Last movie you saw?

[Jerome]

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.

Hi

I tried to be very calm and gentle in my above post.

I hope the information will be of help to someone. That is what matters, ultimately.

[Chestertonian]

st jrrome you know wrath is a mortal sin right?

You wouldn't want to be a near occasion of wrath for others.  With your logic it's thoroughly necessary to put you on ignore because your posts are a temptation to rage

Everyone must be equally given to rage as I am, if you're never tempted to wrath then the devil has hos hold on you

[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.

[Jerome]

st jrrome you know wrath is a mortal sin right?

You wouldn't want to be a near occasion of wrath for others.  With your logic it's thoroughly necessary to put you on ignore because your posts are a temptation to rage

Everyone must be equally given to rage as I am, if you're never tempted to wrath then the devil has hos hold on you

Unjustified wrath, or wrath lacking all charity, is a mortal sin.

I can assure you that I get wrath when people promote impieties and lasciviousness.

Every word I write I have tried to back up with some traditional, biblical or saint teaching. I am very careful to quote numerous saints and Church teachings in support of everything I say. Yet you say you rage against it.

         "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

         "It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause." (Letter of the Congregation of the Council. Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress (Instruction, S. C. Conc.) AAS 22-26)

         "The animal's hide is like flint and must be assailed with hammer and fire. The hide denotes the show and simulation of justice. Wicked people, who do not want to be good, do desire to seem to be what they are not. Because they want to be called praiseworthy but not to live in a praiseworthy way, they make an outward show of holiness and feign justice, although they never give justice a thought. This is how they become so proud and hard as flint in their appearance of simulated holiness that they are not softened by rebukes or clear reasoning.
         "Accordingly, God's servant must use the hammer of harsh rebuke and the fire of divine prayer on such as these in order to convince the wicked with the word of truth and gradually soften them up from their hardness and warm them through their prayers and enkindle them with respect to knowledge of God and of themselves, just as Stephen did." (Our Lord speaking to St. Bridget, Book 4, Chapter 129)

[Jerome]

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.

I did not say it "only" apply to sexual sin. One can be fallen in many ways and hence the devil might not tempt a person in this way or that way in order that he might not stop with doing whatever he is doing that he should not be doing.

One thing is sure though, the less one exposes oneself, the more one will get affected by seeing even "lesser" immodesties. Similarly, the more one exposes oneself, the more hardened one will become (by having grown accustomed to it so to speak). But becoming "hardened" or "accustomed" to it, as we all know, is not actually a good thing, since it makes people become careless. Had they more temptations etc., they would obviously flee from those things like the "fire" that it really is and be hence more careful about themselves.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10), and "For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." (Hebrews 12:6)

Haydock Catholic Commentary on Hebrews 12: "In these last four verses we may observe as many subjects of consolation under afflictions. God, our Father, is the author of them; the chastisement he inflicts is the proof of his love; it is the sign or mark of our divine adoption; it is a necessary condition of our being adopted."

That is why not being punished in this life for one's sins by God is a sign of damnation, and why one must constantly fear if one wants to be saved. So if we are suffering much sicknesses and afflictions etc., this is a good sign and that we are not yet abandoned yet by God. But if we live in all pleasures and have no sufferings although we indulge in sin, this is a very bad sign.

The same is generally true for temptations, as the saint quotes already quoted showed.

St. Vianney: "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."

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.

You just admitted "unavoidable objectionable content... could happen... so suddenly that it's impossible to avoid... that would tempt one to serious sin".

But it seems you are downplaying the media very much, making it less dangerous than it is. As if nude women never just pop up without notice, womens breasts etc. lascivious clothed women, or worse.

Do you think I haven't watch the media my self? Even in religious movies and shows this is a problem. What then are one to say about the more secular movies and tv shows and even news (and magazines etc, internet surfing etc.)?

Either way, you admit it could happen and therefore that it does happen. You might say, however, that it is not a problem for you. But do you know it is not a problem for your neighbor, spouse, or children?

And do you really dare trust in your own strength and that you will not fall even though you willfully expose yourself?

