Last movie you saw?

[JubilateDeo]

Tell me, what Church teaching, saint etc. can you quote approving of watching or reading such kind of material that I, the saints and the Church's own teaching speak against and condemn?

None of the saints that you quote were talking about TV, films, or the internet.  They didn't even have lightbulbs.

[Jerome]

There's a difference between reminding people to be vigilant, and accusing people of being in mortal sin if they don't subscribe to their particular way of limiting their exposure to indecency in media.  I think that people are not just annoyed with what Jerome says, but the irritaing way in which he says it.

Concerning "annoying" people, St. John Chrysostom put in in this way:

"Do you find it an oppressive burden to denounce those who commit these sins? It is an oppressive burden to remain silent. For this silence makes you an enemy to God and brings destruction both to you who conceal such sinners and to those whose sins go unrevealed. How much better it is to become hateful to our fellow servants for saving them to provoke God's anger against yourselves. Even if your fellow servant be vexed with you now, he will not be able to harm you but will be grateful later on for his cure. But if you seek to win your fellow servant's favor, if you remain silent and hurt him by concealing his sin, God will exact from you the ultimate penalty."

St. John Chrysostom

[JubilateDeo]

Books, Etc. Contrary to Catholic Doctrine, Not to be Praised (AAS 15-152)

The Holy Office issued the following Monitum to Ordinaries of places:

        "It not infrequently happens that in daily papers or magazines, writers even among those commonly regarded as good Catholics praise, extol, approve certain books, writings [movies etc.], pictures, sculptures, and other such works of literature and art, which are contrary to Catholic doctrine and the Christian spirit[/u], and even sometimes expressly condemned by the Holy See.
        "It will easily be seen what grave scandal to the faithful and what harm to faith and morals may be done if the shepherds of souls allow such things to pass unnoticed and uncorrected. Lest this should occur, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the approval of His Holiness, Pius XI, deems it opportune to admonish the Ordinaries of places that if they find any writers [books, movies etc.] of this sort among their subjects, and especially among the clergy, secular or regular, the do not fail to take action either by themselves or through the Council of Vigilance, and to take such measures in their regard as they may judge more effective in the Lord."

You are not a shepherd.  You are a sheep.

[Jerome]

Tell me, what Church teaching, saint etc. can you quote approving of watching or reading such kind of material that I, the saints and the Church's own teaching speak against and condemn?

None of the saints that you quote were talking about TV, films, or the internet.  They didn't even have lightbulbs.

Are you trying to argue that they would not have condemned the lasciviousness in the tv, films or the internet? I am sure even you understand that their principle applies as much to this as to everything else they spoke up against.

All their quotes talks about similar things, such as books, or paintings, or sculptures; or about exposing oneself to women, or beholding things one must not watch; or exposing oneself to occasions of sinning, whatever it may be -- which are all the same thing.

[JubilateDeo]

There's a difference between reminding people to be vigilant, and accusing people of being in mortal sin if they don't subscribe to their particular way of limiting their exposure to indecency in media.  I think that people are not just annoyed with what Jerome says, but the irritaing way in which he says it.

Concerning "annoying" people, St. John Chrysostom put in in this way:

"Do you find it an oppressive burden to denounce those who commit these sins? It is an oppressive burden to remain silent. For this silence makes you an enemy to God and brings destruction both to you who conceal such sinners and to those whose sins go unrevealed. How much better it is to become hateful to our fellow servants for saving them to provoke God's anger against yourselves. Even if your fellow servant be vexed with you now, he will not be able to harm you but will be grateful later on for his cure. But if you seek to win your fellow servant's favor, if you remain silent and hurt him by concealing his sin, God will exact from you the ultimate penalty."

St. John Chrysostom

St. John Chrysostom wasn't talking about online trolls like you when he said this. 

[Jerome]

You are not a shepherd.  You are a sheep.

Yes.

St. John Chrysostom wasn't talking about online trolls like you when he said this.

And it is obvious that you don't want an answer, but only question and explain away everything.

At least when I was black and white I could avoid these kinds of silly discussions...

When one speaks frankly and black and white so to speak, the real trolls go into hiding.

