Last movie you saw?

[Jerome]

Whether we like Jerome's responses or not we all have definitely learned something these past few weeks. Custody of the eyes, discretion and keeping oneself protected from the unnecessary media is just a few to name.

I'm pretty sure people posting in this forum already know these things.

Knowing and putting the knowledge into practice are two different things.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

So who has seen Hacksaw Ridge?

Is it released already?  Will look into.  This might be a good alternative to the madness of election eve.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

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.

Bletchley Park makes for some very very interesting reading and film.  Thanks for the recommendation.

If you are into piracy, like me, you can watch it on putlocker-4k in HD for free

Downloaded it via cryptohippie vpn at extratorrent/ettv - we really enjoyed the story.  Of course, Hollywood took a few liberties with the facts, and there was a perfunctory pc spin on a particular issue, but overall it was good.   Thanks again.

[Jerome]

You just can't see that there are some sins that some people are not tempted to. They're just not tempted to them. I've already given you the examples pertaining to myself (regarding nudity and alcohol); Greg has some other, more...unsavory examples, which illustrate the point, and which I am sure he would be glad to repeat here for you.

Media is probably far less harmful for women than men, I can agree with that. But many scenes probably would or is an occasion for sin for them too. Men are not always exactly depicted as modest in the media.

No, I think this is wrong, for many of the reasons that you outline below. When you look around at the big picture, who is targeted by the media more -- men or women? The media realize that women are the ideal target. Their temptations might be more subtle than those shown to men, but ultimately they are just as corrupted.

Yes I think you are absolutely right. I was thinking more of the immediate danger to chastity in the media which is more dangerous for men still I believe, but there are many other factors in the media targeted for women which may be even mroe dangerous in the long run, as you say.

But would that make it morally permissible to indulge in because of that?

This argument that "It's okay for me although it's a danger for others" is a very weak one. If we are drinking in front of our alcoholic friend, then we share culpability when he falls back into his predilection even though we do not have the genes to be susceptible to that same weakness.

I agree.

St. Paul even says that we should not eat meat if it offends against our weak brother. Not that it is wrong to eat meat, but depending on circumstances, it might be better to avoid.

How far such and similar things ought to be applied in non-bad things in themselves is debatable. But when it comes to most media, it is not "non-bad things in themselves" we are speaking about, but rather generally offensive material against modesty and chastity and morality. It is not a morally neutral recreation in many cases, so to speak. And if this is the case, it is offensive to God.

Women, especially young women, have a fanatical tendency to fall in love with people they adore, watch or behold in the media, that they read about, or listen too, such as tv-stars, or music-stars.

Yes, this is a good point. Think of the Beatles and the hysterical female reaction that ensued. Before the Beatles there was Elvis Presley. Later there was a never-ending stream of teeny-bop idols. So when you think of the corrupting influence of satanic media, and you ask yourself who is affected by it the most deeply, it's hard to say whether it's boys or girls. But when you look at the transformation of society that resulted in the discarding of all sexual morality and the introduction of crimes like fornication, divorce and abortion, it seems like women were transformed even more than men.

Good observations.

I believe feminism was partly created by the media, and what satan intended to do with it among other things, in the long run. And feminism was then the later result of immodest dress and almost everything else that comes to womens so-called rights.

The media is to blame because it started to depict women in other roles and other modesty standards than the commonly accepted form. Both women and men obviously ape after what they see in the media. So it is no wonder that the modesty standards were completely lost not long after the invention of the motion media; by women, by dressing more controversially as they learned from the media; by men, by approving of it or being silent.

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."

Fr. Faber agrees completely with St. Alphonsus on this point. In the middle of "Growth in Holiness" he suddenly breaks off to write a few pages describing how horrified he was by popular trend of the day in the 1850's for females to read romance novels like those of the Bronte sisters. He called this practice a "hothouse of every vice." Like St. Alphonsus, he believed that the long-term emotional damage caused by romance novels might be worse than the effect of reading outright immorality.

Thanks. Now I have one more quote to use in order to make this point!

And it is dishonest to say that grave matters in media don't just pop up immediately, or that it "would be more accurate to describe such an occurrence as unusual, rather than as the norm". Everyone who has ever watched the media knows that one scene just skips to another immediately and that people just tend to enter the screen without notice. The film may skip to a beach scene, a sex scene, a lascivious scene, an immodest scene; and the news may skip to a public place were people are dressed immodest and in an enticing manner, or even be focusing the camera lens on a billboard with an enticingly clothed woman displayed. I really shouldn't have to tell you this since you already should be aware of this and how it works.

