Because it is not my place to undermine such opinions on a religious board.  

Hmmm... I wouldn't ask you to undermine anyone's opinion.    I wonder what you would have said if I responded to you in the same way. lol

I was merely asking you to explain your own opinion, not cut anyone else down (besides, you've already attempted that).

+

Unless you have the grace of knowledge and understanding while in the state of sanctifying grace, to tell a story with merely good intent (which I DOUBT highly is the main reason people tell stories in TV and movies today) to edify a person for the sake of obtaining Heaven, you're going to fall flat.  Story telling, in it of itself, is not a virtue.  

Our final end must be in mind when we chose our actions and entertainments.  God, the True God, must be our desire that directs us.  This, I believe, is at the heart of the difference of our two views.

If you seek to tell a story for the mere end of telling a good story, even with good moral intention, it's not enough.  If you are creating an occasion of sin for others, then even with your knowledge and understanding of sin (as a Catholic), you will be accountable for those souls that were scandalized by the story.  

Here's an example:  A person can watch a movie where the a rooting for the good guy, even so much that they desire that he murder the bad guy.  The desire for revenge, for murder --- these sins do not begin with the action but with the desire!   That's pretty serious.  It's the same with other types of provocative movies.

We're not talking about sin in general being excluded, we're talking about certain sins --- grave sins, that are in shows today.  Shows today are not meditations on how to live a good Catholic life.   Blasphemy is a grave sin.  (Perhaps you have a different opinion on this?)  The main goal of shows today is $$$$$$$, not Catholic morality.

lol

Is that a nice way of say, "no mas!"  This is your white flag?

But is blasphemy even necessary to the story?

Hi,

No it's not.  It can be well used in a few cases to establish a character but that is not the point I was making.

If you see the sin of blasphemy performed by an actor as real sin, then why not see it as a sin also when he commits all the others stuff his characters engages in.  

I see that faulting an actor of sinning for blasphemy as a slippery slope that paralyses the whole story telling process.

Oh believe me the sins of actors are great not just because of there own acting but because there example leads others into sin also.  I seriously doubt there are any modern actors in heaven, but we had very good and wholesome stories long before modern man's perverted mind took control.

And it is still posible to tell wholesome stories without resorting to the disgusting scenes all to common in most modern films.  As an example I offer you a film I watched recently titled "The Lady and the Duke" which was released in 2002, it told a briliant story and I did not find anything objectionable in it, and believe me I am not easily pleased.  Also take the Lord of the Rings Trilogy as another example.  And then of course there is the Pasion of the Christ.

2. Stage plays also captivated me, with their sights full of the images of my own miseries: fuel for my own fire. Now, why does a man like to be made sad by viewing doleful and tragic scenes, which he himself could not by any means endure? Yet, as a spectator, he wishes to experience from them a sense of grief, and in this very sense of grief his pleasure consists. What is this but wretched madness? For a man is more affected by these actions the more he is spuriously involved in these affections. Now, if he should suffer them in his own person, it is the custom to call this "misery." But when he suffers with another, then it is called "compassion." But what kind of compassion is it that arises from viewing fictitious and unreal sufferings? The spectator is not expected to aid the sufferer but merely to grieve for him. And the more he grieves the more he applauds the actor of these fictions. If the misfortunes of the characters -- whether historical or entirely imaginary -- are represented so as not to touch the feelings of the spectator, he goes away disgusted and complaining. But if his feelings are deeply touched, he sits it out attentively, and sheds tears of joy.

3. Tears and sorrow, then, are loved. Surely every man desires to be joyful. And, though no one is willingly miserable, one may, nevertheless, be pleased to be merciful so that we love their sorrows because without them we should have nothing to pity. This also springs from that same vein of friendship. But whither does it go? Whither does it flow? Why does it run into that torrent of pitch which seethes forth those huge tides of loathsome lusts in which it is changed and altered past recognition, being diverted and corrupted from its celestial purity by its own will? Shall, then, compassion be repudiated? By no means! Let us, however, love the sorrows of others. But let us beware of uncleanness, O my soul, under the protection of my God, the God of our fathers, who is to be praised and exalted -- let us beware of uncleanness. I have not yet ceased to have compassion. But in those days in the theaters I sympathized with lovers when they sinfully enjoyed one another, although this was done fictitiously in the play. And when they lost one another, I grieved with them, as if pitying them, and yet had delight in both grief and pity. Nowadays I feel much more pity for one who delights in his wickedness than for one who counts himself unfortunate because he fails to obtain some harmful pleasure or suffers the loss of some miserable felicity. This, surely, is the truer compassion, but the sorrow I feel in it has no delight for me. For although he that grieves with the unhappy should be commended for his work of love, yet he who has the power of real compassion would still prefer that there be nothing for him to grieve about. For if good will were to be ill will -- which it cannot be -- only then could he who is truly and sincerely compassionate wish that there were some unhappy people so that he might commiserate them. Some grief may then be justified, but none of it loved. Thus it is that thou dost act, O Lord God, for thou lovest souls far more purely than we do and art more incorruptibly compassionate, although thou art never wounded by any sorrow. Now "who is sufficient for these things?"[59]

4. But at that time, in my wretchedness, I loved to grieve; and I sought for things to grieve about. In another man's misery, even though it was feigned and impersonated on the stage, that performance of the actor pleased me best and attracted me most powerfully which moved me to tears. What marvel then was it that an unhappy sheep, straying from thy flock and impatient of thy care, I became infected with a foul disease? This is the reason for my love of griefs: that they would not probe into me too deeply (for I did not love to suffer in myself such things as I loved to look at), and they were the sort of grief which came from hearing those fictions, which affected only the surface of my emotion. Still, just as if they had been poisoned fingernails, their scratching was followed by inflammation, swelling, putrefaction, and corruption. Such was my life! But was it life, O my God?

St. Augustine Confessions - Book Three - Chapter 2

Since tv wasn't even around in St. Thomas Aquinas's time, perhaps we can start a topic on what constitutes near occasions of sin, and see what the good Doctor has to say about them?  And since this is a forum for people to share their own opinions, we could relate his teachings on recreation and near occasions of sin to television and movies.
It may prove to be edifying to learn what the doctor of natural law has written about recreations.


What say ye?


*edit:  I just checked out New Advent's link.  It is very abridged.  It won't do for this subject, as it merely scraps the surface.  I'll see if I can't find a better resource on the web, otherwise, I will have to do this manually (I know where I can borrow one).

I guess I've already said my opinion here... If you want to read summa here's the link...

http://www.newadvent.org/summa

credit must go to Kephapaulos for giving me that link...

Really? When did I give that link to you? lol