[JubilateDeo]

Tell me, what Church teaching, saint etc. can you quote approving of watching or reading such kind of material that I, the saints and the Church's own teaching speak against and condemn?

None of the saints that you quote were talking about TV, films, or the internet.  They didn't even have lightbulbs.

Are you trying to argue that they would not have condemned the lasciviousness in the tv, films or the internet? I am sure even you understand that their principle applies as much to this as to everything else they spoke up against.

All their quotes talks about similar things, such as books, or paintings, or sculptures; or about exposing oneself to women, or beholding things one must not watch; or exposing oneself to occasions of sinning, whatever it may be -- which are all the same thing.

I think they would laugh at the idea of some layman telling other laymen what to do on an internet forum and being an annoying little troll.
You have no authority.  Consider the plank in your own eye before obsessing about the speck in someone else's.

[piabee]

"Most" film posts are not neutral, I fear. The few pages of films I have seen have been some really bad one's and with bad scenes in them. That is not neutral. And this thread has 160+ pages. Take a guess!

I didn't say that the films are neutral. I said that the posts are. So you're the one not understanding.

[Greg]

Saw The Imitation Game, which was all about Alan Turing and the code breakers at Bletchley Park.

It was a little slow, but watchable.  Had references to his homosexuality in it but no homo or other sex scenes as far as I can remember.

[Greg]

I hyper fast forwarded through the entire movie " Once Upon a Time in the West"

Almost went back in time.

[Bernadette]

"giving scandal to others" means leading others to commit sin. So someone would actually have to commit sin, as a result of this thread, in order for anyone posting in it to be guilty of giving scandal.

Giving to others a scandal does not only necessarily mean that it led to an actual sin, but it can also be an encouragement to sin even if no sin occurs.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains Scandal thus:

"According to St. Thomas (II-II:43:1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act... or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden... It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin [such as watching sinful movies]... it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin;..."

I'll concede the definition of scandal. But watching movies and skipping the objectionable content isn't evil.

Watching an R-rated movie and skipping past the objectionable content isn't an occasion of sin for everyone, across the board.

By your own words here you admit it is, or could be, an occasion of sin for some. So is this then something that should be recommended to others or be written in a positive way as if it was anything good with it? Certainly not.

It can be an occasion of sin. That doesn't mean that it always is. You're writing as though you believe that watching practically any media is an occasion of sin. If watching media (and fast-forwarding as necessary) actually is an occasion of sin for you, and would tempt you to commit sin, then you're obliged to avoid it. But that doesn't mean that I am obliged to avoid it, or that anyone else, for whom watching media is not an occasion of sin, is obliged to avoid it.

Besides, how do one safely skip lascivious scenes? Normal fast forwarding still makes you see everything. Skipping on chance can land you right into anything.

And even if one try to skip, it is impossible to skip those lascivious scenes that just pop up in your face immediately or relativly fast, such as nakednesses, lascivious scenes and woman's breasts, or scantily clothed and inciting women -- and they are many and frequent in modern day media.

I'm not talking about fast forwarding with a VCR; I'm talking about moving to a different point in the film with your mouse cursor, like with Youtube, Netflix, or watching an actual DVD with an app on your computer. The media re-loads at the point chosen.

From all this we can see the danger of watching media in general, but when it concerns an r-rater movie nonetheless, then it is not only dangerous and playing with fire, but even to have entered into the fire. And those who do so will get burned.

Besides, does the fact that some have hardened themselves with the result that they don't have as much problems as other in seeing lascivious material make it lawful to watch? No. St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Gregory is clear when they say: "'It is not lawful,' says [Pope] St. Gregory, 'to behold what it is not lawful to covet.' The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

St. Alphonsus goes on to say – and notice carefully, dear reader, how this compares with what people wilfully "watch" and "behold" these days: "But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent." (Ibid)

St. Vianney says this concerning the fact that some are not tempted even though they expose themselves: "The greatest of all evils is to be not tempted, because then there are grounds for believing that the Devil looks upon us as his property. The Devil only tempts those souls that wish to abandon sin and those that are in a state of grace. The others belong to him; he has no need to tempt them."

Is that quote from St. John Vianney about being tempted to sexual sins, or being tempted to any sin at all? 

