything objectionable, then I will post it on CAF.

That is, I’m assuming it’s not sinful to watch the movie, in it of itself. What say you?

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Ok.

So let’s take an example of viewing a film with profanity.

I’m going to watch Avengers: Age of Ultron. I read the Catholic News Service Movie Review by John Mulderig.

He states that “The latter defects include a remark about Ultron "multiplying faster than a Catholic rabbit.” While Whedon may be able to claim a vaguely pontifical pedigree for that one-liner, taken together with the other elements listed below, it renders his picture inappropriate for impressionable youngsters."

He also says "The film contains pervasive but bloodless violence, brief irreverent and anti-Catholic humor, fleeting sexual banter and some crude and crass language. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III – adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 – parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. "

My reasoning is this:
The remark about the “Catholic rabbit,” that I think I won’t get that offended and let it slide FOR ONE REASON: because I actually think it’s a testimony to how far we (as Catholics) have come and actually may help spread our pro-life message (my opinion only though).
*The anti Catholic humor, I don’t know what it will be. Will it be blasphemous or profanity?
I believe what I will do is, after watching the movie, I will learn what it is. If any members of my family are scandalized (I would be surprised, at their age nothing scandalized me ) I will correct it.
If I find anything objectionable, then I will post it on CAF.

That is, I’m assuming it’s not sinful to watch the movie, in it of itself. What say you?*

What I said in the italicized words seems, now that I think of it, sinful. I went and watched the movie, however, and now I wish I hadn’t.

While there were some uncalled for anti-Catholic jokes, (they were made by Iron Man, who is atheist in that movie, and possibly it poses as characterization, which might, according to Michele Arnold, be good enough reason), I really had trouble justifying all of the references to God.
Not only were they profane, but there was some blasphemy, I’m pretty sure.
The main villian (Ultron) made extremely troubling statements about Catholicism (he basically quoted things in the Bible, or said Catholic-related references to the Avengers, but said them as a dramatic line, not out of praise at all.
This might have served a purpose of stating that the villain blasphemes or something like that, but it still troubles me immensely.

While I don’t remember everything that happened in the movie (I was in shock wondering what to do, etc.) here is a portion of the National Catholic Register review.

I’m not sure yet what to make of all Ultron’s God talk. His base of operations in an eastern European city is a ruined church that he notes appreciatively was built at the center of town, “so that everyone could be equally close to God. I like that: the symmetry, the geometry of belief.”
But then Ultron compares his extinction-event plans to God “throwing a curve” to mankind by sending the great flood. At another point he borrows Jesus’ words in Matthew 16: “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Elsewhere Thor has an unrelated remark about “the gates of hell” — or perhaps “the gates of Hel,” the Norse realm of the dead and the etymological root of the English word “Hell” — that doesn’t quite make sense either in connection with Matthew 16 or Norse mythology.)
Then there’s that other brand-new character who is created in this film, who struggles to explain who or what he is before simply declaring, “I am” — a declaration of self-awareness, but also, in light of all Ultron’s God talk, an apparent allusion to the divine Name introduced in Exodus 3 and claimed by Jesus in John 8:53.
Later there is startling confirmation of this character’s divine worthiness.(picking up Thor’s hammer) Could Whedon be suggesting that this character represents Ultron’s hope for evolutionary advancement, effectively bringing divinity into being? That would be quite a contrast to the first film, which placed a nice affirmation of monotheism on Captain America’s lips.

Here is the link: ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-avengers-age-of-ultron/

 

[MrSnaith]

What I said in the italicized words seems, now that I think of it, sinful. I went and watched the movie, however, and now I wish I hadn’t.

While there were some uncalled for anti-Catholic jokes, (they were made by Iron Man, who is atheist in that movie, and possibly it poses as characterization, which might, according to Michele Arnold, be good enough reason), I really had trouble justifying all of the references to God.
Not only were they profane, but there was some blasphemy, I’m pretty sure.
The main villian (Ultron) made extremely troubling statements about Catholicism (he basically quoted things in the Bible, or said Catholic-related references to the Avengers, but said them as a dramatic line, not out of praise at all.
This might have served a purpose of stating that the villain blasphemes or something like that, but it still troubles me immensely.

While I don’t remember everything that happened in the movie (I was in shock wondering what to do, etc.) here is a portion of the National Catholic Register review.