Yes, I have to admit that this has happened to me more than once while watching movies with children. Something that you thought was perfectly harmless suddenly has an immoral scene. Ironically, as an adult watching with children, you feel more or less the same embarrassment as you did when the same thing happened when you were a kid watching something with your parents.

Then there is the question of whether you should hope that it passes in a flash without making a big deal and drawing attention to it, or whether you should leap up and stop the movie.

British mystery dramas, for example, have a tendency to insert just a few seconds of immodest material into each episode of something that seemed like it would be harmless like "Miss Marple." In those cases by the time you had tried to fast-forward the scene is already gone.

But one time we were planning to watch a very famous cowboy mini-series that had received rave reviews and never had any implication that it was obscene. Turns out there was just one bad scene after another. At first I thought "This is just a short anomaly and will quickly pass." But then I realized that the whole series was nothing but smut, and that I had been completely wrong about the whole thing from the beginning.

Experience and being honest about the result is the one of the best teachers in life, I believe. We all learn from our mistakes, and by experience we know and learn what changes we need to make in our lives.

Jerome, I'm a woman. It would be unnatural for me to be tempted by these things, even if I consented to seeing them (which I don't).

I agree you should not be tempted by women. But does that make any difference? If it is immodest and offensive to God and our neighbor, it is still immodest, offensive etc. and should be rejected.

Actually, scientific studies have shown that this is not true. Both men and women are sexually stimulated by seeing naked women. It's not because they're lesbians, but just because the bodies of both men and women are designed to be triggered this way.

The best-selling book of all time, which is still in the process of making hundreds of millions of dollars for its author, is pornography for women.

Excellent point. I did not consider that, although I could have believed it was true, which is why I said "should". I think one can have a reaction to any naked bodies, whether men or women, even if not homosexual or lustful. People are always affected differently. That is how our bodies work, as you said, and believe this is the case.

In fact, some saints and holy fathers did not even like to see themselves naked! I can totally understand that.

But women in general do not get affected as much as men does from such things in either case. I read somewhere someone making an allegory between the differences of men and women in this regard, with the example of a light-bulb turning on, and with an iron being heated up slowly.

That is why it is so important for women to dress modestly since the effect on men are more immediate then what they perhaps understand.

I want to make this point clear: The only problem with media is not the lasciviousness. Remember, Alphonsus condemned or disapproved even books that were not obscene in itself, and he told parents to forbid children read them on the mere fact that "they put fantastical notions and affections into young persons heads, which destroy all devotion, and afterwards impel them to give themselves up to sin".

Yes, this is a good point. You could think about Harry Potter. There is no sexual immorality. But it certainly puts "fantastical notions into young persons' heads." I was at the airport and talking to the people waiting in line with me. There was a woman and her daughter who was a high-school senior visiting colleges. She was visiting this college in Memphis because it was reputed to be the "most like Hogwarts" in the US. Although as it turns out, there is a big on-line fight between this college and another college also in Tennessee over which one is truly the most like Hogwarts. Young people were completely captivated by Harry Potter in a way that's hard to imagine.

That is why I recommend everyone to give up this kind of media completely. As I wrote in another thread:

Rather than telling us what NOT to do why not constructively, suggest new forms of media, films, documentaries, audio we can access without threatening our souls.

I have already said my opinion concerning this.

Download anything you want to watch on the internet and listen to it in mp3 instead. This is a good video to mp3 site*: http://convert2mp3.net/en/

If you download video files with desktop programs (none of which I will recommend, since they show the thumbnail of the film link you insert**), or watch dvd films etc., use VLC player for video files and disable video screen in settings. This means you can only hear the audio if you do this. Here you can download VLC player*: https://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

*As always, when I give links, it is presupposed that you will visit them without images on since I don't encourage or approve of dangerous website surfing.

**One solution is to drag the parts of the program outside of the screen, so that the video thumbnails won't be visible when adding the link for download. Provided the users use this solution, I will recommend the following excellent video & audio downloader, and desktop converter program (all in one program so to speak):

http://www.any-video-converter.com/products/for_video_free/

Note: After installation, enter settings (gear icon), go to "online video". On the "Select Format" header, click or check the "Manually Select" box so that you can choose what quality of the video you can download yourself, and so that you can download only the audio file if you desire to do that also (one can get both from youtube).