As for God being strict, He knows men's hearts: their intentions, temptations, weaknesses; and He is perfectly just. He understands more about our culpability than we ourselves do. Consider St. Bernadette's definition of a sinner: "One who loves evil." Motivation, intention, and the movement of the will, Jerome, are all incredibly important in matters of morality that don't involve intrinsic evil.

God knows our intentions, true. But what are the intentions of a person who willfully puts himself into bad situations and occasions of sinning? Are they sinful and unlawful intentions, which the Church also refuses to absolve? Yes, certainly. "Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of sin..."  (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 543)

God has compassion with our weaknesses and failings only when we do what we can. But if we do not even try to do what we can, but even willfully seek to enter into the danger and the sin itself (whether it be venial or mortal), think you God has compassion and understanding with such a disposition? Certainly not.

But I'm not talking about someone willfully choosing to sin. We're talking about completely different things here.

Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget, says about this: "God hates nothing so much as when you know you have sinned but do not care, trusting to your other meritorious actions, as if, because of them, God would put up with your sin, as if he could not be glorified without you, or as if he would let you do something evil with his permission, seeing all the good deeds you have done, since, even if you did a hundred good deeds for each wicked one, you still would not be able to pay God back for his goodness and love." (The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19)

Also:

Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget: "But if you take pleasure in committing even a slight sin, which you know to be a sin, and you do so trusting to your own abstinence and presuming on grace, without doing penance and reparation for it, know that it can become a mortal sin." (The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19)

I'm still not talking about that. Never have I mentioned "taking pleasure in committing a sin." You're replying to arguments that no one is making.

I'll try to be very clear:

1. Not everyone's occasions of sin are the same. So it doesn't make sense to rail against something as an occasion of sin (let alone as an occasion of mortal sin) for everyone, everywhere, indiscriminately.

2. If watching media is an occasion of sin for you, don't do it. But don't try to tell other people that they're offending God because they don't shun the same things that you do. It's not necessary for them to go to the same lengths that you do, in order not to be tempted: if it were necessary, they would do it. But for them, obviously, fast-forwarding is enough to remove the occasion of sin. It may be that this temptation regarding media is a particular cross that the Lord has given you; but He has given other people different crosses.

[JubilateDeo]

If watching media is an occasion of sin for you, don't do it. But don't try to tell other people that they're offending God because they don't shun the same things that you do. It's not necessary for them to go to the same lengths that you do, in order not to be tempted: if it were necessary, they would do it. But for them, obviously, fast-forwarding is enough to remove the occasion of sin. It may be that this temptation regarding media is a particular cross that the Lord has given you; but He has given other people different crosses.

I find this is common with certain men (usually former porn addicts) who struggle a lot with lust.  They assume that everyone else has the same struggle.

[RedCaves]

Shin Godzilla.

[Jerome]

"giving scandal to others" means leading others to commit sin. So someone would actually have to commit sin, as a result of this thread, in order for anyone posting in it to be guilty of giving scandal.

Giving to others a scandal does not only necessarily mean that it led to an actual sin, but it can also be an encouragement to sin even if no sin occurs.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains Scandal thus:

"According to St. Thomas (II-II:43:1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act... or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden... It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin [such as watching sinful movies]... it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin;..."

I'll concede the definition of scandal. But watching movies and skipping the objectionable content isn't evil.

Would you consider reading worldly romances written with the modesty standard of 300 years ago "evil" according to modern day standards? or going to the kind of plays children went to before in time as "evil" according to modern day standards? Presumably not. These things would be infinitely far less dangerous than the media people and children expose themselves to today.

Yet this is what St. Alphonsus thought virtuous parents must do when it comes to these things no one even would be thinking about today:

St. Alphonsus: "Fathers should not allow their children to read romances. These sometimes do more harm than even obscene books; they put fantastical notions and affections into young persons heads, which destroy all devotion, and afterwards impel them to give themselves up to sin. "Vain reading," says St. Bonaventure, "begets vain thoughts and extinguishes devotion." Make your children read spiritual books, ecclesiastical histories, and the lives of the saints. And here I repeat: Do not allow your daughters to be taught their lessons by a man [or the media], though he be a St. Paul or a St. Francis of Assisi. The saints are in heaven." (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 480-482)

Note: Reading the kind of worldly romances written 300 years ago cannot even remotely in any way be compared with the evil and filth found in the media of today.

