Was just told this, very confused

You have misrepresented the bishops.

Your declaration is overly broad. Their statements are about actual pornography where, in filming, the martial act itself is filmed in full actuality by the actors or, by camera angles and other illusion or mechanism, the impression is vividly created that the marital act is being graphically and starkly depicted. This is well beyond what Angel has included in her post.

This is what the US Bishops said:
WASHINGTON (CNS) – The U.S. bishops approved a statement on pornography on the second day of their Nov. 16-19 fall general meeting in Baltimore.

“Producing or using pornography is gravely wrong. It is a mortal sin if it is committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Unintentional ignorance and factors that compromise the voluntary and free character of the act can diminish a person’s moral culpability,” says the approved version of “Create in Me a Clean Heart: A Pastoral Response to Pornography.”

The bishops passed the document Nov. 17 in a 230 to 4 vote, with one abstention. It needed 181 votes to pass.

“This sin needs the Lord’s forgiveness and should be confessed within the sacrament of penance and reconciliation,” it says.

“Those who produce and distribute pornography harm the common good by encouraging and even causing others to sin,” it says.

The statement, prepared by the bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, adds: “There are many victims of pornography. Every person portrayed in it is beloved by God our father and is someone’s daughter or son. All child pornography is automatically trafficking and a crime, because it involves the sexual exploitation of a minor for commercial gain and it is against the child’s will due to the inability to give consent.”

It noted, “Many people struggle with pornography use, including faithful Catholics, people of faith, people of no faith, married and single people, fathers and mothers, the young and the old, clergy and those in consecrated life.”

In presenting the document to the bishops Nov. 16, the first day of their annual fall general meeting in Baltimore, Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, New York, chairman of the committee that prepared it, described pornography as a “dark shadow in our world today.”

He said that it is a “particularly sinister instance of consumption” whereby men, women and children “are consumed for the pleasure of others.”

Bishop Malone noted that the statement, which has been in the works for three years, is “purposely comprehensive” but can by no means address the entire issue. Instead, he said, it should be seen as more of a “launch pad” promoting further discussion and resources to help those harmed by pornography.

He said Pope Francis has urged the U.S. bishops to seek out and heal wounds and the pornography document provides a means to do that. /…/

“In the confessional and in our daily ministry, we have seen the corrosive damaged caused by pornography: children whose innocence is stolen; men and women who feel great guilt and shame for viewing pornography occasionally or habitually; spouses who feel betrayed and traumatized; and men, women and children exploited by the pornography industry.”

It notes pornography has “always been a problem” but over the years its impact has grown “exponentially.”

The statement borrows from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to define it: “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity … It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants.”’

“It encompasses what is sometimes distinguished as ‘soft’- and ‘hard-core’ pornography,” the statement adds. “This is an artificial divide; all pornography is harmful and wrong, while the effects on a person may vary on the intensity of the content. Pornography is not art.”

It says, “Pornography can never be justified and it is always wrong.” /…/

The statement calls pornography “an industry of sin.” “Pornography is a big business. Estimates of revenue stretch easily into the billions of dollars every year. The pornography industry is aggressive, savvy and regulated only sporadically,” it said. “Other business, such as hotel chains, cable companies and drugstores, profit greatly from the widespread use of pornography and contribute to its accessibility.” /…/

It tells men and women who use pornography to “ask for forgiveness. Many good people struggle with this sin. You are not alone; there is always hope! … Freedom from pornography is a daily choice and calls for ongoing formation.”

The statement advises those harmed by their spouse’s pornography use to “seek solace in prayer, in receiving the sacraments, and in eucharistic adoration.” While “anger at your spouse is natural and often justified,” it makes a suggestion to “set clear boundaries if possible, such as installing an online monitoring program, clearing the home of any pornography, taking care of your own health, and refusing to be used as an excuse for your spouse’s pornography use.”

The full text of the approved statement can be found at tinyurl.com/nn2vrhu. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website has various resources at this link tinyurl.com/q8pxhwd, including a list of support groups for those battling an addiction to pornography, educational resources about its harmful effects and guidance for families and whose who work with children to protect youngsters from pornography.

1 Like

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops with my bolding.

Please note that "Films with nudity, overt sexual activity, bloody violence, or the use of foul language can and do receive ratings beyond A-II but below O.
*
CNS CLASSIFICATIONS

A-I – General Patronage
Strictly speaking, this does not simply connote films that are “for” children, or films in which they would necessarily be interested. Rather, any movie free from significant objectionable content might receive this classification. In the days of the Hollywood Production Code, when it was assumed that almost all mainstream films were acceptable for all audiences, many films with “adult” subject matter – like 1956’s “Giant” – received this classification. Nowadays, such examples are rare.

