Yes, books sometimes have depictions of sins in them. I think the question to ask here is:
What is a harmful depiction of sin?
Shakespeare's plays have many depictions of sin. However, if a Catholic is so lacking in self-control that he is unable to read Shakespeare without being overcome with rage, or lust, and is actually in danger of committing a sin because of this reading...how will he deal with any external stimuli at all?
So, for example, Shakespeare's plays are valuable (and here I'm breaking this waaay down to the most basic elements, and leaving aside all of the artistic virtues) in one way because he deals with so many human motivations and his characters are excellent studies in human frailty and become social shorthand for human archetypes. Many scenes encapsulate an aspect of the human condition in a way perhaps no other author has. If it is a good to learn about human nature, then it is good to learn human nature from Shakespeare.
If reading the phrase 'the beast with two backs' would inflame you and tempt you to unchastity, then I suggest the problem is not with literature, but rather with you and a poor formation.
Further, consider the plight of the priest. He is expected to be the holiest among us...and yet he is also expected to be de-sensitized to depictions of sins in the confessional. He is expected, through his formation, to be able to hear vile things, and not be unduly tempted by them. He does this for a good purpose, the absolution of sins.
Everyone is expected to have self-control, to be able to receive an external stimuli without it necessarily causing us to immediately fall into sin, nor for every idea we hear or read to change our worldview without the involvement of our will.
Lastly, the inability to discern the difference between literature and pornography is just indicative of a poor environment. Young people are not expected to become formed all by themselves. You post as if from a desert island. In order to become a well-formed Catholic adult, your reading should be guided by a faithful teacher. The more educated should guide the less educated and help select good books until the student is able to do so for himself.
The problem is not with books, it is with you. It is most likely not your fault, particularly if you don't have a teacher, but that's the way it is.
This is the problem,
icterus; life is short and we can only read so many books, so why should we waste time on bad ones?
There's a concept in literature called
an exemplar, an example or model. Homer is considered by the critics to be the greatest poet of all time, and yet Plato was repulsed by Homer because he thought his works did not have appropriate exemplars; that Homer's depiction of divinities, for example, as petty personalities full of envy and strife, would corrupt the youth by teaching them falsehoods about what is divine. Plato even suggested that certain passages of Homer ought to be struck out or amended!
Now if Plato thought this of arguably "the greatest poet of all time", then why would it be inappropriate to apply the same standard to a poet of lesser quality, like Shakespeare?
You say that we ought to be strong enough to resist temptations in real life that it ought to be easy for us to do it in literature, but do you not think that is harder to resist in literature? In real life if you met an Achilles you might think, "what an arrogant and sulky young man", but when Homer puts all the force of his gilded imagination into glorifying Achilles, the listener or reader might be tempted to imitate him. Indeed, I think it's impossible for somebody to read The Iliad or Shakespeare's Julius Caesar or Coriolanus, and not be at least be a little bit paganized; as these glorify the proud man, which is to say that they glorify sin.
"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
So why spend time reading what glorifies sin? Because it's intellectually fashionable?
Goethe's
Werther has such a bad exemplar, that many young readers of thebook committed ѕυιcιdє after reading it, in imitation of its protoganist. Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet really isn't that much better than Goethe's Werther for teaching impressionable young people that ѕυιcιdє, perhaps the most horrid of crimes, can be beautiful if it's done for the "right motive". ѕυιcιdє as beautiful always been a pagan ideal. There's a poem of Goethe's called Prometheus which glorifies the satanic "better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" mind set. I haven't read Faust. Anyhow, Goethe is considered to be Germany's greatest man of letters; can you see how corrupt our intelligentsia are in worshipping "art for art's sake" and "genius for genius' sake", even if it teaches men how to commit ѕυιcιdє or curse Heaven? Wouldn't we be better if Homer & Goethe were burnt and never read again? Their works certainly aren't leading souls to heaven, so I don't see what good they are except as cultural artefacts and as indulgences for the humanist types who want to experience "the great accomplishments of man" (not a very godly mind set).
This reminds me of the superiority of Jєωιѕн culture to Gentile culture; I don't mean to say that modern Jєωs have a good culture, I'm talking about the culture of the ancient Israelites or Judaeans as contrasted with the Hellenes or Latins; and remember, that as Catholics Gentiles we become honorary Israelites.
