Author Topic: Morality of Spreading Literature  (Read 2920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PereJoseph

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1411
  • Reputation: +1973/-0
  • Gender: Male
Morality of Spreading Literature
« on: November 18, 2011, 05:55:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recently viewed a film ("There Will Be Blood") that contained casual sacrilege ("g--d---") on three occasions.  I understand that the consensus of moral theologians is that this is a matter of venial sin.  Many pieces of literature (and this film is of such a kind that I count it as a piece of literature) are similar, containing these things but being otherwise decent and even quite thought-provoking and even edifying.  What is the morality of reading such things, purchasing such things, putting them on in your home (not in front of children), or lending/recommending them to others.  Particularly, if everybody knows that one is morally opposed to this behaviour, is it therefore okay to watch it, or does scandal remain ?  What about watching it alone ?  There is also the question of objective, public sin, rather than mere subjective sin.  No, it will likely not lead anybody to adopt the habit, but recommending or viewing such material spreads and/or presents objective dishonour to God by those words; given the context, is this something of concern or not ?  Specifically, I want to know if I can recommend this film to others and/or view it with them.

    Has anybody dealt with this issue before ?  I know that this is normally a question for a priest, but has anybody brought this up with their priest before ?  (When answering, please mention the priest's affiliation; the advice of FSSP priests, frankly, will be ignored by me.  Likewise, I would prefer, at least, an aequiprobabilist or probabiliorist opinion, not being convinced by the arguments for the validity probabilism.)

    Thank you.

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #1 on: November 18, 2011, 06:00:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since I don't know what a "aequiprobabilist or probabiliorist" is, I'll just answer what I do when I come across those parts in movies. I usually will make reparation, though one of my favorite ejaculations, for the use of g--d--- or against the Holy Name.


    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #2 on: November 18, 2011, 06:20:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    Since I don't know what a "aequiprobabilist or probabiliorist" is, I'll just answer what I do when I come across those parts in movies. I usually will make reparation, though one of my favorite ejaculations, for the use of g--d--- or against the Holy Name.


    Thank you for your answer, s2srea.

    Yes, I usually either cross myself or make a cross over my head or heart and say "sit Nomen Domine benedictum."  But that is when I only passively hear a sacrilege; I am curious if one is guilty of participation in it by continuing to read a work that contains it, or knowingly reading such a work, and so forth with films, plays, &c.

    Offline rowsofvoices9

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +258/-0
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #3 on: November 18, 2011, 07:04:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Chad Ripperger gave a sermon on this topic as it pertains to movies.  The way I understood what he was saying is that if we volitionally chose to watch a movie knowing full well that it contains blasphemy, we participate in the evil of the one who produced it.  I'm certain this would apply to literature and music as well.  I have seen examinations of conscience where this is listed as a sin.   I'm not sure if it would be considered a mortal or venial sin.  This is something I'm sure you'll want to discuss with your confessor.

     
     http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html It's the very first sermon entitled movies.
    My conscience compels me to make this disclaimer lest God judges me partly culpable for the errors and heresy promoted on this forum... For the record I support neither Sedevacantism or the SSPX.  I do not define myself as either a traditionalist or Novus

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #4 on: November 18, 2011, 07:09:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think this is a matter of scruples.

    Is watching such a movie condoning everything in the movie?

    Would you shun someone for speaking in that manner?

    Is the fact that something that is commonly heard is put onto a film change the way we should react to it?

    It should be remembered that such sins are often not objectively sinful, and that most people using such expressions are not intentionally committing blasphemy.

    It is an interesting question, I'm certainly not approving movies like that, maybe if all Catholics refused to watch such movies the language would be changed, but I'm not sure we can hold ourselves to be guilty of a sin for watching movies where such language is used.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #5 on: November 18, 2011, 07:10:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Shakespeare often contains the expression "Mary" and "'sblood" and "Zounds"

    Is attending a Shakespeare play approving of blasphemy?

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #6 on: November 18, 2011, 07:37:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    Shakespeare often contains the expression "Mary" and "'sblood" and "Zounds"


    I wonder what would have happened to him for writing such a thing in a Catholic country in the Middle Ages.  I honestly don't know, but I bet he would not have fared as well as he has in the Protestant and liberal countries wherein he has been read (and worshiped) since he published his work.

    Quote
    Is attending a Shakespeare play approving of blasphemy?


    Maybe.  I know that Shakespeare has been canonised by the English, but I am not convinced that all of his plays are wholesome and am willing to be at odds with him on that point, no matter how prestigious he is considered.  If the "blood" in the expression "'sblood" is referring to either Our Lord or Our Lady, it is entirely obscene and not-so-casually sacrilegious, unlike saying that something is damned by God in passing.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #7 on: November 18, 2011, 08:07:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PereJoseph
    Maybe.  I know that Shakespeare has been canonised by the English, but I am not convinced that all of his plays are wholesome and am willing to be at odds with him on that point, no matter how prestigious he is considered.  If the "blood" in the expression "'sblood" is referring to either Our Lord or Our Lady, it is entirely obscene and not-so-casually sacrilegious, unlike saying that something is damned by God in passing.