A-II – Adults and Adolescents
The original intent of this classification was an endorsement for older teens. However, some ambiguity remains in this category, and CNS critics generally indicate whether the film is most appropriate for “older teens” or anyone over the age of 13. Films with nudity, overt sexual activity, bloody violence, or the use of foul language are almost never allowed in the A-I or A-II categories.

A-III – Adults
Adult sensibilities can, of course, run the gamut from a viewer with a high tolerance for edgy subject matter to more sensitive moviegoers who find certain elements less palatable. CNS reviewers try to strike a balance between the two. Films receiving an A-III classification are usually not acceptable for teens but are appropriate for most adults. Occasionally, however, a worthy film is clearly mature in subject matter, yet older adolescents might derive benefit from it. In that case, a sentence may be added about the movie being “acceptable” or “possibly acceptable” for “older teens.”

L – Limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling
This highly restrictive classification explicitly indicates that the film will probably be unacceptable to the casual adult moviegoer. It is generally used for those quality films that include more challenging material than an A-III in terms of violence, sexual content (including nudity), language or moral dilemmas, but are still worthy of consideration by mature viewers well-grounded in their faith and open to the portrayal of gritty subject matter. Less often, this classification is applied to movies that – whatever their aesthetic merit or lack thereof – are too strong for an A-III but not sufficiently wayward to receive an “O.”

O – Morally offensive
This classification is applied, most importantly, to films that deny the existence of God, ridicule religious faith or are otherwise sacrilegious. Movies that directly contradict scriptural values and church teaching on such matters as euthanasia, abortion, suicide, adultery, homosexual activity or vigilante killing and revenge also fall into this category. So, too, do films that feature excessive violence, gratuitous or exploitative sexuality or, for no artistically valid reason, non-stop vulgarity.

Note: Some movies previously were designated A-IV. Older films with this classification should be regarded as classified L.*

catholicnews.com/about-cns-movie-reviews.cfm

Saint Pope John Paul II said of the catechism: “I place my Apostolic Authority on this work”

Dictionary meaning of the word “simulated:”

“A simulation is something that represents something else — it isn’t the real thing.”

I have quoted the catechism above, which states that portraying/ viewing real or simulated sexual activity is pornographic if deliberately freely committed in full knowledge.

Catechism quote:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display deliberately to third parties (CCC 2354)

Once again: you are misrepresenting what the document is actually saying. That has been made clear to you in the other posts.

It’s quite terrible and honestly gross, how many catholics justify watching simulated “not real” sexual scenes on TV,

There is no misrepresentation in any of the following:
Read the catechism quote and tell me the line where it says simulated “not real” sexual scenes are permitted for catholics to watch,

Saint Pope John Paul II said of the catechism: “I place my Apostolic Authority on this work”

Dictionary meaning of the word “simulated:”

“A simulation is something that represents something else — it isn’t the real thing.”

I have quoted the catechism above, which states that portraying/ viewing real or simulated sexual activity is pornographic if deliberately freely committed in full knowledge.

Catechism quote:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display deliberately to third parties (CCC 2354)

I have told you what the text is actually saying…and I have done so repeatedly.

I have been for decades a professor of theology. I do not need to be told to read the catechism. I was part of the academy when the catechism was called for, when it was created, and when it was promulgated. I quite know that document…in multiple languages and in multiple versions.

I suggest you read your own bishops who, when they were writing on pornography made quite clear what they were addressing. They were writing about what emerges from the pornography industry. The text is quite clear, as Bishop Malone, the chairman who shepherded the statement through, makes clear…

The USCCB makes clear as well that nudity combined with overt sexual activity can receive.the ratings of A-III and L – and could even receive rating of A-II. Explain how that is possible, according to the thesis you are attempting to advance.

You are the one who keeps misrepresenting the teachings of the conference of bishops.

Yeah, love me some George Michael. A troubled, but brilliant artist.

Angel, you are not wrong.

hi father,

thanks for dropping by

so based on those ratings, I think it seems like we should stay away from the O category, mostly? and the rest shouldbe judged individually, would that be the correct way to approach it?

Don R, for someone who says they are a Theologian, a Professor of Theology, you are in complete disagreement with the Catechism’s statement that stimulated (not real) sexual scenes are pornographic.

