I noticed you all watched a bunch of stuff that might be bad

“Any trend to produce programmes and products – including animated films and video games – which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion,” the pope said.

its from wikipedia but um alot of shows on here…
… fall under that category:(

that was funny.
but seriously they do

Would you mind telling us what shows or movies your talking about?

Exactly what bunch of stuff, bad or otherwise, have we all watched? I’m guessing many of have not watched any particular items you might care to name.

law and order is one. thats what made me start this:)

I actually noticed though that alot of stuff is good though:thumbsup:

Which episode?

Which raises a number of questions for me; what did people do before the internet, TV, radio, movie theaters,big bands, plays, card playing, etc?

The rich seem to have always had some form of entertainment, whether it was the “Knight Tournaments” or “Gladiators”. Was the human sacrifice to the Gods in the Aztec, Mayan and Inca culture a form of entertainment for the masses? Was gossip a form on entertainment?

What good form of community entertainment, if any, did common people have on a regular basis in days gone by?

Let me guess…I just bet “House” and “24” are on that list…

Kathy

There is no shortage of literature, television, music or motion pictures that fail to live up to this standard. The current pope’s emphasis on Gregorian chant and the dismissal of some of the more modern musicians from services held at the Vatican is instructive here. Art is dead and modernity has completely lost its capacity to please God through creative forms. All that is left is the repetition of the works of the old masters, who are long dead. Even vernacular language itself has given rise to all manner of impiety. The next time any of us seek amusement from some stage play or compact disc, we would do well to look upon a Crucifix and meditate on the awesome price of our momentary and shallow pleasure.

You quote wikipedia, which may or may not be correct. Wiki needs a second source cited, to prove, for example, the pope actually said Law and Order or House is bad. So, you will have to show us from whence the alleged wiki quote and alleged list came. Also, please remember that TV shows, just like books or movies, are usually morally neutral, neither causing harm or being harmless, depending on the inidividual.

I personally would like to see more proof before I give up on Law and Order. I do not see sex trivialized there, nor do I see violence applauded. I see crimes being solved.

As for what “common” people did in olden times for entertainment:

  • Middle Ages- Waited on the holy days or wedding. Otherwise they went to bed. Why waste a candle? Some told stories around the fireplace. Some had an instrument and played it. Some sang.
  • Renaissance- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud, devised games and feats of skill. There was gallery seating for those who could scrounge up the funds for a ticket to a play.
  • Colonial United States- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud or silently, told and made up stories, devised games and feats of skill, went to plays, did “the household books”, sewed.
  • 19th Century United States- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud or silently, devised games and feats of skill, told and made up stories, went to plays, did “the household books”, sewed, make candy, quit, tat, had their own plays, had contests such as spelling bees, attended free or inexpensive talks on a variety of subjects. Laura Ingalls Wilder has a good description of various evening’s activities in *Little House in The Big Woods, Little House On The Prairie, Farmer Boy, On The Banks of Plum Creek, By The Shores Of Silver Lake, *and Little Town On The Prairie all describe prairie settlers’ evenings, as well as an evening with a family considered well-to-do (the Wilders of upstate New York).
  • Early to mid 20th Century US- Went dancing. Went to the movies. Went out for dessert or ice cream. Made candy, sewed, tatted, listened to the radio, played cards, read aloud or silently, made things such as models, did handicarafts, played records, played board games, went to K of C or Altar & Rosary meetings, went to the library, attended free or inexpensive talks on a variety of subjects.

Dogfights, cockfights, bear baiting. Drunken brawling was big and public executions has absolutely HUGE ratings.

add gambling, prostitution, and public humilliation.

These are still quite popular, especially the public humiliation of celebrities (although non-celebrities get it, too, on talk shows such as Jerry Springer).

The more things change, the more they stay the same. :o

and how did you gather your information on my TV viewing habits?

Read Acts 10:9-15.
Then read Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Artists.
Then read (and view) the Vatican 45.(usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml)

If I want to, I can sort out every type of vice found on the films in this list: nudity , graphic violence, anti-religious sentiment, brothels, abortion, false theology, ogling pornographic materials, bearing false witness, stealing, biopic of a mass-murderer, a horror-movie, and a new-ager hippie’s film-to-get-high-on.

And yet the Pope has shared that there are films that are of enduring quality, that bring about morals, religious fervor, and artistry… that even art, when well done, can draw us closer to God.

So as for the negative elements, as Roger Ebert so eloquently stated: it’s not what the film is about, but how it goes about it.