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "The Almighty does not hear the supplications of the proud who trust in their own strength, but leaves them to their own weakness and misery, which, when they are abandoned by divine grace, will infallibly lead them to perdition." (Short Treatise on Prayer, Chapter IV)

What does the bible, the saints and reason tell us concerning exposing oneself? Let's see:

"He that loves danger shall perish in it." (Ecclus. 3.27) "When," says St. Thomas, in his comment on this passage, "we expose ourselves to danger, God abandons us in it." St. Bernardine of Siena teaches that the counsel of avoiding the occasions of sin is the best of all counsel, and as it were the foundation of religion.  (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Ascetical Works, Volume XVI, pp. 152-173)

"The Holy Ghost reminds us that he who loves the danger will fall into sin, will perish; 'He that loveth danger shall perish in it.' [Eccl. 3:26] St. Thomas explains to us the reason; commenting on this text, he says that when we voluntarily expose ourselves to danger, or when we neglect to keep from it, God abandons us in it. And St. Bernardine of Sienna assures us that among the counsels of Jesus Christ the counsel of fleeing from the occasion of sin is the most important, is, as it were, the foundation of religion. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Complete Ascetical Works, par. 4. The Flight from Dangerous Occasions)

[Bernadette]

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.

I did not say it "only" apply to sexual sin. One can be fallen in many ways and hence the devil might not tempt a person in this way or that way in order that he might not stop with doing whatever he is doing that he should not be doing.

One thing is sure though, the less one exposes oneself, the more one will get affected by seeing even "lesser" immodesties. Similarly, the more one exposes oneself, the more hardened one will become (by having grown accustomed to it so to speak). But becoming "hardened" or "accustomed" to it, as we all know, is not actually a good thing, since it makes people become careless. Had they more temptations etc., they would obviously flee from those things like the "fire" that it really is and be hence more careful about themselves.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10), and "For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." (Hebrews 12:6)

Haydock Catholic Commentary on Hebrews 12: "In these last four verses we may observe as many subjects of consolation under afflictions. God, our Father, is the author of them; the chastisement he inflicts is the proof of his love; it is the sign or mark of our divine adoption; it is a necessary condition of our being adopted."

That is why not being punished in this life for one's sins by God is a sign of damnation, and why one must constantly fear if one wants to be saved. So if we are suffering much sicknesses and afflictions etc., this is a good sign and that we are not yet abandoned yet by God. But if we live in all pleasures and have no sufferings although we indulge in sin, this is a very bad sign.

The same is generally true for temptations, as the saint quotes already quoted showed.

St. Vianney: "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."

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.

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.

You just admitted "unavoidable objectionable content... could happen... so suddenly that it's impossible to avoid... that would tempt one to serious sin".

This is just...laughable. Cherry-picking my words and stringing them together by relying on elipses so that they say what you want them to say is not a convincing counterargument. You do yourself a serious disservice by doing this, and place your own credibility in question.

But it seems you are downplaying the media very much, making it less dangerous than it is. As if nude women never just pop up without notice, womens breasts etc. lascivious clothed women, or worse.

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).

Do you think I haven't watch the media my self? Even in religious movies and shows this is a problem. What then are one to say about the more secular movies and tv shows and even news (and magazines etc, internet surfing etc.)?

Either way, you admit it could happen and therefore that it does happen. You might say, however, that it is not a problem for you. But do you know it is not a problem for your neighbor, spouse, or children?

No, that's not the logical conclusion for saying that something could happen. And I'm not married, and thus have no children. As for others: I have never promoted just watching objectionable content without taking reasonable precautions to avoid it. You are trying to apply your own interpretation of what is strictly necessary to everyone, and that's just not correct. You go the extra mile in order to avoid these things which are an occasion of sin for you, which is right and commendable; but why should other people have to take the same extra precautions, when they're not necessary for them?

And do you really dare trust in your own strength and that you will not fall even though you willfully expose yourself?

See reply above. With regard to these sins, I would have to actually go against my personal aversion to such things, in order to be tempted by them. Hence my conviction that all people aren't tempted to the same sins, to the same degree.