Anyhow, when corruption bit a Gentile society like ancient Athens or ancient Rome, you got the clever literary type like Aristophanes or Juvenal writing satirical plays in order to make light of the situation. When corruptions bit the Israelites you got the Prophets praying to God that the people would change their ways. This shows the difference between Gentile culture and Jєωιѕн culture; the Gentiles see corruption about them and the most intellectual of them become ironic, sarcastic literary men ready to exploit the situation for a good play; the Jєωs see corruption about them and the most intellectual of them become holy Prophets doing penance and begging God to forgive their nation's apostasy.
"As for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way." 1 SAM xii. 23
The Gentiles have a worldly mindset, and the Jєωs a godly one.
I've heard somebody say that the reason why the modern Jєωιѕн people haven't produced artists "on the level of Shakespeare", is because the Jєωs are taught from a young age that the best intellectual pursuit is the study of Jєωιѕн Law. Now, the study of their Law will not profit them of course, and I am no apologist for the Modern Jєωs; but I still think, if that's the case, they've got it right in thinking that it's better to be wise in the ways of God than in the ways of man.
We don't have stunning artworks from the ancient Israelites like we do the ancient Greeks, but why do we have instead? Holy Scripture, a single page of which is worth more than the entire artworks of ancient Greece.
You say that we can learn about human nature from Shakespeare . . . seems like a vain pursuit to me. It's just like the natural scientists that want to uncover the "Laws of Nature"; what good does it do us if we gain this knowledge and build spaceships with it, if we become arrogant and proud of the work of our own hands thereby? Similarly, what good does it do us if we read Shakespeare and only become proudly self-satisfied for being able to identify this person as a Shakespearean archetype, and for being able to smugly inject quotations in Elizabethan English into our conversation? How many young people after watching Romeo & Juliet walk away thinking "what a horrible and damning sin they committed, and what stupidity on behalf of the playwright for neglecting to mention that they will be damned eternally for their sin", and not, "aww, poor Romeo, poor Juliet! Well, at least good came of their noble sacrifice, in that it put an end to an ancient feud"? If it's more the latter than the former then Romeo & Juliet is a wicked play and ought to never be performed.
I have a problem with Shakespeare on an artistic level: the man is highly, highly overrated as an artist. The most disgusting thing about Shakespeare's art on an aesthetic level is his promiscuous mix of tragedy & comedy, "tragicomedy". None of the ancient playwrights were barbaric enough to try and mix the two genres, and the neoclassical French playwrights of around Shakespeare's time knew to keep them separate too. It's actually quite disgusting what he does. Take for example, Macbeth, where the play builds in suspense from one horrid image to the next, until the unspeakable occurs and the Christlike King is betrayed and slaughtered in his sleep. Not soon after we are subjected to the ramblings of some oaf for the sake of "comedy". Do you not think this is terrible manners and in awful taste? How would you react if midway through a funeral the Priest decided to put on a clownsuit and tell preposterous jokes? But that's exactly what Shakespeare does! I'm surprised Shakespeare wasn't executed for treason for what he pulls off in Macbeth, because if I were a Monarch watching his play and saw a likeness of myself disposed of one minute and the next I was subjected to a clown routine, I'd be offended. The ancient playwrights never made this drastic mistake. If it was a tragedy it was a tragedy all the way through. The part serves the whole, and if there is a part that contradicts or does not contribute to the whole then it is disposed of. Romeo & Juliet begins with the most crude jokes, and ends with a double ѕυιcιdє the audience is supposed to lament; do you not see how the beginning of the play and the end contradict one and other? The ancients and the French would have seen that and scoffed at it, but the ignorant English made up excuses like, "oh, he uses comedy to release pressure. After all, it can't be a tragedy all the way through or it would make us sullen."
You can see the logical conclusion of Shakespeare's "tragicomedy" in the "absurdist" art of someone like Beckett, where tragedy and comedy have been blended so thoroughly that it's impossible to distinguish anymore, you don't know whether to laugh or cry and so instead of either you react with despair or despondency. Franz Kafka had the same thing going on.
Topic: The problem with books... (Read 9877 times)