St. Alphonsus: "With regard to removing evil. 1. A father must prevent his children from associating with bad company [such as the bad company of media]... 2. He must remove from his house any male or female servant that may be a source of temptation to his daughters or sons [such as that found throughout the media]. Virtuous parents do not admit into their house young female servants when their sons are grown up [well, what do the media bring to our children every day?]. 3. He should banish from his house all books that treat on obscene subjects, or on profane love, romances, and all similar works [such as found throughout the daily media!]; such books [and media] are the ruin of innocent young persons." (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 451-453)

You just have to accept the fact that the saints are even stricter than me; and God again is stricter still. If you cannot see the wisdom in what St. Alphonsus teaches and why parents need to follow this and avoid exposing themselves and their children, then I fear nothing I will say will help you see it. If you can't see it when it comes from St. Alphonsus, a doctor of the Church, why would you accept it when it comes from me?

St. Alphonsus: "Be careful, also, not to permit your sons to act plays [or watch media], nor even to be present at an immodest comedy [almost all media today without exception, even children cartoons, are immodest, yet many parents expose themselves to it and even let their children be present and exposed to it daily]. St. Cyprian says: "Who went chaste to the play [or theater, cinema etc.], returned unchaste." A young man or woman goes to the play full of modesty and in the grace of God, and returns home without modesty and at enmity with God. Do not allow your children to go to those feasts of the devil where there is dancing, courting, immodest singing, and sinful amusements [such as found throughout the daily media]. "Where there is dancing," says St. Ephrem, "there a feast of the devil is celebrated." But you will say: "What harm is there in a little relaxation and amusement?" St. Peter Chrysologus says: "They are not amusements, but grievous offences against God."" (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, pp. 480-482)

Watching an R-rated movie and skipping past the objectionable content isn't an occasion of sin for everyone, across the board.

By your own words here you admit it is, or could be, an occasion of sin for some. So is this then something that should be recommended to others or be written in a positive way as if it was anything good with it? Certainly not.

It can be an occasion of sin. That doesn't mean that it always is. You're writing as though you believe that watching practically any media is an occasion of sin. If watching media (and fast-forwarding as necessary) actually is an occasion of sin for you, and would tempt you to commit sin, then you're obliged to avoid it. But that doesn't mean that I am obliged to avoid it, or that anyone else, for whom watching media is not an occasion of sin, is obliged to avoid it.

If people don't get affected by exposing themselves to lascivious material, that still does not mean it is lawful to indulge in it. The quotes from St. Alphonsus above is absolutely clear on that. Parents must take these things away from their children, and obviously not expose themselves to it themselves.

But instead of avoiding these bad things, people today choose to indulge in them, with the excuse that they try to skip the sinful scenes.

In all honesty, I would fear the fire of Hell if I let my children watch the television, knowing well as I do all the evil content it contains.

Besides, how do one safely skip lascivious scenes? Normal fast forwarding still makes you see everything. Skipping on chance can land you right into anything.

And even if one try to skip, it is impossible to skip those lascivious scenes that just pop up in your face immediately or relativly fast, such as nakednesses, lascivious scenes and woman's breasts, or scantily clothed and inciting women -- and they are many and frequent in modern day media.

I'm not talking about fast forwarding with a VCR; I'm talking about moving to a different point in the film with your mouse cursor, like with Youtube, Netflix, or watching an actual DVD with an app on your computer. The media re-loads at the point chosen.

I find it interesting that you avoided my points about the impossibility of avoiding the lascivious scenes that just pop up in your face. They are innumerable, and unavoidable, whether it be nudenesses, lascivious clothing, or worse. Before people have even taken the action to fast forward, they have already exposed themselves and perhaps even their children.

Anyone who watches media, however careful he is, knows that he cannot avoid being exposed completely. And those who expose themselves will get burned. This is the teaching of the bible and of all the saints, but is rejected by modern day man.

If you think you cannot fall, think again. Those who expose themselves will fall sooner or later; if they haven't fallen already, that is.