Even Shakespeare has witchcraft, bawdy humor, and occultic elements. Christians are supposed to be above and beyond this.

If you’re looking for the source of the quote (besides Wikipedia), try Pope Benedict’s Message for the 41st World Communications Day (paragraph 3).

Note, it does **not **mean that the *portrayal *of evil things (like violence) in and of themselves is the problem, but it is the *exaltation *of these things that is the problem. Thus, one could argue that a show like Law & Order does not exalt violence but portrays violence in order to reveal it for what it is: a horrible reality. Thus, it would serve to deter violence rather than promote it.

Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for children. That’s a separate issue, though. And the message from which the quote came is all about the media as it relates to the formation of children.

originally posted by OutinChgoburbs
As for what “common” people did in olden times for entertainment:

  • Middle Ages- Waited on the holy days or wedding. Otherwise they went to bed. Why waste a candle? Some told stories around the fireplace. Some had an instrument and played it. Some sang.
  • Renaissance- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud, devised games and feats of skill. There was gallery seating for those who could scrounge up the funds for a ticket to a play.
  • Colonial United States- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud or silently, told and made up stories, devised games and feats of skill, went to plays, did “the household books”, sewed.
  • 19th Century United States- Played music, danced, played cards, read aloud or silently, devised games and feats of skill, told and made up stories, went to plays, did “the household books”, sewed, make candy, quit, tat, had their own plays, had contests such as spelling bees, attended free or inexpensive talks on a variety of subjects. Laura Ingalls Wilder has a good description of various evening’s activities in Little House in The Big Woods, Little House On The Prairie, Farmer Boy, On The Banks of Plum Creek, By The Shores Of Silver Lake, and Little Town On The Prairie all describe prairie settlers’ evenings, as well as an evening with a family considered well-to-do (the Wilders of upstate New York).
  • Early to mid 20th Century US- Went dancing. Went to the movies. Went out for dessert or ice cream. Made candy, sewed, tatted, listened to the radio, played cards, read aloud or silently, made things such as models, did handicarafts, played records, played board games, went to K of C or Altar & Rosary meetings, went to the library, attended free or inexpensive talks on a variety of subjects.

Thanks. Is it feasible to expect generations that has been brought up on video games, internet, TV. etc. to embrace these older forms of entertainment, to have the imagination to make up a story or the patience to sit and read a book?

originally posted by Nick Alexander
And yet the Pope has shared that there are films that are of enduring quality, that bring about morals, religious fervor, and artistry… that even art, when well done, can draw us closer to God.

I don’t always agree with the USCCB. Is it reasonable to expect the generations of public schooled teens and young adults to have the capacity to “sort out” the vice in a complicated movie?

What 13 year old would watch the 1950 movie “Guilty of Treason” about Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty and Stalin or read a book about the life of Thomas Aquinas, Therese of Lisieux or even Mother Theresa?

Isn’t 13 years of age, a reasonable age to expect a child to begin to understand complicated issues?

Nick, I read the next post about Pope John Paul II. The list seems innocent enough but there are movies on it that I am not sure young adults could fully understand.

(I think I saw the movie on Napoleon Bonaparte and I had a difficult time understanding his life. He was a despotic ruler. )

I don’t always agree with the USCCB.

The USCCB didn’t create the list. The late Pope John Paul II did.

“Gandhi” , I saw as a young person. Today I would see that film in a totally different light.

We are talking about generation after generation that have been brought up on Hollywood and a “Britney Spears” mindset.

I think you are speaking with too great a weight… how are you to know and understand what a public school mindset embodies? How do you know that Britney Spears and Paris Hilton embodies the highest attainment of public respect from this age-group, instead of highest attainment of public derision? How can you make such a blanket statement as to what kids can or cannot watch?

Only parents contain the knowledge of what their children can or cannot watch, and although there are plenty of deadbeat parents who do not engage the media, or plenty of parents who are too overwhelmed with art itself that they do not fully comprehend what art is (in light of Catholic teaching, the Pope’s Letter to Aritsts, etc), that does not mean that they should keep their focus solely upon potentially poorly-made propaganda.

Part of growing up is learning how to discern, and if kids cannot be challenged thru art, where will they be challenged? I know too many kids who were raised in a sheltered environment, who were prevented from seeing films that challenged them (in the most basic of matters), and when they finally grew up to enter the real world, found they were woefully underprepared to tackle the issues the real world had for them.

That said, if you want to go against Pope John Paul II, a former actor and playwright, that is your decision.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.