I think it’s best to bring this conversation to a close. You can be at peace, you are not doing anything sinful by watching (or in your case listening) to tv shows or movies which contain adult themes and content. If something specific bothers your conscience, don’t watch it.
The Catechism states, anything which creates a simulation (not real) portrayal of what is only permitted between partners in marriage, is pornographic.
MaryHelp777, as Fr. Ruggero has said multiple times, you are wrong about your overly strict interpretation of the Cathechism. Please stop trying to force your personal views on this matter. We should have much more faith in the words of such a learned priest than you.
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):
Such as 2523 (without missing the rest)
I think you need to bear in mind that not all “sex scenes” are pornography. Pornography is something that is designed solely to arouse the viewer. It has no literary or cultural value. It’s not part of telling a larger story. It’s aimed only at appealing to our sex instincts.
If a film or book depicts two characters having sex, that’s not necessarily pornography. It presumably is there because it advances the story in some way, or helps the viewer understand the characters better.
There might still be good reasons to avoid movies with sex scenes (for example, if someone knows they have a “hair trigger” so to speak, and are likely to fall into sexual sin/masturbation) but it’s not a blanket ban.
Not all “sex scenes” are pornographic any more than all sex is adulterous.
You repeatedly make false interpretations – which are nothing but error.
The Catechism quote refers not to hugs or kisses, but to portrayal of simulated “not real” sexual acts, and calls portrayal of sexual acts pornographic. Sexual acts are: intercourse, fornication, sodomy, adultery, mutual masturbation. The Catechism says portraying simulated “not real” sexual acts is pornographic.
Where in the Catechism does it state all this? No where.
The Catechism states: Simulated (not real) portrayal of sexual intimacy between two partners is pornographic.
It does not say anywhere that Baptised Catholics may watch sexual scenes on TV.
Please back up your “opinion” with reference to the Catechism, or writings of a canonised Saint. Otherwise you are only stating your “opinion” and not what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.
There is no misinterpretation, the Catechism states plainly:
“2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated (not real) sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties”
I am left with the conclusion that you are simply incapable of comprehending, for some reason.
In addition to being anti-clerical.
As you have now demonstrated in multiple threads.
I feel sorry for the moderators.
The subject of this thread is of the Catholic Catechism teaching on one element of grave matter. Every post from each person here is discussing this. In a debate people/ politicians/ debaters focus on the content of the discussion, and do not take personal offense while everyone is debating a specific piece of content / subject matter, that in this case is written in a book promulgated by Saint Pope John Paul II.
There are always many views in a debate/ discussion forum. What matters here is the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on this matter, which every King, Pope, politician, bishop, etc is bound to adhere.
The Catechism states portrayal of simulated (not real) sexual acts, is pornographic.
This is literalism that you don’t usually see outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles.
You do realize Don Ruggero is a retired priest and professor of theology? I have noticed there have been numerous attempts to teach him his own profession at times on the forum, I don’t always agree absolutely with him but the style people use to disagree with him is markedly combative for some reason and I usually find quite a lot of useful points if I calmly consider his points even where I differ.
I suspect for those from a teaching or academic background such as Father Ruggero this is possibly not the best place to debate as the standards of debate can be very much a case of watching something akin to panto. In other words one person shouts, ‘Oh yes it is!’, and another persons shouts ‘Oh no it’s not!’. I often felt Pope Benedict as a noted academic ran into this problem into trying to communicate with mass media which relies on ‘gotcha’ headlines and two line summaries of complex issues.
1ke, may I suggest that you and Angel request that the thread be closed since the concern of Angel has been answered ably – and the person who caused the problem in the first place is violating the forum’s rules?
In a debate there is the opposition, and the proposition,
(the side for and the side against).
In a debate people are often asked to quote official documents supporting their argument.
There is nothing wrong with asking everyone here to please show us a reference to where we can find the opposition party’s view supported by an official document.
There is nothing wrong with asking all the opposition party of this thread, where can we find a referenced written source of Catholic Church teaching supporting the oppositions view, for the thread followers to read,
This is what the Catechism plainly states:
The Catechism states portrayal of sexual acts is pornographic.
Where in the Catechism does it say that sexual acts reserved for marriage, being portrayed on TV are permitted to be viewed by Catholics?
It is not an offense to be asked in a debate:
Can the all the opposition in this debate back up their “opinion” with an official quote from the official Catechism, any of the Vatican II documents, or Saint Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body,?
Moderator intervention is sought.
Moderator intervention is sought.