"Now, says St. John Chrysostom, if all flesh is grass, it is as foolish for a man who exposes himself to the occasion of sin to hope to preserve the virtue of purity, as to expect that hay, into which a torch has been thrown, will not catch fire. "Put a torch into hay, and then dare to deny that the hay will burn." No, says St. Cyprian; it is impossible to stand in the midst of flames, and not to burn. "Impossibile est flammis circumdari et non ardere." (De Sing. Cler.) "Can a man," says the Holy Spirit, "hide fire in his bosom, and his garments not burn? or can he walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burnt?" (Prov. 6.27, 28) Not to be burnt in such circumstances would be a miracle. St. Bernard teaches that to preserve chastity, and, at the same time, to expose oneself to the proximate occasion of sin, "is a greater miracle than to raise a dead man to life." In explaining the fifth Psalm, St. Augustine says that "he who is unwilling to fly from danger, wishes to perish in it."" (Hell's Widest Gate: Impurity, by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (nn. 2-4) taken from Ascetical Works, Volume XVI: Sermons for all Sundays in the Year (1882) pp. 152-173)

Do you think you cannot fall, or cannot get burned? Do you think you know better then the Saints or even the Word of God? Oh, what presumtion!

From all this we can see the danger of watching media in general, but when it concerns an r-rater movie nonetheless, then it is not only dangerous and playing with fire, but even to have entered into the fire. And those who do so will get burned.

Besides, does the fact that some have hardened themselves with the result that they don't have as much problems as other in seeing lascivious material make it lawful to watch? No. St. Alphonsus and Pope St. Gregory is clear when they say: "'It is not lawful,' says [Pope] St. Gregory, 'to behold what it is not lawful to covet.' The evil thought which proceeds from looks, though it should be rejected, never fails to leave a stain upon the soul." (St. Alphonsus Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

St. Alphonsus goes on to say – and notice carefully, dear reader, how this compares with what people wilfully "watch" and "behold" these days: "But I do not see how looks at young persons of a different sex can be excused from the guilt of a venial fault, or even from mortal sin, when there is proximate danger of criminal consent." (Ibid)

St. Vianney says this concerning the fact that some are not tempted even though they expose themselves: "The greatest of all evils is to be not tempted, because then there are grounds for believing that the Devil looks upon us as his property. The Devil only tempts those souls that wish to abandon sin and those that are in a state of grace. The others belong to him; he has no need to tempt them."

Is that quote from St. John Vianney about being tempted to sexual sins, or being tempted to any sin at all?

Probably sexual sins first and foremost, since most people are damned because of sins of the flesh (Our Lady of Fatima). There are many varieties of sexual sins people today practise, especially contraception, and other unnatural sexual acts, which they have learned to imitate from the media.

St. Barnabas, Letter of Barnabas, Chapter 10:8, A.D. 74: "Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Leviticus 11:29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth through uncleanness [oral sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness.'" (Chapter X.--Spiritual Significance of the Precepts of Moses Respecting Different Kinds of [Forbidden] Food)

St. Vianney says this concerning the fact that some are not tempted even though they expose themselves: "The greatest of all evils is to be not tempted, because then there are grounds for believing that the Devil looks upon us as his property. The Devil only tempts those souls that wish to abandon sin and those that are in a state of grace. The others belong to him; he has no need to tempt them."

Life of the Holy Fathers, Book 5, On Sexual Temptation: "Syrus Alexandrinus, when asked about sexual thoughts replied thus, "If you didn't have thoughts you would be a hopeless case, since those who are freed from thoughts are those who have moved into deeds, that is, those who have sinned in the body are the ones who have not fought against thoughts of sin, or turned them down. The one who sins in the body has gone beyond being troubled by thoughts.""

As for God being strict, He knows men's hearts: their intentions, temptations, weaknesses; and He is perfectly just. He understands more about our culpability than we ourselves do. Consider St. Bernadette's definition of a sinner: "One who loves evil." Motivation, intention, and the movement of the will, Jerome, are all incredibly important in matters of morality that don't involve intrinsic evil.