There are unfortunately many liberal priests and theologians and religion teachers out there who preach against Catholic doctrine, claiming that what the church teaches is grave matter isn’t grave matter at all, such as masturbation, sodomy, fornication, homosexuality,…
Every layperson and priest and even the Pope and bishops are bound in obedience to the Catechism.

Find me one quote in the Catechism that backs up your opinion that baptised catholics can watch stimulated (not real) sexual scenes on TV as entertainment.

It’s quite terrible and honestly gross, how many catholics justify watching simulated “not real” sexual scenes on TV,

There is no misrepresentation in any of the following:
Read the catechism quote and tell me the line where it says simulated “not real” sexual scenes are permitted for catholics to watch,

Saint Pope John Paul II said of the catechism: “I place my Apostolic Authority on this work”

Dictionary meaning of the word “simulated:”

“A simulation is something that represents something else — it isn’t the real thing.”

I have quoted the catechism above, which states that portraying/ viewing real or simulated sexual activity is pornographic if deliberately freely committed in full knowledge.

Catechism quote:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display deliberately to third parties (CCC 2354)

The Catechism has spoken. And all you can do is present an opinion that is the complete opposite of the Catechism’s statement.

Back up your opinion with a referenced Catechism quote on the Catechisms teaching on watching stimulated (not real) sexual scenes on TV

What is the origin of your JCL?

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959664&highlight=movie

Note too that just because something is given a particular rating by a Catholic Reviewer -does not mean that one may not watch the film per se (such is not the rating of the Church…in fact the reviews now were moved so as to avoid the appearance of such). One must make a prudent judgement (with the virtues too of chastity and modesty involved often).

And even if say a film is given an A-II or A-III rating - does not mean that one should then watch all of the movie. A reasonable custody of the eyes (custodia occulorum) remains key to chastity and modesty.

For example skipping over certain scenes…etc. in an otherwise good movie (where one judges it will not be a near occasion of sin to begin with).

Other section from the Catechism (in addition to looking at 2354):

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm

As it was once explained to me:

If a movie receives a rating of O - Morally Offensive, it does not mean you may not watch it. But if you make the prudential judgement to watch such a film, expect your morals to be offended. (And if they are not, that is something to take to prayer, to your confessor, to your spiritual director, or similar)

“Save me an aisle seat”,
tee

hi father,

I am sorry this thread has caused so much rudeness

however, I think Mary’s point is why are sex scenes in movies are not considered pornography if they are simulated?

why does the quote in the catechism not apply to all of them. I think that is what she means

and frankly, I guess I am wondering that as well now.

thanks for your help

I think the problem is that Mary is calling something that is **not **a sex scene a sex scene.

Not everything that appears on screen that is sexual in nature is in fact what the Catechism is describing as pornography.

This isn’t to advocate for such scenes, but merely to point out that not everything falls under pornography. And saying it does isn’t helpful, because it’s not true.

1ke .has explained quite well the errors of MaryHelp777 and why what she has done is wrong.

ok, must be the visual impairment factor

but if a movie has a scene where sex is involved, isn’t that considered a sex scene? of course, I have no idea what’s actually happening on screen or how it differs so maybe that’s why I can’t put these pieces together.

and I don’t mean just nudity. I mean there are parts of the story in some movies where the characters engage. unless in general, regular movies aren’t showing what’s happening

Correct, many times things are implied or are happening off screen or under covers where nothing is showing or a couple starts to “make out” and the camera pans away or cuts to “after”. Or there might be a scene showing two people in a bed, but it’s not showing their genitalia or graphic images because they have some clothes or covers. Sometimes it’s more graphic, sometimes less graphic. That’s what the ratings are giving guidance on.

As I mentioned in Logan the is a 2 second scene where a girl pulls up her shirt and flashes Logan as he looks to the back of his limo through the rear view mirror, and that is not pornography. Could the movie have left that out? Sure. But they chose to show Logan as weary of his limo driver life hauling around drunk, obnoxious people doing drunk, obnoxious things so it was part of that storyline. One of the (many) reasons it is rated R.

A woman’s breast showing for 5 seconds or a scene where you see a naked man’s backside in the shower doesn’t make something pornography. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best movie choice, but it isn’t porn.

Therefore it’s prudential judgment on whether or not to see a particular movie depending on the individual person and their conscience.

Thank you.
Ed

ok, it makes more sense now if most movies aren’t showing the actual thing. which I sort of figured that mostly they wouldn’t.

sorry, I realize that all this is painfully obvious to everyone else besides me. not something I had thought much about though before now

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.