    I'm not saying his books are entirely without moral and other faults, but if it were sinful to go to a Shakespeare play that had such words in it, wouldn't you think there would be Catholic authorities telling us that?


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #8 on: November 18, 2011, 10:19:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, as I wrote elsewhere, the Church only took direct aim at books that denied tenets of the faith or were encouraging atheism, it never went after each book that had scurrilous content or even blasphemy.

    The Church never said much if anything about the constant stream of paganized art from the Renaissance, or the operas with constant erotic innuendo.

    Shakespeare's plays are Satanic.  People may think I'm crazy to say that, I don't care.  Romeo and Juliet is clearly inspired by the devil; it glamorizes that kind of mindset that leads to the "lover's leap" attitude, it pushes destructive romantic attitudes and then tacks on a little moral at the end that no one remembers -- a classic trick of the devil.  Look at the effect of the play; see it with the eyes of those who are deceived by it, not with Catholic wishful thinking, and you will see it has had extraordinarily negative effects.  All kids who fall in "love" and rebel against their parents and have sex are falling for that mythos; and that holds true even if Romeo and Juliet were married, because no one remembers that.  That is because the emphasis is placed on the idea of rebellion.

    I often compare it to gangster films like GoodFellas that spend two hours glamorizing gangsters, and then tack on a "Crime doesn't pay" moral.  It's the oldest trick in the book.  Yet all the kids in the ghetto want to be Scarface or a gangster from GoodFellas.  Think it's an accident?
     
    Hamlet is one of the most evil works of literature to exist, but it would take me too long to explain why.  However, the perversions of Catholic imagery and morality should leap at you.  What Catholics need to know is that it's full of sexual puns and innuendo, as are so many of Shake's plays.  It's been a while since I read them to see if there is any blasphemy, but it wouldn't surprise me.  Yeah, "'s'blood," means "God's blood."

    These plays are also Kabbalistic and Rosicrucian and full of bizarre symbolic imagery.  I know what it means, but I would sound crazy if I talked about it here.  Suffice it to say, I am absolutely positive his work was inspired by the devil, just like modern films.  In fact Shakespeare kicked off, in a way, all modern art, all modern theater and film, and almost all of it is evil.  There is little difference between the works of Tim Burton and those of Shakespeare, they're both channeling the same thing.  

    No joke -- the Tim Burton Batman films are just a rewrite of Hamlet.  They are both about someone who is half-good, half-bad.  Someone who has a Catholic morality and is aggrieved at the world, but who takes the law into his own hands, and in effect sets himself up as the Church, becoming a vigilante instead.  Batman IS Hamlet.  These works of theater are a sort of incantation to produce an anti-Christ figure.  Sounds far-fetched, but it's true.

    For those who deny that Shakespeare's plays are Satanic, all I have to do is say two words:  The Tempest.  Can anyone deny that there is a stream of utterly demonic imagery that flows from this play?  Prospero is even supposed to BE the devil; it's a total glorification of demonic nihilism, and it is also a demonic prophecy of our current age, which is the Wasteland seen in so many works of literature... The Apostasy is the Wasteland, the Restoration of the Church is the Holy Grail.  All this stuff is channeled.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Sigismund

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5366
    • Reputation: +3104/-8
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #9 on: November 18, 2011, 10:28:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems to me that a movie may be about blasphemers without being a blasphemous movie.  
    Stir up within Thy Church, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Spirit with which blessed Josaphat, Thy Martyr and Bishop, was filled, when he laid down his life for his sheep: so that, through his intercession, we too may be moved and strengthen by the same Spir

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #10 on: November 19, 2011, 01:18:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Plenty of people remember that Romeo and Juliet were married.  Raoul is the one who doesn't remember the most basic facts and thinks he knows that Shakespeare is satanic.  


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #11 on: November 19, 2011, 01:31:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Of course this draws us far afield from the question being asked.  Is it immoral watch a movie or attend a play because it contains what are called "mild curses"

    It certainly seems that religious authorities have not declaimed against Shakespeare, that's the point.

    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #12 on: November 24, 2011, 06:52:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    No, as I wrote elsewhere, the Church only took direct aim at books that denied tenets of the faith or were encouraging atheism, it never went after each book that had scurrilous content or even blasphemy.

    The Church never said much if anything about the constant stream of paganized art from the Renaissance, or the operas with constant erotic innuendo.

    Shakespeare's plays are Satanic.  People may think I'm crazy to say that, I don't care.  Romeo and Juliet is clearly inspired by the devil; it glamorizes that kind of mindset that leads to the "lover's leap" attitude, it pushes destructive romantic attitudes and then tacks on a little moral at the end that no one remembers -- a classic trick of the devil.  Look at the effect of the play; see it with the eyes of those who are deceived by it, not with Catholic wishful thinking, and you will see it has had extraordinarily negative effects.  All kids who fall in "love" and rebel against their parents and have sex are falling for that mythos; and that holds true even if Romeo and Juliet were married, because no one remembers that.  That is because the emphasis is placed on the idea of rebellion.