I’m not sure yet what to make of all Ultron’s God talk. His base of operations in an eastern European city is a ruined church that he notes appreciatively was built at the center of town, “so that everyone could be equally close to God. I like that: the symmetry, the geometry of belief.”
But then Ultron compares his extinction-event plans to God “throwing a curve” to mankind by sending the great flood. At another point he borrows Jesus’ words in Matthew 16: “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Elsewhere Thor has an unrelated remark about “the gates of hell” — or perhaps “the gates of Hel,” the Norse realm of the dead and the etymological root of the English word “Hell” — that doesn’t quite make sense either in connection with Matthew 16 or Norse mythology.)
Then there’s that other brand-new character who is created in this film, who struggles to explain who or what he is before simply declaring, “I am” — a declaration of self-awareness, but also, in light of all Ultron’s God talk, an apparent allusion to the divine Name introduced in Exodus 3 and claimed by Jesus in John 8:53.
Later there is startling confirmation of this character’s divine worthiness.(picking up Thor’s hammer) Could Whedon be suggesting that this character represents Ultron’s hope for evolutionary advancement, effectively bringing divinity into being? That would be quite a contrast to the first film, which placed a nice affirmation of monotheism on Captain America’s lips.

Here is the link: ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-avengers-age-of-ultron/

Well that’s all super disappointing. I was excited to see this movie too…

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Well that’s all super disappointing. I was excited to see this movie too…

Although I’m not exactly 100% sure if it would be sinful to watch the movie, since everything done is probably done to do characterization, I still wouldn’t want the movie…the plot is too confusing.

And I’m easily impressed by most movies…not this one.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

And a whole month later…I discover this link about cursing (such as GD)…

home.newadvent.org/cathen/04573d.htm

Would have been more helpful before, but I guess better late than never…

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Hate to revive an old thread but Jimmy Akin has an article saying that saying profanities, such as OMG, are not sinful in movies, as long as they are not glorifying it.

Although I can’t find the article now…

EDIT:

Found the article: jimmyakin.com/2005/05/cussin-2.html

Here are the exact words:

*Suppose that you are an actor in a play or movie and the script calls for you to use such language. **As long as the play or movie is not glamorizing or otherwise endorsing the use of such language, it is morally licit for the actors to utter the lines. It is understood (on the above conditions) both by the actors and the audience that the language is not meant in earnest but is a depiction of how certain people (e.g., the vulgar) speak. ***For example: Many locales have Passion Plays in which the crowd present in front of Pilate cries “Crucify him!” Now, in real life this would be a species of profanity (specifically: it would be blasphemy; CCC 2149). But it is not blasphemous when uttered by actors who are in fact devout Christians and do not mean it and who are depicting the events of Our Lord’s life. Neither, for that matter, is it sinful when a lector reads these words at Mass.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

Hate to revive an old thread but Jimmy Akin has an article saying that saying profanities, such as OMG, are not sinful in movies, as long as they are not glorifying it.

Although I can’t find the article now…

EDIT:

Found the article: jimmyakin.com/2005/05/cussin-2.html

Here are the exact words:

*Suppose that you are an actor in a play or movie and the script calls for you to use such language. **As long as the play or movie is not glamorizing or otherwise endorsing the use of such language, it is morally licit for the actors to utter the lines. It is understood (on the above conditions) both by the actors and the audience that the language is not meant in earnest but is a depiction of how certain people (e.g., the vulgar) speak. ***For example: Many locales have Passion Plays in which the crowd present in front of Pilate cries “Crucify him!” Now, in real life this would be a species of profanity (specifically: it would be blasphemy; CCC 2149). But it is not blasphemous when uttered by actors who are in fact devout Christians and do not mean it and who are depicting the events of Our Lord’s life. Neither, for that matter, is it sinful when a lector reads these words at Mass.

Was editing my post, but the time limit passed, so I have to make a new post.

Just to clarify, even though he uses an example from a spiritually edifying play, it is not limited to such.

(According to what senior apologist Jimmy Akin said.)

In fact, judging whether something is spiritually edifying or not is more subjective to the person who is growing closer to God anyway.

I guess the main danger of saying profanity in movies is scandal, but I think it’s the duty of parents to make sure no scandal occurs, by checking movie ratings, teaching their children about the horrors of taking the Lord’s Name in vain (venial or mortal sin, doesn’t make it moral), etc.

 

[MrSnaith]

Was editing my post, but the time limit passed, so I have to make a new post.

Just to clarify, even though he uses an example from a spiritually edifying play, it is not limited to such.

(According to what senior apologist Jimmy Akin said.)

In fact, judging whether something is spiritually edifying or not is more subjective to the person who is growing closer to God anyway.

I guess the main danger of saying profanity in movies is scandal, but I think it’s the duty of parents to make sure no scandal occurs, by checking movie ratings, teaching their children about the horrors of taking the Lord’s Name in vain (venial or mortal sin, doesn’t make it moral), etc.

Thanks for the quote. This isn’t the first time, however, that I’ve disagreed with Jimmy (and rightfully so). I’ve noticed that he occasionally interprets allowances too broadly, which is what I think he’s doing here too. But, as I do not wish to discredit his good name, as he is absolutely an excellent apologist, I will say not more than that.