[clau clau]

I put Jerome on ignore.  I can finally read this thread.

I used to enjoy this thread.  It was nice to be told about a film I hadn't watched and discuss it and occasionally make recommendations myself.  Yes, I'm sure there are some scenes with unsuitable bits just like there is dogshit on the pavement that I try to avoid stepping it.

Then Jerome came along and sucked all the JOY out of it.

Apologies to all of you who will now be lambasted with pages and pages of quotes from the Church Fathers and St. John Chrysostom.  Fortunately, I will no longer have to read through all the BS.

[Jerome]

I put Jerome on ignore.  I can finally read this thread.

I used to enjoy this thread.  It was nice to be told about a film I hadn't watched and discuss it and occasionally make recommendations myself.  Yes, I'm sure there are some scenes with unsuitable bits just like there is dogshit on the pavement that I try to avoid stepping it.

Then Jerome came along and sucked all the JOY out of it.

Apologies to all of you who will now be lambasted with pages and pages of quotes from the Church Fathers and St. John Chrysostom.  Fortunately, I will no longer have to read through all the BS.

Not sure if you will see this, but calling their teachings BS, if your mening is what I suppose it is, is wrong. Or perhaps you only think my own words are BS, but not theirs? even though they agree with me on what I say?

"He that rejecteth instruction, despiseth his own soul: but he that yieldeth to reproof possesseth understanding." (Proverbs 15:32)

The Church also teaches that it is wrong to seek "joy" in dangerous occasions.

Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #62, March 4, 1679: "The proximate occasion for sinning is not to be shunned when some useful and honorable cause for not shunning it occurs." – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.
Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters #63, March 4, 1679: "It is permitted to seek directly the proximate occasion for sinning for a spiritual or temporal good of our own or of a neighbor." – Condemned statement by Pope Innocent XI.

And don't tell me you are not affected by the immodesty and lasciviousness plaguing the daily media!

         "And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat and drink, they married wives, and were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark: and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it came to pass, in the days of Lot: they did eat and drink, they bought and sold, they planted and built. And in the day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man shall be revealed [that is, most people will live just as they always have]." (Luke 17:26-30)

         Haydock Bible Commentary explains Luke 17: "Ver. 27. After having compared his second coming to lightning, in order to shew how sudden it will be, he next compares it to the days of Noe [Noah] and Lot, to shew that it will come when men least expect it; when, entirely forgetting his coming, they are solely occupied in the affairs of this world, in buying and selling, &c. He only mentions those faults which appear trivial, or rather none at all, (passing over the crimes of murder, theft, &c.) purposely to shew, that if God thus punishes merely the immoderate use of what is lawful, how will his vengeance fall upon what is in itself unlawful. (Ven. Bede) --- Ver. 32. As Lot only escaped destruction by leaving all things, and flying immediately to the mountain, whereas his wife, by shewing an affection for the things she had left, and looking back, perished; so those who, in the time of tribulation, forgetting the reward that awaits them in heaven, look back to the pleasures of this world, which the wicked enjoy, are sure to perish. (St. Ambrose)"

[Chestertonian]

You just can't see that there are some sins that some people are not tempted to. They're just not tempted to them. I've already given you the examples pertaining to myself (regarding nudity and alcohol); Greg has some other, more...unsavory examples, which illustrate the point, and which I am sure he would be glad to repeat here for you.

Media is probably far less harmful for women than men, I can agree with that. But many scenes probably would or is an occasion for sin for them too. Men are not always exactly depicted as modest in the media.

No, I think this is wrong, for many of the reasons that you outline below. When you look around at the big picture, who is targeted by the media more -- men or women? The media realize that women are the ideal target. Their temptations might be more subtle than those shown to men, but ultimately they are just as corrupted.

Yes I think you are absolutely right. I was thinking more of the immediate danger to chastity in the media which is more dangerous for men still I believe, but there are many other factors in the media targeted for women which may be even mroe dangerous in the long run, as you say.

But would that make it morally permissible to indulge in because of that?

This argument that "It's okay for me although it's a danger for others" is a very weak one. If we are drinking in front of our alcoholic friend, then we share culpability when he falls back into his predilection even though we do not have the genes to be susceptible to that same weakness.

I agree.

St. Paul even says that we should not eat meat if it offends against our weak brother. Not that it is wrong to eat meat, but depending on circumstances, it might be better to avoid.

