Why the thread "Last movie you saw?" if filled with mortal sins

[YeOldeFustilarians]

Hi Jerome,

Before getting into your reply, I should just say that Greg made an excellent post.  I again iterate that I really think personal examples should be kept out of moral discussions (I don't think you should have exhorted Martin to share his, and I don't think that you should've shared your own) because as soon as that happens, people tend to defend themselves rather than discuss the issues.  But with the cat already out of the bag, Greg did an excellent an uncharacteristically unscathing job in his post.

To the content of your post:

My point was not that it will lead to any occasion of sinning necessarily for most people today (although it could for some, which is why it is unacceptable for all the reasons and quotes already mentioned), but rather that it is immodest and not good enough and that a man will or can have some reaction (whether sinful or not) because it is not modest (that is, one will notice it among all other images because really, it is not modest and stands out since it is suggestive). I would not even have bothered to say anything about it had it not been mentioned already since I cannot mention or spend time on "everything" that is objectionable or not good enough when the whole internet is filled with those objectionable things and there are infinitely worse things people do and expose themselves to that need to be dealt with first.

And my point is that your concept of modestly is almost fatally legalistic.  You take quotes from popes about two inches (or finger lengths or however one decides the "proper" measurement is to be exacted) below the neckline without regard for the fact that those guidelines apply to developed, human women-- because it is the body of a developed, human woman that tends to excite the passions in men.  Cartoons don't normally or in the general experience of men cause this.  They are capable of causing such excitement when they are constructed so obviously to do so, but otherwise they do not. 

Your own admission that you don't see it as an occasion of sin absolutely or generally while simultaneously contending that it is "immodest" proves that the bare legal standards for modesty, even transgressed, are not even an absolute/general occasion of sin.  And by pointing that out, I don't mean to de-emphasize the sort of vigilance that is required today in discerning media, but I DO mean to show that your own application of those standards leaves much room to be desired, and maybe you should be a bit more cautious before lecturing others about occasions of sin related to such specific materials until you have a better handle on them yourself.

(After having explained my self above so that there will be no misunderstanding of my meaning.) The Church's mind in the matter of paintings was declared by the Council of Trent. Everything which does not conform to this is condemned. That people nonetheless do not adhere to this standard and paint bad images, even religious, has nothing to do with it really, since people have free will and can choose to disobey God, disobey the Church, and do as they please. If all Catholics were virtues, most of them would not be condemned as Our Lord, Our Lady, and all the Fathers and Saints unanimously teach on the subject.

If it was not a problem with paintings and "beauty exciting to lust" plaguing the Church, the council of Trent would never have a need to speak about it.

The Council of Trent, On Immodest Images: "Moreover, in the... use of images... all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust..." (Session XXV, December 3rd and 4th, 1563)

The Renaissance, or what ever period this kind of nude art started to become more accepted (I think 1100 or a little further it exploded?), was really the beginning of the end times that finally will end in the final apostasy. When men in the Church (ecclesiastics and laymen) provoke God to anger, punishments will follow. What happened a little before and after this nude, lascivious and immoral art, started to become more and more accepted? This is only a partial list: The Great Schism (the "Orthodox" separating from the Church); Innumerable priests living in concubinage (resulting in the Church having to issue decrees against them and this vice and declaring priest must be chaste), and many priests and monks and nuns in general not living according to their rule and being completely worldly (and in some instances, one could not even find a single monk in the time of their singing and religious activities (as we can read innumerable revelations of by Our Lord in St. Bridget's revelations and I can show the chapters if people want to read the facts); The Great Western Schism (40 years or so without certainty who the real pope was); Notoriously Immoral Popes; The Protestant Reformation, etc. ad infinitum. This is what preceded and accompanied and followed the trend of the lascivious art (paintings and statues).

Jerome, are you a protestant convert?  You don't need to answer that.  I am asking because you are very keen on quoting primary sources, and it's laudable that you've taken the time to read them and try to apply them, but don't be so hasty as to consider yourself capable of being the sole arbiter and interpreter of how to apply them.  Consider your own limitations, and ask yourself how frequently you've consulted actual moralists and manuals of moral theology approbated by the Church to apply the principles that you are so keen to cite.

I really think that this is not emphasized enough; many have argued against you in this thread by using appeals to reason or personal experience, but you exhibit some type of unusual disdain or resistance for consulting the ordinary magisterium of the Church on these matters.  In the absence of accessible pastors today, we should consult works approved by the Church for the very purpose of teaching us how to understand her own canons and doctrines.

I personally find the Maria Lactans to be a wonderfully edifying image in all of its traditional manifestations.  I even think that the Maria Lactans of St. Bernard, which according to your standards should be reviled, is a wonderful image that represents so many mysteries of the faith: the humility of the virgin, and an allegory for the richness of the Church's doctrine, lactated, as it were, from the Church who is our mother; guiding, guarding, protecting and dispensing the deposit of faith from her bosom.  It is a unity of the human and the divine, just as our membership in the Church.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, published during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, even contains a favorable entry regarding its artist, Alonso Cano; there are no mentions of impropriety on his part for depicting St. Bernard nursing, at a distance, from the Blessed Virgin.  So, you need not rely on my personal opinion of such art; just look at the Church and see how she has treated it.

For me, I could say it "could" be an occasion of sin and evoke lust if I don't avoid it (as it "could" be for others also, which is why I don't approve of such kind of images)

OK, so avoid it.  Please.

