It's probably not a sin for them, because they probabaly don't see anything wrong with it.  But if someone did understand the gravity of taking the Lord's name in vain, and did this anyways, it could be a problem.  It would depend on how much they needed the money paid for the acting job, how strongly they protested the blasphemes in the script, etc. etc.

I would say that if someone understands the Lord's name is not to be taken in vain, and they do nothing to remedy such a situation, it surely is sinful.  But seriously, how often does that come up?  Do you really think the first commandment is the least bit of a concern for the actors on TV?

Actors cannot justify the means to an end. If an actor purposefully says such a thing there is no justification for it.

Actors personify characters in stories that to my knowledge represent humans in various situations.  Aren't all humans sinners ?

Where do you draw the line without having this art form of expression and story telling (T.V. - Cinema - Theatre) completely paralysed by it's need to entirely remove all sin.  

Do you know of any story that are entirely sinless ?

Added: Was the actor personifying Judas in the Passion of Christ sinning by acting out his role ?   Was he not needed to tell the story ?   I don't understand the reasoning.

+

By this logic, we can watch anything and the actor can do anything, as long as the audience and the actor know what's right and what's wrong.  Hmmm...

If that is the case, then your real issue is level of sin.  That sounds like a slippery slope of justifying sins by their level.  But our Lord says that he hates the lukewarm.

If he knows it's a sin, he shouldn't do it.  I got into this inadvertantly with an old roommate who got mad at me for turning off Sister Act II while I was babysitting some kids she had me watch for her.  A "bad guy" character blasphemed!  He said our Lord's name in vain, even as an explicative.  Her 'argument' was that the first movie was OK, so this one should be fine.  I quickly dismissed that argument.  Then her next excuse was this was the bad guy doing this.  The point though, was that this was making the children desensitized to the sin, never-the-less (besides the fact that this was supposed to be a comedy).  There was no consequence that could possibly be shown (nor does the story even attempt it) to what actually becomes of a person who blasphemes and does not Confess it before his death.  Another point is not only the desensitizing to sin, but the actual leeway you give to bad spirits to infect a home where sinful things are shown for entertainment's sake.  This argument in defense of watching sinful things as entertainment, in it of itself, is usually both a symptom and a sign of the cardinal sin: the vice of sloth (in this case, spiritual sloth).  They aren't things that should be practiced, that is, presumption on the grace of God.  Rather, these are entertainments that should be avoided.

Watching The Passion is much different, but even that, it is not the same thing as a spiritual meditation.  While one can meditate, to a point, on the Passion of Christ while watching The Passion, even too much of watching this violence, for example, might desensitize a person to the violence.  The violence itself can take on a spirit that overshadows the meaning and significance of the suffering of Christ.  But even this movie is different plainly because it has a direct significance to spiritual realities, whereas worldly entertainments have little to absolutely nothing to do with authentically spiritual matters.  If they even touch upon them, they are usually utterly misleading.

+

Vannie,
This is why I don't watch tv.  There are shows that I have watched that have sins, but don't make them into mockeries, as if it is nebulous as to whether or not the sin is deplorable.  (If it's a bad guy and it's yet supposed to be funny, the show isn't doing a good job morally.)  

I think we gradually become more and more sensitive to the ways that we spend time recreating as we grow in the spiritual life.  (I'm not knocking you, it's just how it is.  It's a lot more difficult, however, when you have family and/or close friends all around you that watch tv and movies all the time.  I'm lucky because my closest relatives are well over 1000 miles away and almost none of my friends out here own televisions.  My one friend that owns a tv only owns one because of her son who is Novus Ordo comes and watches it.  However, I was there once when he was watching a comedy that used the Blessed Mother's name in vain.  This kind of upset me, but he insisted that he "loves the Blessed Mother!", despite the fact that he hasn't been to Mass in ages.)

Some things we might see on a show might actually not even be a sin, but to watch still desensitizes us.  A good example is how shows today show married couples in bed.  Years ago, this wouldn't get passed the censors.  Married couples were never shown in the same bed; it was considered too intimate and inappropriate.  