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "The Almighty does not hear the supplications of the proud who trust in their own strength, but leaves them to their own weakness and misery, which, when they are abandoned by divine grace, will infallibly lead them to perdition." (Short Treatise on Prayer, Chapter IV)

What does the bible, the saints and reason tell us concerning exposing oneself? Let's see:

"He that loves danger shall perish in it." (Ecclus. 3.27) "When," says St. Thomas, in his comment on this passage, "we expose ourselves to danger, God abandons us in it." St. Bernardine of Siena teaches that the counsel of avoiding the occasions of sin is the best of all counsel, and as it were the foundation of religion.  (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Ascetical Works, Volume XVI, pp. 152-173)

"The Holy Ghost reminds us that he who loves the danger will fall into sin, will perish; 'He that loveth danger shall perish in it.' [Eccl. 3:26] St. Thomas explains to us the reason; commenting on this text, he says that when we voluntarily expose ourselves to danger, or when we neglect to keep from it, God abandons us in it. And St. Bernardine of Sienna assures us that among the counsels of Jesus Christ the counsel of fleeing from the occasion of sin is the most important, is, as it were, the foundation of religion. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Complete Ascetical Works, par. 4. The Flight from Dangerous Occasions)

But I don't "love the danger" here. To use an analogy: it's as though you are speaking of a particular highway, where accidents have occurred because drivers have been speeding and have run off the road at a particular curve. Most drivers are able to avoid this danger by not speeding: the road isn't dangerous for them. But you are saying that that is not enough, that in order to avoid the danger of having an accident on this highway, one must never, ever use the highway, although it is possible to use it safely by exercising reasonable caution.

[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.

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

[Chestertonian]

St. Vianney: "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."

lust isn't the only temptation out there though

some of us might be tempted to lust easily,and have to make special precautions to protect their soul.  they might have to avoid things ordinary people do not.  for example, surfing with imagees off might be necessary for certain people fighting off a porn addiction.  but many other people can exercise custody of the eyes,which is something you can develop over time...the ability to look away.  it's sort of like having a healthy "spiritual immune system" some people are indeed strong enough to look away, some people aren't, and it's important to be aware of your strengths and your weaknesses (or have a spiritual father who can coach you on these things

i'd say lust is prettty low on the list of sins i deal with.  it's ben difficult at other times in my life but...right now,not really an issue.  Temptation to gluttony is non existent   Does the fact that I'm not the slightest bit tempted to gluttony mean that thedevil has a hold on me?  no, it just means that   i have different temptations.  despair is a big one for me.  There were times I couldn't be left alone with a glass of water.  i've been suicidally depressedbefore and have had to take precautions to avoidcertain temptations but other people dont have to take such precautions because they dont struggle with the same types of sins i do.

i have a poor immune system so i have to limit my exposure to germs, i avoid crowds, i insist that people who come to visit use hand sanitizer and wash their hands, i ask people who visit me not to come if they're getting over a cold or stomach virus.  Other people have functioning immune systems and their bodies can fight all the viruses and bacteria that their bodies are exposed to every day.  THey can deal with being around crowds and shaking hands with strangers.   we all need to work at building up our own "spiritual immune system"

our lord said if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out

there are lots of things ive cut out of my own life because they were near occasions of various things.  i got off facebook because to me, it was a near occasion of envy.  i found myself scrolling down a long stream of friends and aquaintences and thinking to myself "God why do you always give me the short end of the stick when everyone else in my life are blessed with a constant stream of promotions, new babies, marital bliss, new jobs, new ten passenger vans, and trips to europe?  why did you give me a crappy life that sucks, and why is everyone else's life so awesome"  so i cut out facebook, havent gone back since.  bt you dont see me posting thread after thread, quoting saints who never lived in the time of facebook trying to convince others to give up facebook because it's a near occasion of envy, pride, narcissism, lust, and so on.  hey maybe some people here use facebook and get a lot out of it, and dont find it to be a near occasion of envy,narcissism etc

if your eye causes you to sin,you have to cut it out... figuratively speaking.  but our lord didnt say "and then cut your neighbor's eye out too, and convince people on internet forums that they too must cut their eye out"

[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.