How far such and similar things ought to be applied in non-bad things in themselves is debatable. But when it comes to most media, it is not "non-bad things in themselves" we are speaking about, but rather generally offensive material against modesty and chastity and morality. It is not a morally neutral recreation in many cases, so to speak. And if this is the case, it is offensive to God.

Women, especially young women, have a fanatical tendency to fall in love with people they adore, watch or behold in the media, that they read about, or listen too, such as tv-stars, or music-stars.

Yes, this is a good point. Think of the Beatles and the hysterical female reaction that ensued. Before the Beatles there was Elvis Presley. Later there was a never-ending stream of teeny-bop idols. So when you think of the corrupting influence of satanic media, and you ask yourself who is affected by it the most deeply, it's hard to say whether it's boys or girls. But when you look at the transformation of society that resulted in the discarding of all sexual morality and the introduction of crimes like fornication, divorce and abortion, it seems like women were transformed even more than men.

Very good.

I believe feminism was partly the creation of the media and what satan intended to do with it in the long run. And feminism was then the later results of immodest dress and almost everything else when it comes to womens so-called rights.

The media is to blame because it started to depict women in other roles and other modesty standards than the commonly accepted form. Both women and men obviously ape after what they see in the media. So it is no wonder that the modesty standards were completely lost not long after the invention of the motion media; by women, by dressing more controversially; by men, by approving of it or being silent.

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."

Fr. Faber agrees completely with St. Alphonsus on this point. In the middle of "Growth in Holiness" he suddenly breaks off to write a few pages describing how horrified he was by popular trend of the day in the 1850's for females to read romance novels like those of the Bronte sisters. He called this practice a "hothouse of every vice." Like St. Alphonsus, he believed that the long-term emotional damage caused by romance novels might be worse than the effect of reading outright immorality.

Very good. Now I have one more quote to use in order to make this point!

And it is dishonest to say that grave matters in media don't just pop up immediately, or that it "would be more accurate to describe such an occurrence as unusual, rather than as the norm". Everyone who has ever watched the media knows that one scene just skips to another immediately and that people just tend to enter the screen without notice. The film may skip to a beach scene, a sex scene, a lascivious scene, an immodest scene; and the news may skip to a public place were people are dressed immodest and in an enticing manner, or even be focusing the camera lens on a billboard with an enticingly clothed woman displayed. I really shouldn't have to tell you this since you already should be aware of this and how it works.

Yes, I have to admit that this has happened to me more than once while watching movies with children. Something that you thought was perfectly harmless suddenly has an immoral scene. Ironically, as an adult watching with children, you feel more or less the same embarrassment as you did when the same thing happened when you were a kid watching something with your parents.

Then there is the question of whether you should hope that it passes in a flash without making a big deal and drawing attention to it, or whether you should leap up and stop the movie.

British mystery dramas, for example, have a tendency to insert just a few seconds of immodest material into each episode of something that seemed like it would be harmless like "Miss Marple." In those cases by the time you had tried to fast-forward the scene is already gone.

But one time we were planning to watch a very famous cowboy mini-series that had received rave reviews and never had any implication that it was obscene. Turns out there was just one bad scene after another. At first I thought "This is just a short anomaly and will quickly pass." But then I realized that the whole series was nothing but smut, and that I had been completely wrong about the whole thing from the beginning.

Experience and being honest about the result is the one of the best teachers in life, I believe. We all learn from our mistakes, and by experience we know and learn what changes we need to make in our lives.

Jerome, I'm a woman. It would be unnatural for me to be tempted by these things, even if I consented to seeing them (which I don't).

I agree you should not be tempted by women. But does that make any difference? If it is immodest and offensive to God and our neighbor, it is still immodest, offensive etc. and should be rejected.

Actually, scientific studies have shown that this is not true. Both men and women are sexually stimulated by seeing naked women. It's not because they're lesbians, but just because the bodies of both men and women are designed to be triggered this way.

The best-selling book of all time, which is still in the process of making hundreds of millions of dollars for its author, is pornography for women.

Excellent point. I did not consider that, although I could have believed it was true, which is why I said "should". I think one can have a reaction to any naked bodies, whether men or women, even if not homosexual or lustful. People are always affected differently. That is how our bodies work, as you said, and believe this is the case.

In fact, some saints and holy fathers did not even like to see themselves naked! I can totally understand that.

But women in general do not get affected as much as men does from such things in either case. I read somewhere someone making an allegory between the differences of men and women in this regard, with the example of a light-bulb turning on, and with an iron being heated up slowly.

