Author Topic: Flannery OConnor and other authors (Read 1455 times)

Antony · « **on:** August 19, 2012, 09:49:28 PM »

So, I have a question about something that has been perplexing me. We all know how holy God's name is and that we should never take it in vain. Yet, I read stories by Catholic authors such as Flannery O'Connor, GK Chesterton and C.S. Lewis (Anglican)and many of their characters take God's name in vain. For example, "Oh God" or "My God" are among the many blaspemies that are said. Even in some of O'Connor's works some of the character says G** Dammit in many instances. And yet, I hear many good traditional Catholics, including priests say there is nothing wrong with these works.

Can someone please help me understand how it is okay for characters to say these words and yet not us? Or maybe it is not. I dont understand how it is okay to read these books. Someone please educate me on why these Catholic authors have their characters taking the Lord's name in vain.

Antony · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2012, 07:18:51 PM »

Well, I guess I will give myself a response since maybe the reason no one else is is because no one else has responded so they think its a dud-post. Oh well.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:01:15 PM »

Works of fiction portray characters as they are (in the writer's imagination).

Sigismund · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:09:44 PM »

Indeed. And it does not mean that the writer approves of everything a character does or says.

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:21:22 PM »

Quote

For example, "Oh God" or "My God" are among the many blaspemies that are said.

Can you tell us why you believe these are blasphemies?

songbird · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:33:14 PM »

Antony: A traditional priest said that these quotes are ok? To read them is one thing, but the one who uses it, will be the one who sins. Depending oh God's name is used I think makes a difference. We use his name in prayer. I have heard his name used with excitement. When if there is a bad storm or such that catches us suddenly and we say oh my God, it is our hearts calling his attention and prayers follows for protection. For those who call his name when they are mad, or use his name off cuff, frequently for an exclamation, that is wrong and some people get in a bad habit. When reading, what else can you do, but know it is their words and when we do run across hearing it we can say a prayer, a sign of the cross, something to show God that we do care that his name should not be hurt, used irreverently. As you read, I hope there is not that much, but say an ejaculation when you do, bow your head when you hear or say His name.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Spriago-Clark, The Catechism Explained

7. Blasphemy. Of this sin those are guilty who revile God, His saints, or speak contemptuously of objects connected with His worship.

The Emperor Julian the Apostate always spoke of the Son of God as the Galilean (at that time a word of insult) ; even at his death, which was occasioned by the thrust of a lance, he is said to have exclaimed : “ Thou hast conquered, O Galilean !” Ungodly persons are often heard to utter bitter revilings against God, especially in time of suffering and affliction, as if they did not deserve the trials He sends them. It is blasphemy to speak scornfully of God, or of His actions; or to attribute to a creature what is the prerogative of the Creator. The people sinned thus who when King Herod made an oration to them, cried, ”It is the voice of a god and not of a man “(Acts xii. 22). The Jєωs committed this sin. God says by the mouth of the prophet, “My name is continually blasphemed all the day long”(Is. Iii. 5). To speak contemptuously of holy places and things is a kind of blasphemy, as a reflection upon God, Whom we are told to praise in His holy places (Ps. cl. 1).

Sacrilege is another kind of blasphemy. This consists in putting to an improper and degrading use what pertains to the service of God.
The King of Babylon, Balthazar, committed sacrilege when, in a state of inebriation, he commanded the sacred vessels that had been taken from the Temple at Jerusalem, where they were used in the worship of the true God, to be brought to serve as drinking cups at the feast. The mutilation of statues or defacing of crucifixes is a sacrilege. Would it not be considered a treasonable act to treat the crown or the portrait of an earthly monarch with contumely? Again, those who receive the sacraments unworthily, who appropriate to themselves Church property, or who commit a theft in church, come under the same condemnation. It is said that Jєωs and Freemasons have sometimes obtained consecrated Hosts, which they subjected to horrible profanation. Such conduct is simply satanic.

Blasphemy is essentially a diabolical sin, and one of the gravest transgressions.

Antony · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2012, 04:56:20 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
For example, "Oh God" or "My God" are among the many blaspemies that are said.

Can you tell us why you believe these are blasphemies?

I guess blasphemy is a strong word. I just don't like to hear people say those things lightly like they don't mean anything.

And thank you all of you. I am a very scrupulous person. Thanks for shedding a little light on this.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:23:13 PM »

Quote from: Antony

Quote from: SJB
Quote
For example, "Oh God" or "My God" are among the many blaspemies that are said.

Can you tell us why you believe these are blasphemies?

I guess blasphemy is a strong word. I just don't like to hear people say those things lightly like they don't mean anything.

And thank you all of you. I am a very scrupulous person. Thanks for shedding a little light on this.

I completely understand.

I know that there are definitely cultural differences in how certain phrases are interpreted.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:38:23 PM »

CaptainMcQuigg said:

Quote

Works of fiction portray characters as they are (in the writer's imagination).

People will go to any lengths to make excuses for artists, as seen with Mel Gibson. Because it is all fiction, and the author never makes his viewpoint known, he can get away with anything -- he is just "portraying behavior," not approving of it.

Why not just show porn and then say the author doesn't approve of it?