I have only asked all the opposition side of the debate to back up their argument with an official referenced Catholic document church quote, for forum members to read where the Church argues the point of view of the opposition’s side,
To ask for a referenced church document quote of the Opposition Party of the thread is not a wrong doing,
The opposition party of this Thread has not provided any quote from the Catechism, Vatican II’s documents or Saint Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body, to support their arguments,
Friends, there is nothing wrong with asking for a referenced church quote for readers of this thread to read.
God Himself called Don Ruggero to:
To be a student, and then Teacher, and then Professor of His Word and His Law
To patience and humility in dealing with His sheep.
Don Ruggero is God’s Man , one of the few we are blessed with here on Earth.
Imagine a world without a Priest to hear your Confession or celebrate Mass. Marry you, Baptise you, annoint you, even admonish you.
My Bishop Emeritus said Mass for 10 people in a rural Church Saturday Night. And made us all feel very welcome. No one probably had a clue how to address him etc. No matter to him. Sunday , everyone was standing on great ceremony with him , in a packed Cathedral.
This is the respect and humility our Priests and Shepherds show us.
Don Ruggero has , no doubt, contributed greatly to the Church in many ways.
Thankyou so much Don Ruggero.
You are in my Prayers.
Maryhelp you are in my Prayers too.
Mary there were 2 discussions running side by side here. I am not sure you realised that. You conflated them.
Also you were continually mixing up two words and using them both in the one argument.
Such an innocent looking t there, but does so much to change the meaning of the word and thus the discussion.
Be at Peace. The OP has the answer. And is to
Be commended for guarding against sin .
My goodness. What an incredibly lovely post.
I am going to copy it and save it. It reminds me that I often received lovely notes from my students – well, more so in days past when we put ink to paper and actually wrote letters and notes – but I have not received one nearly so thoughtful with regard to this forum.
How pleasant it is to interact with you after the posts of the one who is anti-clerical.
I thank you very much, Roseeurekacross, for your most kind and generous words. They are very touching indeed.
Official quotes from one of the Popes: on morality of impurity in movies:
Importance and Power of Motion Pictures:
As long ago as 1936, Pope Pius XI, warned of the dangers of the cinema. “It admits of no discussion that the motion picture has achieved these last years a position of universal importance among modern means of diversion. There is no need to point out the fact that millions of people go to the motion pictures every day; that motion picture theatres are being viewed in ever increasing number in civilized and semi-civilized countries; that the motion picture has become the most popular form of diversion which is offered for the leisure moment not only of the rich but of all classes of society.
At the same time, there does not exist today a means of influencing the masses more potent than the cinema. The reason for this is to be sought in the very nature of the motion pictures projected upon the screen, in their popularity and in the circumstances which accompany them.
The power of the motion picture consists in this, that it speaks by means of vivid and concrete imagery which the mind takes in with enjoyment and without fatigue. Even the crudest and most primitive minds which have neither the capacity nor the desire to make the efforts necessary for abstraction or deductive reasoning are captivated by the cinema. In place of the effort which reading or listening demands, there is the continued pleasure of a succession of concrete and, so to speak, living pictures.
(…) Since then the cinema, being like the school of life itself, which, for good or for evil, teaches the majority of men more effectively than abstract reasoning, it must be elevated to conformity with the aims of a Christian conscience and saved from depraving and demoralizing effects.
Everyone knows what damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. They are occasions of sin; they seduce young people along the ways of evil by glorifying the passions; they show life under a false light; they cloud ideals; they destroy pure love, respect for marriage, affection for the family. They are capable also of creating prejudices among individuals and misunderstandings among nations, among social classes, among entire races.
The motion picture is viewed by people who are seated in a dark theatre and whose faculties, mental, physical and often spiritual, are relaxed. One does not need to go far in search of these theatres: they are close to the home, to the Church and to the school and they thus bring the cinema into the very centre of popular life.
Moreover, the acting out of the plot is done by men and women selected for their artistic ability and for all those natural gifts and the employment of those expedients which can become, for youth particularly, instruments of seduction. Further, the motion picture has enlisted in its service luxurious appointments, pleasing music, the vigour of realism, every form of whim and fancy. For this very reason, it attracts and fascinates particularly the young, the adolescent and even the child. Thus at the very age when the moral sense is being formed and when the notions and sentiments of justice and rectitude, of duty and obligation and of ideals of life are being developed, the motion picture with its direct propaganda assumes a position of commanding influence.
It is unfortunate that, in the present state of affairs, this influence is frequently exerted for evil. So much so that when one thinks of the havoc wrought in the souls of youth and of childhood, of the loss of innocence so often suffered in the motion picture theatres, there comes to mind the terrible condemnation pronounced by Our Lord upon the corruptors of little ones: “whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill stone be hanged about his neck and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. XVIII, 6).
Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Vigilanti Cura, June 29, 1936