    I often compare it to gangster films like GoodFellas that spend two hours glamorizing gangsters, and then tack on a "Crime doesn't pay" moral.  It's the oldest trick in the book.  Yet all the kids in the ghetto want to be Scarface or a gangster from GoodFellas.  Think it's an accident?
     
    Hamlet is one of the most evil works of literature to exist, but it would take me too long to explain why.  However, the perversions of Catholic imagery and morality should leap at you.  What Catholics need to know is that it's full of sexual puns and innuendo, as are so many of Shake's plays.  It's been a while since I read them to see if there is any blasphemy, but it wouldn't surprise me.  Yeah, "'s'blood," means "God's blood."

    These plays are also Kabbalistic and Rosicrucian and full of bizarre symbolic imagery.  I know what it means, but I would sound crazy if I talked about it here.  Suffice it to say, I am absolutely positive his work was inspired by the devil, just like modern films.  In fact Shakespeare kicked off, in a way, all modern art, all modern theater and film, and almost all of it is evil.  There is little difference between the works of Tim Burton and those of Shakespeare, they're both channeling the same thing.  

    No joke -- the Tim Burton Batman films are just a rewrite of Hamlet.  They are both about someone who is half-good, half-bad.  Someone who has a Catholic morality and is aggrieved at the world, but who takes the law into his own hands, and in effect sets himself up as the Church, becoming a vigilante instead.  Batman IS Hamlet. These works of theater are a sort of incantation to produce an anti-Christ figure.  Sounds far-fetched, but it's true.

    For those who deny that Shakespeare's plays are Satanic, all I have to do is say two words:  The Tempest.  Can anyone deny that there is a stream of utterly demonic imagery that flows from this play?  Prospero is even supposed to BE the devil; it's a total glorification of demonic nihilism, and it is also a demonic prophecy of our current age, which is the Wasteland seen in so many works of literature... The Apostasy is the Wasteland, the Restoration of the Church is the Holy Grail.  All this stuff is channeled.


     :applause:

    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +396/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #13 on: November 24, 2011, 08:46:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PereJoseph


    I recently viewed a film ("There Will Be Blood") that contained casual sacrilege ("g--d---") on three occasions.  

    Quote


    Using that language is not a sacrilege.

    It is taking the name of God in vain.

    Offline rowsofvoices9

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 496
    • Reputation: +258/-0
    Morality of Spreading Literature
    « Reply #14 on: June 03, 2013, 02:56:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    I think this is a matter of scruples.

    Is watching such a movie condoning everything in the movie?

    Would you shun someone for speaking in that manner?

    Is the fact that something that is commonly heard is put onto a film change the way we should react to it?

    It should be remembered that such sins are often not objectively sinful, and that most people using such expressions are not intentionally committing blasphemy.

    It is an interesting question, I'm certainly not approving movies like that, maybe if all Catholics refused to watch such movies the language would be changed, but I'm not sure we can hold ourselves to be guilty of a sin for watching movies where such language is used.


    This isn't addressed to Tele personally but to anyone who might be able to answer some questions I have.  I also happen to agree with Tele that if people refused to watch such movies, those producing them would have to change their practices.  There used to be a time in this country when a film in which the Lord's name was used in vain would never make it past the censors.  It's too bad we no longer have the Legion of Decency or the Hays code.  I suppose it would be virtually impossible to enforce them nowadays.  Those really determined always found ways around these safeguards anyway and managed to slip in many immoral messages and innuendos there way into films long before these controls designed to protect the public were done away with.

    I got to thinking about what Fr. Ripperger says in his sermon about movies in which the Lord's name is taken in vain.  According to him, if we deliberately choose to watch a movie (I suppose this principle would apply to literature and music too) knowing full well that Our Lord's name will be taken in vain we share in the sin of those who produced it.  He further states that the only time it is permissible to use the Lord's name is when we're speaking demonstrably about Him such as when a priest gives a sermon or we're teaching others or when we're praying. Yesterday I watched the movie "The Scarlet and the Black" again and I noticed that at least two times the character of Msgr. Hugh O'Flaherty used Our Lord's name in a way that Fr. Riggerger says is not permitted.  Mind you, this film is listed (the list compiled by the Catholic Church) as one of the top 50 greatest movies of all time.  

    I was wondering if Fr. Ripperger is right?  Is it always a sin on our part to watch a film that we know in advance that one of the characters will use Our Lords name in vain?  What if the overall message of the film is morally good and spiritually uplifting?  Is there any official Church teaching or document that says that we are guilty of sin just because a character in a movie is guilty of doing this?  Fr. Ripperger also says that if the film contains stuff like nudity than it is morally evil even though artistically it may be very good.   To me this sounds like he's giving his own opinion.  Not all nudity in movies or art is evil.  Good examples would be such films such as Zulu (1964) or The Mission or Hawaii.  In all of these films the native women are depicted in the way natural to their societies and there is nothing sexual about it at all.  Also you mean to tell me that if I look at Michaelangelo's statue of David I'm sinning?
    My conscience compels me to make this disclaimer lest God judges me partly culpable for the errors and heresy promoted on this forum... For the record I support neither Sedevacantism or the SSPX.  I do not define myself as either a traditionalist or Novus

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16