Think I'm joking to make a point? No, that has happened. There is a guy named Lars Von Trier, a provocateur film director, who has said he converted to Catholicism at 30. Yet he makes scandalous arthouse films, one of which ( The Idiots ) shows people fornicating on screen -- I mean for real and explicitly, not simulated. And he is now making another film like this.

Still, he is considered a "spiritual" director, whose films often deal with the Last Judgment and the apocalypse, and people take his conversion seriously -- despite how he has also said that at various times he has been a Jєω and a nαzι. It is known that he likes provoking people, yet he is still taken seriously as a director who poses profound questions, who engages with God, etc., when any Catholic who knows the basics of the faith would be appalled at the level of evil of what he is doing.

The other day at CMRI, a pious woman excused Shakespeare for his scurrilous plays by saying he was writing to the audience of his time. We have now reached the logical conclusion of this illogic. Because of von Trier's talent, he gets away with murder -- not with God, but with the naive and deceived people of our time.

So there is your explanation about why many trads defend these artists. They see what they want to see. If there is a crucifix in a film, or some half-hearted tacked-on pseudo-moral lesson, they are convinced the director is Catholic. You wonder why Antichrist will fool so many people? Just imagine how many excuses will be made for this ultra-charismatic figure, who will be as likeable as an angel.

But I won't be too harsh, I was the same way once. It's almost like we are starving in a spiritual wasteland, and so we become desperate for a drop of water, and we find it in this filthy trash.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:43:10 PM »

I was recently talking to a priest at CMRI who told me in a horrified tone about TRAD parents defending the recent film, The Hunger Games, because supposedly it is about good vs. evil. Actually it's about a girl coerced into killing others to save her own skin. She is forced into a televised competition or something where she has to kill other people just like her, who are also just trying to survive...

Trads are defending this. I think her outfit is less immodest than most, or something, therefore the film is okay :rolleyes:

Actually what this film is about is how the Jєωs and their cronies, through their destructive reign over society, are creating a chaotic situation where people will stomp all over each other to be the last man standing, whether in business or in any other way. As the economy collapses, people will get more and more ruthless to keep up their lifestyles.

And it gets you to root for one girl over the others, even though they're all the same, manipulated people killing each other so they can live another day in an amoral void.

In my experience, people watch TV or movies, thinking "I'm Catholic, I can sift good from evil." They think they're smarter than the devil, I guess. Wrong.

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:16:48 PM »

I shouldn't watch Shakespeare? Really?

Antony · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:48:40 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

CaptainMcQuigg said:
Quote
Works of fiction portray characters as they are (in the writer's imagination).

People will go to any lengths to make excuses for artists, as seen with Mel Gibson. Because it is all fiction, and the author never makes his viewpoint known, he can get away with anything -- he is just "portraying behavior," not approving of it.

Why not just show porn and then say the author doesn't approve of it?

Think I'm joking to make a point? No, that has happened. There is a guy named Lars Von Trier, a provocateur film director, who has said he converted to Catholicism at 30. Yet he makes scandalous arthouse films, one of which ( The Idiots ) shows people fornicating on screen -- I mean for real and explicitly, not simulated. And he is now making another film like this.

Still, he is considered a "spiritual" director, whose films often deal with the Last Judgment and the apocalypse, and people take his conversion seriously -- despite how he has also said that at various times he has been a Jєω and a nαzι. It is known that he likes provoking people, yet he is still taken seriously as a director who poses profound questions, who engages with God, etc., when any Catholic who knows the basics of the faith would be appalled at the level of evil of what he is doing.

The other day at CMRI, a pious woman excused Shakespeare for his scurrilous plays by saying he was writing to the audience of his time. We have now reached the logical conclusion of this illogic. Because of von Trier's talent, he gets away with murder -- not with God, but with the naive and deceived people of our time.

So there is your explanation about why many trads defend these artists. They see what they want to see. If there is a crucifix in a film, or some half-hearted tacked-on pseudo-moral lesson, they are convinced the director is Catholic. You wonder why Antichrist will fool so many people? Just imagine how many excuses will be made for this ultra-charismatic figure, who will be as likeable as an angel.

But I won't be too harsh, I was the same way once. It's almost like we are starving in a spiritual wasteland, and so we become desperate for a drop of water, and we find it in this filthy trash.

I really appreciate your viewpoint. I grew up in a house like this. We didn't make excuses for the artists, we judged the film, tv show, book, etc by what it portrayed and whether or not it offended God or not. I often wondered about Shakespeare as well. There is a lot of immorality that is portrayed quite explicitly in his plays. What's the difference between these plays and the trash on tv today? Just because one is better artistically does it make okay to subject ourselves to it?

Antony · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:59:46 PM »

This may sound really weird to some, but when growing up, my family would never consider even watching shows like Seinfield, Everybody Loves Raymond, or Law and Order. Even these shows offended our Catholic sensibilities. I know that many people, even Trads, would view this as absurd. But for all of our faults, we never took in the junk the modern world was hurling at us, even the seemingly innocent stuff. Our humor was always clean and we didn't talk about things that were deemed inappropiate. Now, I know I have many faults, but this stuff has stuck with me and I view it to be in accordance with reality. That is why I could never justify most of Mel Gibson's films which were filled with the most vile immorality. I even have many reserves about Jim Caveziel who has played in some very questionable shows and movies.