God knows our intentions, true. But what are the intentions of a person who willfully puts himself into bad situations and occasions of sinning? Are they sinful and unlawful intentions, which the Church also refuses to absolve? Yes, certainly. "Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of sin..."  (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 543)

God has compassion with our weaknesses and failings only when we do what we can. But if we do not even try to do what we can, but even willfully seek to enter into the danger and the sin itself (whether it be venial or mortal), think you God has compassion and understanding with such a disposition? Certainly not.

Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget, says about this: "God hates nothing so much as when you know you have sinned but do not care, trusting to your other meritorious actions, as if, because of them, God would put up with your sin, as if he could not be glorified without you, or as if he would let you do something evil with his permission, seeing all the good deeds you have done, since, even if you did a hundred good deeds for each wicked one, you still would not be able to pay God back for his goodness and love." (The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19)

Also:

Jesus Christ speaking to St. Bridget: "But if you take pleasure in committing even a slight sin, which you know to be a sin, and you do so trusting to your own abstinence and presuming on grace, without doing penance and reparation for it, know that it can become a mortal sin." (The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, Book 3, Chapter 19)

But I'm not talking about someone willfully choosing to sin. We're talking about completely different things here.

...

I'm still not talking about that. Never have I mentioned "taking pleasure in committing a sin." You're replying to arguments that no one is making.

I'll try to be very clear:

1. Not everyone's occasions of sin are the same. So it doesn't make sense to rail against something as an occasion of sin (let alone as an occasion of mortal sin) for everyone, everywhere, indiscriminately.

2. If watching media is an occasion of sin for you, don't do it. But don't try to tell other people that they're offending God because they don't shun the same things that you do. It's not necessary for them to go to the same lengths that you do, in order not to be tempted: if it were necessary, they would do it. But for them, obviously, fast-forwarding is enough to remove the occasion of sin. It may be that this temptation regarding media is a particular cross that the Lord has given you; but He has given other people different crosses.

To expose oneself to the danger is sinful, and especially more so when it is done merely for the sake of pleasure and without any valid reason. All the saint quotes and the teaching of the Church is clear on that: "Now, no one can receive absolution unless he purpose firmly to avoid the occasion of sin..."  (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 543) "St. Cyprian: it is impossible to stand in the midst of flames, and not to burn. "Impossibile est flammis circumdari et non ardere." (De Sing. Cler.) "Can a man," says the Holy Spirit, "hide fire in his bosom, and his garments not burn? or can he walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burnt?"" (Prov. 6.27, 28)

If St. Alphonsus forbids and condemns even less harmful things in his writings than what people watch in the media today or let their children watch, what think you he would say about the evil media itself?

But you will say: "What harm is there in a little relaxation and amusement?" St. Peter Chrysologus says: "They are not amusements, but grievous offences against God." (St. Alphonsus)

I have tried to explain what the harm is, and what it is people and their children willfully expose themselves to. The majority of people however, reject this explanation.

Perhaps the words of St. Vianney will have more effect:

"There is not a commandment of God which dancing [or media] does not cause men to break! Mothers may indeed say: 'Oh, I keep an eye on their dress [or what we watch]; [but] you cannot keep guard over their heart[/b].' Go, you wicked parents, go down to Hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; GO! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well! Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those Hellish amusements." (The Curé D'Ars, St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, p. 146)

Only a fool would say that watching the modern day media, however careful you think you are, is any less dangerous than the things mentioned by St. Vianney or St. Alphonsus! (As a matter of fact, they are infinitely more dangerous!)

If you want to read more about the dangers of the media, I can recommend this article, which I find great:

http://www.catholic-saints.net/media-violence/

Consider this: You loose absolutely nothing from cutting of these "Hellish amusements" completely; whereas on the other hand you can risk to loose everything from keeping this "Hellish amusements" available in your home, including your soul and souls of your children.

Consider this: Mortal sin in thought can happen easily; and especially more so to those who expose themselves to the danger, since it is a biblical and the the teaching of the saints that those who do so will fall.

Dare you presume to trust in your own strength? Those who do so will also fall, since "when men avoid the occasions of sin, God preserves them; but when they expose themselves to danger, they are justly abandoned by the Lord, and easily fall into some grievous transgressions." (St. Alphonsus, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

Consider this: The example below shows us what happened to a young man who consented to a wicked thought in his mind, and this man did not have the evil media to help him into committing this sin by having previously been tempted by lascivious clothing (even cartoons is filled with this lasciviousness) or nudenesses or worse as found throughout the daily media.

