Last movie you saw?

[Mono no aware]

I remember Jerome. I kind of agreed with him in general though he was more strict than I am. On Cathinfo he accused me of sinning because I browse the internet without all images blocked even though I do not go to bad websites. If I was KK I would not have banned him because I think the more rigorous should be welcome to counteract the lax. I think those arguments make for a good forum.

Yes.  It might be said of Jerome that he was over-correcting a tad too far against laxity, but I agree that one such as he is a valuable forum member to have.  Good discussions are usually challenging.  The interesting thing about Jerome's tenure here, though, was that he presented his arguments so well and with ample citations, whereas the pushback he received was mostly just cheesy uncharitable eye-rolling sarcasm, the kind of thing you could program a bot to come up with.  I guess a good discussion needs not only a challenge, but a willingness to meet the challenge with substantial arguments.  In the age of memes, that might be too much to expect.

[Heinrich]

I remember Jerome. I kind of agreed with him in general though he was more strict than I am. On Cathinfo he accused me of sinning because I browse the internet without all images blocked even though I do not go to bad websites. If I was KK I would not have banned him because I think the more rigorous should be welcome to counteract the lax. I think those arguments make for a good forum.

Yes.  It might be said of Jerome that he was over-correcting a tad too far against laxity, but I agree that one such as he is a valuable forum member to have.  Good discussions are usually challenging.  The interesting thing about Jerome's tenure here, though, was that he presented his arguments so well and with ample citations, whereas the pushback he received was mostly just cheesy uncharitable eye-rolling sarcasm, the kind of thing you could program a bot to come up with.  I guess a good discussion needs not only a challenge, but a willingness to meet the challenge with substantial arguments.  In the age of memes, that might be too much to expect.

Very, very true. I remember reading his citations to bolster his admonishments and thinking that he is correct. His approach was priggish; if he is as holy as he portrays himself, then he is fasting and offering up much suffering for us to change our ways.

[Mono no aware]

I remember reading his citations to bolster his admonishments and thinking that he is correct. His approach was priggish; if he is as holy as he portrays himself, then he is fasting and offering up much suffering for us to change our ways.

Right.  In spite of his substantive, logical, and well-documented arguments, he was just not able to get his message to sing.  He had the integrity and righteousness of a Savonarola, but not much of the rhetorical and oratorical magic.  (One is not actually orating on a message board, but you get the idea). 

Even though his detractors won the day by shouting him down with heaps of sarcasm and scorn, I would imagine that Jerome probably did very well with any audience of impartial lurkers that might be out there.  They probably thought, "this is guy is presenting some serious and thoughtful material, and the responses are little more than empty knee-jerk hostility and juvenile mockery."  Ah well.

[Heinrich]

If I was one of the juvenile mockers, I am sorry.

[Mono no aware]

I skimmed two prominent Jerome threads earlier—his thread criticizing this one, and another one called "Cheerleading."  I didn't see you among the mockers, Heinrich.  I think Greg scored the strongest point against him, after he got Jerome to reveal that he was unmarried, lived on disability, and rarely left his home.  Greg asked him how it would be possible to keep custody of the eyes for normal people who had to raise children, hold down jobs, and basically interact on a daily basis with the world.  He also threw in a Greg zinger which was actually a very good point: "you don't have any true need for the internet, so why risk your soul by being only a few seconds away from the largest library of free pornography that has ever existed in the entire history of the world?"  Jerome received a ban before he could respond.  But his own good points about traditional Catholics' consumption of modern entertainment went largely unanswered as well.

[martin88nyc]

PDR,  Diary of a Chambermaid seems like a good flick. I'll watch it tonight/

[Pheo]

Some years ago, I would've cared.  Nowadays I've reverted to just watching the same kinds of movies I always did.

This came as a bit of a surprise.  It was some of your posts about how separate Christians are called to be from the world that, at least in part, I had in mind when I made some of the opposite changes in my life.  Internet is gone which took Netflix and YouTube with it (online sermons are great but I wasted countless hours on mindless garbage too...).  Just my phone with a small data plan.  And if I didn't need that for work, it might be gone too.  Pitched quite a few DVDs and music, so now my free time is spent studying, reading, praying, or at the pub.  Or some combination thereof.

Why the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality?

[Non Nobis]

Some years ago, I would've cared.  Nowadays I've reverted to just watching the same kinds of movies I always did.

This came as a bit of a surprise.  It was some of your posts about how separate Christians are called to be from the world that, at least in part, I had in mind when I made some of the opposite changes in my life.  Internet is gone which took Netflix and YouTube with it (online sermons are great but I wasted countless hours on mindless garbage too...).  Just my phone with a small data plan.  And if I didn't need that for work, it might be gone too.  Pitched quite a few DVDs and music, so now my free time is spent studying, reading, praying, or at the pub.  Or some combination thereof.

Why the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality?

I don't have such good habits, but I too was a little surprised by Pon de Replay's remarks after a couple of previous posts he made recently... Surely some things are truly not appropriate AT LEAST for certain people - e.g. for children. PDR are you so tough and unchildlike that you personally don't have to watch for things that are inappropriate for you?

[Mono no aware]

PDR,  Diary of a Chambermaid seems like a good flick. I'll watch it tonight/

Good deal, Martin.  As long as you're not expecting pious entertainment, though.  It's essentially an unflinching slice of life and a glimpse into the strangeness and complexities of human nature.  The main character is mercurial and capricious.  There are no pat answers in it, which I think can sometimes frustrate people.  I have never read the book, but I looked it up on the internet and found this quote from it: "si infâmes que soient les canailles, elles ne le sont jamais autant que les honnêtes gens"—"however vile the riff-raff may be, they are never as vile as decent people."  That sums up its attitude.