But would that make it morally permissible to indulge in because of that? I already showed you what Alphonsus taught parents and people ought to do with even less harmful things. Since we are not angels yet but mere men, we ought to be as careful as we possibly can. Better safe than sorry; and those who take chances may or will fall eventually.

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.

That is why, when considered in this light and how media effects children, the media may be even more dangerous for them even if not immodest, as St. Alphonsus teaches:

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)

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.

You just admitted "unavoidable objectionable content... could happen... so suddenly that it's impossible to avoid... that would tempt one to serious sin".

This is just...laughable. Cherry-picking my words and stringing them together by relying on elipses so that they say what you want them to say is not a convincing counterargument. You do yourself a serious disservice by doing this, and place your own credibility in question.

If you read your own words in context, you will see that your words says exactly this. All I did was remove all the irrelevant insertions made by you to downplay it. You said:

"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."

Whether or not you want to see, you did admit above that it is and can be an occasion for grave sin for some.

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.

I already did give a few examples of the kind of scenes that was contained in the films people watch in another thread. It is absurd to think that there would be some kind warning or foreknowledge in the film before (to give just one example) the pornographic cover of a porn magazine with a woman enticingly exposing her breasts, was shown in the film. That is not how it works in the media. Almost all such scenes comes without warning or notice.

If you claim one can always know when the immodest scenes will occur, or that it is always the norm to be able to know when they will occur, then I don't think you are arguing honestly.

But it seems you are downplaying the media very much, making it less dangerous than it is. As if nude women never just pop up without notice, womens breasts etc. lascivious clothed women, or worse.

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. If we want to please ourselves more than pleasing God, then there is an issue of being divided.

Do you think I haven't watch the media my self? Even in religious movies and shows this is a problem. What then are one to say about the more secular movies and tv shows and even news (and magazines etc, internet surfing etc.)?

Either way, you admit it could happen and therefore that it does happen. You might say, however, that it is not a problem for you. But do you know it is not a problem for your neighbor, spouse, or children?

No, that's not the logical conclusion for saying that something could happen. And I'm not married, and thus have no children. As for others: I have never promoted just watching objectionable content without taking reasonable precautions to avoid it. You are trying to apply your own interpretation of what is strictly necessary to everyone, and that's just not correct. You go the extra mile in order to avoid these things which are an occasion of sin for you, which is right and commendable; but why should other people have to take the same extra precautions, when they're not necessary for them?

There might occur scenes that you do find occasions of sinning in the media. Men are not exactly modestly depicted in the media. No woman, just because the media is infinitely more dangerous to men, must believe herself beyond the possibility of falling when exposing herself to this completely unnecessary danger.

"Brother Roger, a Franciscan of singular purity, being once asked why he was so reserved in his intercourse with women, replied, that 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 Liguori, The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, Mortification of the Eyes, p. 221)

Surfing the internet without ad-blocks and image blocks I would say is an even greatest occasion of sinning to both men and women. For example, not long ago I read about a woman being tempted or disturbed after having followed the news link that someone stupidly* posted (I often say that no one must enter any such sites without adblocks or image blocks). Sure, if she used an adblock (or even an image blocker), she would not have seen this ad that disturbed her.

* I think it's stupid to post such kind of links since one ought to presume most people don't use adblocks or image blocks and hence that one would be giving others an occasion of sinning.

This is also the reason for why I made this thread:

Why people who visit immoral news sites with images on commit mortal sin

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "The Almighty does not hear the supplications of the proud who trust in their own strength, but leaves them to their own weakness and misery, which, when they are abandoned by divine grace, will infallibly lead them to perdition." (Short Treatise on Prayer, Chapter IV)

What does the bible, the saints and reason tell us concerning exposing oneself? Let's see:

"He that loves danger shall perish in it." (Ecclus. 3.27) "When," says St. Thomas, in his comment on this passage, "we expose ourselves to danger, God abandons us in it." St. Bernardine of Siena teaches that the counsel of avoiding the occasions of sin is the best of all counsel, and as it were the foundation of religion.  (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Ascetical Works, Volume XVI, pp. 152-173)