But since you asked, I do have a ton of old movies that are family-oriented.  I can PM you a list if you like.

You did ask a good question, though, about "nuance".   The trouble is that most screenwriters do not care a hoot about the spiritual life or even if they did, very, very few know really about it.   A person can even tell a history lesson about the French Revolution and give too many details that it actually can affect a person negatively in the spiritual life.  Many people are so used to hearing about and watching scandal on the tv and movies that they are not even aware when something is a danger to their peace in Christ (which is always the first sign of danger to the soul before even a sinful thought occurs).   This isn't about watering down a story, this is about the spirit in which a story is told.  One cannot give what one does not have, and if the person lacks peace in Christ, they cannot tell a story that evokes peace in Christ.

Also, people tend to be curious over idle things, and their idleness tends them to things that will dissipate the graces they received in Holy Communion.  This can, however, occur with any type of recreation without moderation and putting God first.  

Hi,

If you think your list is worthy of sharing, please do so with all.

I was just pushing you to your final conclusion. I have no problem with your position even though I don't share it.

I do still detect a certain cop-out in applying the principle to comedy and family oriented produce.  You think that Shakespeare work should never have been written ?  Or the supposedly very Catholic Lords of the Rings. Both of these works involve sins from the antagonist in some form or another.  Should they have not been written on that basis ?

Hope you understand my point and see why a list of 60's sitcom would not really satisfy my point of curiosity about your point of view.

Wow.  I have no intention of sharing publicly my list of movies I have since I have not watched them in a long time myself.  There is a good chance that if I did I would feel differently about them today.

I don't know what "cop out" you say you "detect".  Perhaps you are making some type of assumption about me personally and thinking that my argument doesn't hold water because you think it's not possible to live without this type of entertainment you describe.   I am totally not about to defend the works of Shakespeare.  Morality has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is entertaining, albeit, highly cultured entertainment.  Many of Shakespeare's plays have scandalous themes and are even downright heretical.  Also, many of the jokes he makes are completely impure.  There's NO WAY I would defend his work because he is an alleged "Catholic".  (The man even went so far as to have his children baptised in the Church of England in the audience of the Queen. )   I don't care if he's considered a so-called "genius" --- the same could have been said of Lucifer.

I never even watched more than 15 minutes of Lord of the Rings, so I can't speak to it.

Also, I do not recommend anything from the '60s.  

*edit: and by the way, so I beat you to the punch:  I understand that Shakey and Tolkein are hugely popular.  I, myself, was a bit fan of Shakespeare's works (I am ashamed to admit) years ago --- but that was before my conversion thanks to the Blessed Mother's intercession.  My opinion has NOTHING to do with what the world regards as "good" and worthy of being lauded.  My desire is for Heaven, not to shoot for Purgatory.  I desire to be holy, and I happen to know that it is a fact that one can not be holy and entertain impure thoughts --- even if they are procured from entertainments of such worldly-acclaimed geniuses as Shakespeare.  The spirit of the world is actually in opposition to the Spirit of Christ.

Vandaler:  I am afraid I don't really "see (your) point".  Did you just think that my point of view is hypocritical in some sense?  Yes, point out to me that I am a hypocrate whenever you see this, but do not assume it, since that is unfair and might be a sin against truth.  (Not that I think you would do so in a way that was meant to be mean.)

Everything we do (everything) demonstrates what we truly believe about life.  To the degree that we have faith, that same degree our actions will be our prayer.  Lex Orandi.  Lex Credendi.  If we make concessions for the things we engage in for the sake of entertainment, this is our 'prayer', and it is very weak.  To whom, then, are we praying, when we make concessions to watch entertainments that blaspheme?  

Fair enough.  Your opinion seem well seated.  Don't be offended by my questions, I don't know you and only I hope you will only see it as me feeling out for contours and relief.

As I said, I don't share your point of view, but am always respectful of opinions well grounded in faith.

Have a good week.

Very strange.  Why do you not then defend your own point of view now?  

I wonder what traditional, holy monasteries own televisions and engage in watching popular shows, or even putting on Shakespeare plays?   Why do you think monasteries even exist?