Why is it that a censor looking at porn is not a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
Why is it that when a censor is looking at porn to see if it is porn, that looking is not a sin?

After all, doesn’t the Catechism define porn as any picture real or not, about sex or sexuality? And if so, then isn’t it true that the sin of looking at pornography, must mean nothing other than that it is wrong to simply apply the faculty of sight to pictures of sex?
 
The censor’s purpose is not the degradation of sexuality but the protection of its dignity.
 
DaveBj said:
I could not be a censor. Period.
Click to expand...
Seconded. My entire job would be a near occasion of sin that I couldn’t hope to overcome. i pray that the people who actually do that job are far stronger willed than I.
 
Mainly because someone must do that job to.

I don’t think that a censor are “affected”, I mean, if you look at porn for a week or two eight hours each day I think you are simply fed up with what you see.

And the question about sin. Well, I don’t think it is a sin to do your work as long as it serves the community and is legal.

I have never really thought about it, but there must be numerous things you do for your salary that can, or rather, would be considered a sin if done “just for fun”. But it was a good question though.
 
The bishop, Fulton Sheen, described such situations as a “necessary” occasion of sin. Another example might be a male doctor having to deal with the female body.
 
I service computers for a living. Occasionally I must clean viruses off people’s computers that were infected from visiting a porn website. More often than not, I end up seeing pornographic material in the course of my job.

I don’t see this as a sin nor even a near occasion of sin. “Seeing” pornography is (IMHO) not se same as “viewing” pornography. I’m not seeking it out for the purposes of illicit self-gratification or to get my “jollies.” I just unintentionally find it in the course of my job.

I don’t get excited about it and I certainly don’t worry myself to death over whether or not I have commited a sin.

My 2 cents.
 
I’ve heard the example before, too, of a father going into a pornographic movie theater to remove his child who is in there. The intent is not to view the pornography but to protect someone else.
 
fakename said:
Why is it that when a censor is looking at porn to see if it is porn, that looking is not a sin?

After all, doesn’t the Catechism define porn as any picture real or not, about sex or sexuality? And if so, then isn’t it true that the sin of looking at pornography, must mean nothing other than that it is wrong to simply apply the faculty of sight to pictures of sex?
Click to expand...
Censoring can be an occassion of sin. As someone already said it could be a necessary occasion of sin if that is a duty that someone has to carry out.

It is not a sin to see dirty pictures. It is a sin to deliberately seek them out or view them for immoral purposes most obvously the deliberate intention to become aroused. Any deliberate sexual pleasure associated with anyone not your spouse is a serious sin against chastity.
 
TomD123 said:
Censoring can be an occassion of sin. As someone already said it could be a necessary occasion of sin if that is a duty that someone has to carry out.

It is not a sin to see dirty pictures. It is a sin to deliberately seek them out or view them for immoral purposes most obvously the deliberate intention to become aroused. Any deliberate sexual pleasure associated with anyone not your spouse is a serious sin against chastity.
Click to expand...
So to see porn is not by definition a sin?
 
fakename said:
So to see porn is not by definition a sin?
Click to expand...
I would say that there is a difference between seeing porn (i.e., in the course of one’s job) and viewing porn (i.e., intentionally watching it as a means to sexual excitement).
 
kelvinf said:
The bishop, Fulton Sheen, described such situations as a “necessary” occasion of sin.
Click to expand...
I think the language here is a bit problematic. Surely Sheen meant that such situations were a necessary *near *occasion of sin, not a necessary occasion of sin. (I think this is the way posters were understanding it, but I myself didn’t, at first).

It is never necessary to sin. 🙂
 
fakename said:
So to see porn is not by definition a sin?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It would depend on the situation and the context of seeing it.

If you accidently see it and then turn away, then no harm no foul.

If you snatch away a porn magazine your child is reading, and happen to see a boob or two in the process, then that is probably not a sin either; especially if you promptly destroy it. (Keeping it might be another matter).

If you actively seek it out for illicit purposes, then yes, it is most likely a sin.

I emphasize “illicit purposes” because if I am fixing a computer you might say I am actively looking for it (but not because I want to partake of it.) I’m looking for it so I can delete it for the purposes of fixing the computer.

Is this making sense or am I increasing the confusion? :confused:
 
fakename said:
Why is it that when a censor is looking at porn to see if it is porn, that looking is not a sin?

After all, doesn’t the Catechism define porn as any picture real or not, about sex or sexuality? And if so, then isn’t it true that the sin of looking at pornography, must mean nothing other than that it is wrong to simply apply the faculty of sight to pictures of sex?
Click to expand...
Well it’s like a police or FBI agent looking for pedophile pornography on the internet and viewing that material (as part of his job against pedophilia of course, not personal pleasure). One could ask, isn’t he breaking the law?

No he’s not because his aim is not to enjoy pedo-pornography but to seek it to destroy it and arrest people who produce such illegal material.
Actually he’s doing a good thing since he tries to stop the creation and spreading of such awful material and stop people from molesting children.

The same goes for a censor: how can you say something is immoral if you have not seen it for yourself? You cannot go just about through hearsay alone.

Indeed a censor would not seek such immoral things for personal pleasure but again to restrict it or destroy it.
 
It depends on the person. To use myself as an example, there are some forms of true pornography that do absolutely nothing for me. On the other hand, there is some stuff that would be rated PG by a censor that I have to avoid.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I think the language here is a bit problematic. Surely Sheen meant that such situations were a necessary *near *occasion of sin, not a necessary occasion of sin. (I think this is the way posters were understanding it, but I myself didn’t, at first).

It is never necessary to sin. 🙂
Click to expand...
He actually said that there are four different types of occasions of sin:
  • Remote
  • Near
  • Voluntary
  • Necessary
He then went ahead to examine each of them. This is the audio: alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/20040912-Dating-6th-and-9th-Commandments.mp3
I don’t have time to listen to all of it now.
 
kelvinf said:
He actually said that there are four different types of occasions of sin:
  • Remote
  • Near
  • Voluntary
  • Necessary
He then went ahead to examine each of them. This is the audio: alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/20040912-Dating-6th-and-9th-Commandments.mp3
I don’t have time to listen to all of it now.
Click to expand...
But, in ordinary language, an “occasion of X” is a time when X actually happens. But the “occasion of sin” described here is not actually a case of sin, so Sheen’s classification strains ordinary language. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top