B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vbwc
Guest
All the more reason to hole up with EWTN or to watch vintage films up through the 60s on TCM…
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Funny you say that. I’ve been watching mostly vintage films lately for that reason. They’re just cleaner.All the more reason to hole up with EWTN or to watch vintage films up through the 60s on TCM…
Q
QwertyGirl
Guest
I am pretty sure most Catholics already know this. I would venture to say that any non-Catholic who knows even bits and pieces about the Church also knows that this is Church teaching.The Church has spoken about this and Catholics should know that same-sex marriage is not considered equivalent to heterosexual marriage
Last edited:
P
prayerrider
Guest
Just today I searched “Catholic” on Amazon Prime and came up with 8 or 9 results. Downloaded a couple.
Amazon original programming is a mixed bag, smut-wise.
Amazon original programming is a mixed bag, smut-wise.
E
edwest
Guest
Sadly, a lot of the offerings by some of the new content providers are bad to very bad.
R
Ryan1
Guest
No, I don’t get to identify “however I wish.”
My identity is a human and a son of God and brother to our Lord, as is any baptised Christian, no matter what temptations they may be facing. We have been claimed by Christ, saved from Satan’s dominion.
We should reject the entire idea of “sexual identity.”
My identity is a human and a son of God and brother to our Lord, as is any baptised Christian, no matter what temptations they may be facing. We have been claimed by Christ, saved from Satan’s dominion.
We should reject the entire idea of “sexual identity.”
R
Ryan1
Guest
So, does a married woman have two names, i.e.
Miss Sara Smith and Misses John Jones? That seems to make the most sense.
Miss Sara Smith and Misses John Jones? That seems to make the most sense.
R
Ryan1
Guest
Can you really call such an action a “threat?” What, were they going to throw their burning bras at their husbands? I am confused.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
I agree and especially with the part about TV shouldn’t be a babysitter.Anyways, TV isn’t a babysitter to plop your kids down in front of while you browse Facebook. It is, however, a good conversation starter about various topics. In the long run, closing them off from the world isn’t going to help
Im not talking about overprotective parenting but simply age appropriateness.
There are many other “themes” apart from gay relationships that are also not appropriate for small kids such as sex,goriness,and drug taking.
The children’s level of exposure should be congruent with their ability to process the topics.
If this wasn’t the case then there would be no need for ratings altogether.
I don’t have any children but if I did I’m not necessary suggesting that I wouldn’t let them watch these cartoons,but just that scriptwriters etc shouldn’t be pushing agendas onto kids.
These gay characters in kids shows aren’t just ‘random’-they are intentional and I consider that an agenda.
It’s not kids of that age that are asking for these characters-they are more interested in lions and fairies,magic,talking funny animals etc-so why the necessity to add them to kids shows?
Kids will be exposed to things in this modern world but responsible parenting means filtering things.
When I was a child I was allowed to watch adult things like Porkies,Revenge of the Nerds etc and I definitely don’t think kids should be allowed this!
When they start becoming teens that’s another story,then they will be exposed to everything, and I could be wrong, but imo it’s better to teach them to make decisions for themselves instead of just setting rules or trying to shield them from life.
R
Ryan1
Guest
If it isn’t appropriate for children, it isn’t appropriate for adults.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Why do you think that?
Adults have the higher decision making capacities that children lack.
Children can be impressionable and not have filters but usually by the time people are adults they have higher thinking and filtering abilities.
Whether certain shows are moral or not is a different topic,but brain developed adults are different because they are given the free will to choose whether they want to be moral or immoral or choose whether they want to follow the values of popular singers film clips or casual sex etc or not…
There’s a lot of things for example on YouTube or music that kids shouldn’t be exposed to like Cardi B twerking etc…
It’s not the “Christian (or Muslim etc) way” for adults either but this isn’t a Christian world.Its a world with people who have all different values so adults can “handle” this and it’s up to them whether they choose to be impressed by this stuff or not.
Adults have the higher decision making capacities that children lack.
Children can be impressionable and not have filters but usually by the time people are adults they have higher thinking and filtering abilities.
Whether certain shows are moral or not is a different topic,but brain developed adults are different because they are given the free will to choose whether they want to be moral or immoral or choose whether they want to follow the values of popular singers film clips or casual sex etc or not…
There’s a lot of things for example on YouTube or music that kids shouldn’t be exposed to like Cardi B twerking etc…
It’s not the “Christian (or Muslim etc) way” for adults either but this isn’t a Christian world.Its a world with people who have all different values so adults can “handle” this and it’s up to them whether they choose to be impressed by this stuff or not.
Last edited:
R
Ryan1
Guest
If some show, art, music, etc. is immoral it is immoral and should be suppressed by those in power. If it is immoral for children it is not somehow not immoral for adults.