From the Jerome standpoint, there are actually no immodest fashions that I can recall, since it takes place in France during the Dreyfuss Affair, so the skirts are suitably long.  However, there are a couple of brief sex scenes, so it would probably get a "nyet" from Jerome, but there is no nudity shown.  Nothing explicit, unlike another Lea Seydoux film, Blue is the Warmest Color, which is essentially lesbian pornography, and not even a good movie.

[Mono no aware]

Some years ago, I would've cared.  Nowadays I've reverted to just watching the same kinds of movies I always did.

This came as a bit of a surprise.  It was some of your posts about how separate Christians are called to be from the world that, at least in part, I had in mind when I made some of the opposite changes in my life.  Internet is gone which took Netflix and YouTube with it (online sermons are great but I wasted countless hours on mindless garbage too...).  Just my phone with a small data plan.  And if I didn't need that for work, it might be gone too.  Pitched quite a few DVDs and music, so now my free time is spent studying, reading, praying, or at the pub.  Or some combination thereof.

Why the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality?

I believe Christianity is, without question, a religion which calls its members to eschew worldliness.  I will argue for that until the day I die.  But I also believe that particular spirit has been irrevocably eroded down to nearly nothing, and cannot realistically be recaptured.  To attempt to recreate an authentic Christianity would be kind of "futilely anachronistic" at this point.  My favorite people are the ones who try, though.  I used to be—not like Jerome, exactly, but some variation of Jerome.  I can appreciate where he's coming from.  He obviously reads the works of the saints and takes them seriously, and in one of his threads I revisited this morning, he ended one his "vast compilation of saintly commentary" posts with the question, "how can Catholics be so blind?"  The difference between me and Jerome is that at some point I realized, "why am I blind to what Catholicism has become?"

[Mono no aware]

Surely some things are truly not appropriate AT LEAST for certain people - e.g. for children. PDR are you so tough and unchildlike that you personally don't have to watch for things that are inappropriate for you?

I think the movies I watch are appropriate for a person my age.  Probably most of the movies I watch are things that Bishop Robert Barron would watch.  (With the exception of Blue is the Warmest Color, obviously.  But maybe even Bishop Barron got blindsided by that one.  I don't think I've ever seen a mainstream movie with such long and explicit sex scenes).

[Mono no aware]

Brief Encounter (1945)

[Matto]

I believe Christianity is, without question, a religion which calls its members to eschew worldliness.  I will argue for that until the day I die.  But I also believe that particular spirit has been irrevocably eroded down to nearly nothing, and cannot realistically be recaptured . . . My favorite people are the ones who try, though.

Maybe we would get along. Especially since September I have been trying to be a lot less worldly. I have been fasting more and trying to avoid sin but I must admit that the little I do is not that heroic. I have always been drawn towards the people generally considered rigorists and who always seem to be banned from the forums for their views on morals, people like Jerome and a number of posters on Cathinfo, which is the forum I have posted most on, who were banned for their strict views on morality. After reading about saints such as the Cure of Ars and Saint Gemma Galgani, and now I am reading about the Desert Fathers, it made me believe that doing penance for our sins is one of the most important parts of Christianity, and it seems it is also the part of Christianity that is most obscured in our times.

Edit: A point about traditional Catholics. Many of them are good at arguing against the Novus Ordo, but do they do penance?

[Mono no aware]

I have always been drawn towards the people generally considered rigorists and who always seem to be banned from the forums for their views on morals, people like Jerome and a number of posters on Cathinfo, which is the forum I have posted most on, who were banned for their strict views on morality. After reading about saints such as the Cure of Ars and Saint Gemma Galgani, and now I am reading about the Desert Fathers, it made me believe that doing penance for our sins is one of the most important parts of Christianity, and it seems it is also the part of Christianity that is most obscured in our times.

Yes, I think the so-called "rigorists," or "Jansenists," or whatever they get unfairly labeled, are great because they afford us a glimpse of that authentic Christian spirit; in their gestures, attitudes, behaviors, and fashions, they really are "the light of the world."

I think one of the most pronounced differences between today and the Middle Ages is that there's no longer the same popular distinction made between the pious people and the ordinary folk.  It's just assumed now that everyone is copacetic.  It's probably best seen in the approach to taking communion.  It used to be that many people would only communicate once a year, at Easter, keenly aware of their own worldliness and unworthiness.  Nowadays it's nearly everyone.

[Kaesekopf]

Yes, I think the so-called "rigorists," or "Jansenists," or whatever they get unfairly labeled, are great because they afford us a glimpse of that authentic Christian spirit; in their gestures, attitudes, behaviors, and fashions, they really are "the light of the world."

I think one of the most pronounced differences between today and the Middle Ages is that there's no longer the same popular distinction made between the pious people and the ordinary folk.  It's just assumed now that everyone is copacetic.  It's probably best seen in the approach to taking communion.  It used to be that many people would only communicate once a year, at Easter, keenly aware of their own worldliness and unworthiness.  Nowadays it's nearly everyone.

The problem with the Jansenists/rigorists is that they're usually assholes.  You never come across a smooth-talking one who is able to win people to his "side."

It's always "You're going to Hell for browsing with images on!"