And then identify that this occasion of sin for you does not extend to the rest of the human race, certainly not generally or absolutely.  You go on to quote St. Anthony Mary of Claret; edifying work, continue to consult it.  But the way that you are applying what you're learning is indiscriminate.  By your own admission you're a single, monastic/hermetic type.  And you are more sensitive to these things than married people, and that will ultimately hopefully lead to your sanctification.  Just be advised that most people are called to sanctification in other ways than incessant mortification.  Their duty of state simply doesn't allow for it. 

By way of conclusion, I'd like to once again distinguish my thoughts from those who've sought only to ridicule you, finding nothing but disdain for what you've written.  On the contrary, I think that the saints and popes from whom you've quoted have excellent advice.  My only protestation is at how you have begun to apply that advice and those provisions indiscriminately, as though it were the law of physics rather than the law of the moral order.  The moral order admits to a far more complex, nuanced, and relative application of its principles than for which you give it credit.

[Carleendiane]

Truly, we have worked very hard to exclude media entertainment from our lives. Jerome, I think it's the way you deliver and keep on banging. If people don't hear you the first time, they won't the next 10 times. I love the modesty of the saints, but I don't live in a cloister. I have 6 kids who are traditional sacramental Catholics. This didn't happen by itself. Grace and moral guidance. Disciplining the senses. All the senses is necessary. We did not do this my removing every shred of possibility of sin. There were times the kids had to make moral choices. Sometimes they had great victories, sometimes they fell. We provided an environment that allowed them to develope Catholic muscles, so later they could flex them in thought word and deed.

Opposition here is more about approach, than content, for the most part. Truth is glorious. And refreshing but no one wants to have it jammed down their throats. Small bites not shovels full. Your intent is good. But how you go about it could use some wisdom and prudence.

[Kaesekopf]

Jerome picked up a seven day ban for ignoring administration instructions to "cease this sort of posting." 

***To be more precise:  Jerome is not permitted to chastise or instruct others in the realm of moral theology (or advise on what may or may not be grave matter/mortal sin) on this forum, otherwise each transgression will result in a ban of increasing length.  He may also not judge another's soul, as has been his habit in his posts.  Laymen don't have the right to come onto this forum and dictate to others how to behave and act .***   

In addition, he should know that his thread titles should read "grave matter" as opposed to "mortal sins." 

[Ulrich Von Lichtenstein]

Bliksems, I arrived too late to post this picture...

[Kaesekopf]

You can see Princess Lollipop's bare shoulders and her feminine form with those leggings she has on.

How dare you post mortally sinful cartoon images. 

[Ulrich Von Lichtenstein]

Perhaps we need to find a version with the niqab? 

[Chestertonian]

Perhaps we need to find a version with the niqab? 

that's Kebab Land

[Bernadette]

Bliksems

This sounds so much funnier in Dutch than in English.

[Non Nobis]

You can see Princess Lollipop's bare shoulders and her feminine form with those leggings she has on.

How dare you post mortally sinful cartoon images.

Is it that funny?  This seems a little unkind; Jerome at least had good will and had some good points, although he took it too far.

(In any case, you should at least mark your post with /s so someone won't think you are breaking your own rules, and have seriously become super-Jerome (there I'm unkind to Jerome too)    )

[Kaesekopf]

You can see Princess Lollipop's bare shoulders and her feminine form with those leggings she has on.

How dare you post mortally sinful cartoon images.

Is it that funny?  This seems a little unkind; Jerome at least had good will and had some good points, although he took it way too far.

(In any case, you should at least mark your post with /s so someone won't think you are breaking your own rules, and have seriously become super-Jerome (there I'm unkind too)    )

I disagree he has/had good will.  I think part of his motivation was based out of pride.  Pure speculation, yes, and I am possibly wrong.  However, the way he went about posting did not seem rooted in charity and a love for neighbor (at least in some posts).

[Ulrich Von Lichtenstein]

Perhaps we need to find a version with the niqab? 

that's Kebab Land

You can see Princess Lollipop's bare shoulders and her feminine form with those leggings she has on.

How dare you post mortally sinful cartoon images.

Is it that funny?  This seems a little unkind; Jerome at least had good will and had some good points, although he took it too far.

(In any case, you should at least mark your post with /s so someone won't think you are breaking your own rules, and have seriously become super-Jerome (there I'm unkind to Jerome too)    )

[Carleendiane]

Perhaps we need to find a version with the niqab? 

Come have a cup of coffee with us in good morning thread. Michael Wilson, if he gets up early enough, makes a great cup of coffee. Bring some pastry. I love fruit fillings.

[Ulrich Von Lichtenstein]

Some advice to certain people in this thread, should you visit the Sisteen chapel on vacation don't look up....

Carleendiane I do not understand??

[Carleendiane]

Some advice to certain people in this thread, should you visit the Sisteen chapel on vacation don't look up....

Carleendiane I do not understand??

I started the "good morning" thread In Coffee Pot. So we say good mornings, make small talk, mostly me talking, and drink coffee of course mentioning our coffee. I really don't know if those that respond REALLY are drinking coffee, but I give the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, that's how we have coffee together, Ulrich. Oh, and I nominated you and Michael Wilson as moderators, on the moderator announcement thread.

[MundaCorMeum]

Some advice to certain people in this thread, should you visit the Sisteen chapel on vacation don't look up....

Carleendiane I do not understand??

I started the "good morning" thread In Coffee Pot. So we say good mornings, make small talk, mostly me talking, and drink coffee of course mentioning our coffee. I really don't know if those that respond REALLY are drinking coffee, but I give the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, that's how we have coffee together, Ulrich. Oh, and I nominated you and Michael Wilson as moderators, on the moderator announcement thread.

I, for one, a, definitely REALLY drinking coffee when I say my good mornings  . I like to stretch a cup of coffee for a nice, long while. I save my second cup for my mid-morning school break/pick me up