St. Alphonsus explains how one single bad thought – yes one single bad thought – consented too was enough to damn this person (a child -- a parent's child!) who previously had never committed a single mortal sin!

        St. Alphonsus: "Listen to this example: A boy used often to go to confession; and every one took him to be a saint. One night he had a hemorrhage, and he was found dead. His parents went at once to his confessor, and crying begged him to recommend him to God; and he said to them: "Rejoice; your son, I know, was a little angel; God wished to take him from this world, and he must now be in heaven; should he, however, be still in purgatory, I will go to say Mass for him." He put on his vestments to go to the altar; but before leaving the sacristy, he saw himself in the presence of a frightful spectre, whom he asked in the name of God who he was. The phantom answered that he was the soul of him that had just died. Oh! is it you? exclaimed the priest; if you are in need of prayers, I am just going to say Mass for you. Alas! Mass! I am damned, I am in hell! And why? "Hear," said the soul: "I had never yet committed a mortal sin; but last night a bad thought came to my mind; I gave consent to it, and God made me die at once, and condemned me to hell as I have deserved to be. Do not say Mass for me; it would only increase my sufferings." Having spoken thus, the phantom disappeared." (The complete ascetical works of St. Alphonsus, vol. 15, p. 167)

If one meditates on this seriously, one will quickly understand how serious this is. It is not a joke, and when one understands that one can be damned for even a single thought (or that one's child could be damned for having consented to a single wicked thought through the media that you perhaps even allow them to watch or surf) and that this happens to people, then one must necessarily start to fear for oneself and others and make changes for oneself and them; for "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Psalm 110:10), but "The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools [and damned people] is infinite" (Ecclesiastes 1:15)

I have said this before, and will say it again; it is highly important that people avoid watching media and start to surf the internet with images off with image-blockers and with ad-blocks and flash-blocks so as not to expose themselves or their children to countless of lascivious images, ads or videos daily.

This article has all the information:

Is it a sin to willfully look at persons or things that one are sexually attracted to and that arouse one's sexual desire? Is it permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor?

It is up to you, dear reader, to now make all the changes necessary for the safety of yourself and your children.


P.S.
I made a separate thread for this post. It can be found here:

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15925.0

[Bernadette]

Jerome, I think you have good intentions, but incorrect conclusions. I'm glad that you take such care of your soul, but I think it would be wisest for you to consult a priest about whether you should admonish others, particularly in the way you've been doing: sometimes a more gentle approach is more effective.

Edit:

St. Vianney says this concerning the fact that some are not tempted even though they expose themselves: "The greatest of all evils is to be not tempted, because then there are grounds for believing that the Devil looks upon us as his property. The Devil only tempts those souls that wish to abandon sin and those that are in a state of grace. The others belong to him; he has no need to tempt them."

Bernadette: Is that quote from St. John Vianney about being tempted to sexual sins, or being tempted to any sin at all?

Probably sexual sins first and foremost, since most people are damned because of sins of the flesh (Our Lady of Fatima). There are many varieties of sexual sins people today practise, especially contraception, and other unnatural sexual acts, which they have learned to imitate from the media.

But it doesn't make sense that that quote would be about only being tempted to sexual sins. If the devil doesn't tempt us to sexual sins, it's because he considers us His property?!  Not thinking that one is tempted at all, to any sin, would indeed be a bad sign (if it were even possible); but I can't see that not being tempted to a particular sin is a sign that one is in the grasp of the devil. 

Edit #2: As for your point about sudden, unavoidable objectionable content: Martin88 has already said that it's pretty easy to judge when sexual scenes are going to occur and thus avoid them. I genuinely can't imagine something that would tempt one to serious sin popping up in a movie so suddenly that it's impossible to avoid. Now, it could happen, but I think it would be more accurate to describe such an occurrence as unusual, rather than as the norm. By all means, avoid media if it helps you to save your soul; just don't present it as necessary for everyone else to do the same.