"The Holy Ghost reminds us that he who loves the danger will fall into sin, will perish; 'He that loveth danger shall perish in it.' [Eccl. 3:26] St. Thomas explains to us the reason; commenting on this text, he says that when we voluntarily expose ourselves to danger, or when we neglect to keep from it, God abandons us in it. And St. Bernardine of Sienna assures us that among the counsels of Jesus Christ the counsel of fleeing from the occasion of sin is the most important, is, as it were, the foundation of religion. (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Complete Ascetical Works, par. 4. The Flight from Dangerous Occasions)

But I don't "love the danger" here. To use an analogy: it's as though you are speaking of a particular highway, where accidents have occurred because drivers have been speeding and have run off the road at a particular curve. Most drivers are able to avoid this danger by not speeding: the road isn't dangerous for them. But you are saying that that is not enough, that in order to avoid the danger of having an accident on this highway, one must never, ever use the highway, although it is possible to use it safely by exercising reasonable caution.

Watching unnecessary media and driving on a highway* are entirely different things, not only in the level of danger, but also in the way of necessity. Being responsible and living an ordinary life is common to all and permitted, but exposing oneself to unnecessary occasions do not have the same permission before God and the Church.

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".

What is not good for children's spirituality, is not good for grown up men's spirituality.

I think this is a good example of modern day men, who seem to live in a dream world and in some sense seems to be separated from the spiritual reality that is common to all. Only by being seduced into living in another world or spiritual dimension could people have lost their sense of shame and modesty in how they dress, act and behave. In all the ages before the invention of motion media did people have a greater sense of public decency and public dress, and what was deemed modest and appropriate. Only in our modern age has this standard been completely flushed down the toilet.

54 years ago (1956), Elvis Presley had to be filmed above the waist up on a tv-show because of a hip-swiveling movement. Not that it was an acceptable performance (as even the secular tv-studio agreed with), since everything tending towards sensuality is an abomination, but still it serves to prove how much the decline in morality has come since then, when even the secular press deemed inappropriate what today would be looked upon as nothing. God allowed this deceit to be invented because of people's sins, especially for sins of the flesh. The media have such power that it preconditions peoples mind in such a way - since people look at TV as reality - that what was shameful yesterday will be the norm today! So if the media shows immodesty as norm, norm it will become!

St. Teresa even confessed that reading books which in themselves was not evil, was still a beginning of great harm and lukewarmness on her part. What then are one to say about evil media, evil video games and sinful stinking books? A person cannot do these things without becoming completely lukewarm and cold in the service of God exactly as it also happened to the glorious St. Theresa, for those who always seek after worldly things are in fact diminishing in the fervor of God!

The following quote further proving this point was taken from the Life of St. Teresa: "What I shall now speak of was, I believe, the beginning of great harm to me. I contracted a habit of reading books; and this little fault which I observed was the beginning of lukewarmness in my good desires, and the occasion of my falling away in other respects. I thought there was no harm in it when I wasted many hours night and day in so vain an occupation, even when I kept it a secret from my father. So completely was I mastered by this passion, that I thought I could never be happy without a new book."

Doesn't this sound familiar? Don't we all think as Teresa did, that we cannot be happy without our daily media, our evil movies and series, our bad video games or bad books? If the effect on this Saint was the start of a great spiritual harm, what then will it be for us, when what we do in comparison with her is infinitely more damaging and dangerous to our souls? How utterly stupid and foolish is it not to spend one's time reading bad worldly books, when one can spend time reading or listening to good Catholic books about virtue that would edify soul, mind and body?

* If we know that a certain highway was immodest because of advertisements, me may need to avoid it depending on circumstances. If one cannot take this occasion, then one must avoid it; the same if one do not want to expose one's children (which one must try to avoid as much as possible but sometimes it might be hard to do so since immodesties are everywhere). It would be good if parents taught their children to not to look out when driving through bad places.

[Maximilian]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful commentary Maximilian.

[martin88nyc]

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.

[piabee]

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.

[martin88nyc]

Just trying to tame the raging fire.

[Heinrich]

So who has seen Hacksaw Ridge?