That is why it is so important for women to dress modestly since the effect on men are more immediate then what they perhaps understand.

I want to make this point clear: The only problem with media is not the lasciviousness. Remember, Alphonsus condemned or disapproved even books that were not obscene in itself, and he told parents to forbid children read them on the mere fact that "they put fantastical notions and affections into young persons heads, which destroy all devotion, and afterwards impel them to give themselves up to sin".

Yes, this is a good point. You could think about Harry Potter. There is no sexual immorality. But it certainly puts "fantastical notions into young persons' heads." I was at the airport and talking to the people waiting in line with me. There was a woman and her daughter who was a high-school senior visiting colleges. She was visiting this college in Memphis because it was reputed to be the "most like Hogwarts" in the US. Although as it turns out, there is a big on-line fight between this college and another college also in Tennessee over which one is truly the most like Hogwarts. Young people were completely captivated by Harry Potter in a way that's hard to imagine.

That is why I recommend everyone to give up this kind of media completely. As I wrote in another thread:

Rather than telling us what NOT to do why not constructively, suggest new forms of media, films, documentaries, audio we can access without threatening our souls.

I have already said my opinion concerning this.

Download anything you want to watch on the internet and listen to it in mp3 instead. This is a good video to mp3 site*: http://convert2mp3.net/en/

If you download video files with desktop programs (none of which I will recommend, since they show the thumbnail of the film link you insert**), or watch dvd films etc., use VLC player for video files and disable video screen in settings. This means you can only hear the audio if you do this. Here you can download VLC player*: https://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

*As always, when I give links, it is presupposed that you will visit them without images on since I don't encourage or approve of dangerous website surfing.

**One solution is to drag the parts of the program outside of the screen, so that the video thumbnails won't be visible when adding the link for download. Provided the users use this solution, I will recommend the following excellent video & audio downloader, and desktop converter program (all in one program so to speak):

http://www.any-video-converter.com/products/for_video_free/

Note: After installation, enter settings (gear icon), go to "online video". On the "Select Format" header, click or check the "Manually Select" box so that you can choose what quality of the video you can download yourself, and so that you can download only the audio file if you desire to do that also (one can get both from youtube).

Woah...  feminists "invented" " the media"

I guess the movement's older than  we thought!!

[Jerome]

Woah...  feminists "invented" " the media"

I guess the movement's older than  we thought!!

Hi

I meant to say media created feminism. My words already said this, but perhaps not as clearly as it could have been written.

[Heinrich]

I put Jerome on ignore.  I can finally read this thread.

I used to enjoy this thread.  It was nice to be told about a film I hadn't watched and discuss it and occasionally make recommendations myself.  Yes, I'm sure there are some scenes with unsuitable bits just like there is dogshit on the pavement that I try to avoid stepping it.

Then Jerome came along and sucked all the JOY out of it.

Apologies to all of you who will now be lambasted with pages and pages of quotes from the Church Fathers and St. John Chrysostom.  Fortunately, I will no longer have to read through all the BS.

YES!

Wait, what?

[Lynne]

I put Jerome on ignore.  I can finally read this thread.

I used to enjoy this thread.  It was nice to be told about a film I hadn't watched and discuss it and occasionally make recommendations myself.  Yes, I'm sure there are some scenes with unsuitable bits just like there is dogshit on the pavement that I try to avoid stepping it.

Then Jerome came along and sucked all the JOY out of it.

Apologies to all of you who will now be lambasted with pages and pages of quotes from the Church Fathers and St. John Chrysostom.  Fortunately, I will no longer have to read through all the BS.

In case others want to know how to put someone on ignore.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8095.0

[piabee]

Not sure if you will see this

He won't.

[red solo cup]

The Siege of Jadotville. Nothing to write home about though there was no nudity, not even a bared ankle. There was a chaste kiss between married Irish Catholics so some here may want to beware.

[Bernadette]

I tried to watch Home From Home, a black and white German movie, about village life in the 1840s. I had hoped that it would be similar to Tree of Wooden Clogs, but it was just so slow that I had to give it up. I'll watch Babette's Feast instead. Love that movie.

[ResRev]

So who has seen Hacksaw Ridge?

Just got home from the movie. Excellent! Saving Private Ryan had to be topped, I suppose, so the battle scenes turned it up a few notches. Made me think a lot of my father who grew up in the Viginia mountains and served in WWII.

[red solo cup]

The Infiltrator with Bryan Cranston. Meh.