The state, under the guidance of Christ the King, has a duty to suppress evil.
Some works of man, such as rock music, are not inherently immoral but are just ugly (defective in form rather than content). In such cases suppression isn’t warranted, unless the contents of such works are immoral.
The state, under the guidance of Christ the King, has a duty to suppress evil.
Some works of man, such as rock music, are not inherently immoral but are just ugly (defective in form rather than content). In such cases suppression isn’t warranted, unless the contents of such works are immoral.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Realistically this will never happen and the days of major censorship are over.For example the Catholic Church no longer has forbidden books.If some show, art, music, etc. is immoral it is immoral and should be suppressed by those in power.
I hope this doesn’t come out offensive, but a person would do themselves more favour to accept the realities of today’s world and make judgements for themselves.
Apart from seeming extremist in mentality,widespread censorships by governments would not even be practical as people can vary on what they perceive as immoral or not.
Also,as shown by bad regimes like Isis where they have tried to apply strong censorship it simply does not work as people will still try to find a way to view the music clips they like etc…
S
SusanneT
Guest
I completely agree I HATE being called ‘Ms’ and do my best not to respond to it. A woman’s marital status is important and is something she should be happy to proclaim or at least disclose to the outside world.I do not like being called Ms and my mother never like it either. She sometimes would not answer to it or be sure and let people know she was not a Ms. but a Mrs. I too, sometimes will correct someone who calls me Ms.
R
Ryan1
Guest
In reality, it still happens, though the respective spheres of power of the Vatican and the family may be limited. The “days of censorship” never ended. It is the attack upon the Church which has escalated.
Censorship of what is objectively evil is no more extremist than the carrying out of any other legitimate duty of government to maintain the temporal order, such as incarcerating violent criminals.
“People will still find” is a way is a non-argument. Just because evil media is not easily available because of efforts to suppress such media, but people still sinfully desire it, doesn’t mean governments good efforts are somehow worthless.
Censorship of what is objectively evil is no more extremist than the carrying out of any other legitimate duty of government to maintain the temporal order, such as incarcerating violent criminals.
“People will still find” is a way is a non-argument. Just because evil media is not easily available because of efforts to suppress such media, but people still sinfully desire it, doesn’t mean governments good efforts are somehow worthless.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Governments are usually secular.Even when there is a Prime Minister/President who is religious,he/she is usually limited in making such decisions by the ministers that surround him.
A Christian government can’t be forced on all people as some people in society are of of different religions or many of no religion…unless you are looking to go the way of Iran-ie:have a religious majority government that censors/forbids everything.
Anyway, isn’t it infinitely better for example for a man to himself decide he doesn’t want to look at lustful things rather than the government to “babysit” him and forbid him?
A Christian government can’t be forced on all people as some people in society are of of different religions or many of no religion…unless you are looking to go the way of Iran-ie:have a religious majority government that censors/forbids everything.
Anyway, isn’t it infinitely better for example for a man to himself decide he doesn’t want to look at lustful things rather than the government to “babysit” him and forbid him?
Last edited:
R
Ryan1
Guest
It isn’t an either/or proposition.
If we look to the saints, Louis IX enforced laws promoting the True Religion and suppressing evil practices. How many were led to God by his wise rule?
We are talking about whether evil should be fought by the ruling powers. That doesn’t rule out resisting evil when it presents itself. I don’t doubt that even if, say, the US formed a department to fight obscenity, it would continue to be produced and we would need to cultivate the virtues to resist illicitly produced media.
As to other religions, while it may be prudent to tolerate their practice by unbelievers, the state has an obligation to support the Catholic Religion in her laws and institutions.
If we look to the saints, Louis IX enforced laws promoting the True Religion and suppressing evil practices. How many were led to God by his wise rule?
We are talking about whether evil should be fought by the ruling powers. That doesn’t rule out resisting evil when it presents itself. I don’t doubt that even if, say, the US formed a department to fight obscenity, it would continue to be produced and we would need to cultivate the virtues to resist illicitly produced media.
As to other religions, while it may be prudent to tolerate their practice by unbelievers, the state has an obligation to support the Catholic Religion in her laws and institutions.
J
JulianN
Guest
Or, as with men, one title: Ms.
I’m not sure why people think women are required to announce their marital status in their names. If one wants to use the title Mrs., that’s fine—but so is using Ms. it’s not some nefarious plot to undermine men.
I’m not sure why people think women are required to announce their marital status in their names. If one wants to use the title Mrs., that’s fine—but so is using Ms. it’s not some nefarious plot to undermine men.
J
JulianN
Guest
Why? Or rather, why is this only important for women?A woman’s marital status is important and is something she should be happy to proclaim or at least disclose to the outside world.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.