Last movie you saw?

[Jerome]

Jerome, please see your PM. 

If you do not cease posting in this manner, you will be permanently banned. 

You said: "You are not teaching what the Church teaches."

If I do not teach what the Church teaches, as you said in the pm, then it means that the Church teaches the opposite of what I teaches, which means that the Church approves of watching lascivious and sinful movies, approves of putting oneself in the occasion of sinning, approves of giving scandal to others, approves of promoting and encouraging evil, etc.

I don't think anyone here really believes that; and in fact, we have already seen many agree with the points Iv'e made, although I'm sure some think I am too strict. Well, God is even stricter!

You want to silence me, that is obvious. But why?

We have many examples in the Bible also of people not wanting to be admonished. That is not a good sign.

[Bernadette]

"giving scandal to others" means leading others to commit sin. So someone would actually have to commit sin, as a result of this thread, in order for anyone posting in it to be guilty of giving scandal. Watching an R-rated movie and skipping past the objectionable content isn't an occasion of sin for everyone, across the board. As for God being strict, He knows men's hearts: their intentions, temptations, weaknesses; and He is perfectly just. He understands more about our culpability than we ourselves do. Consider St. Bernadette's definition of a sinner: "One who loves evil." Motivation, intention, and the movement of the will, Jerome, are all incredibly important in matters of morality that don't involve intrinsic evil.

[Kaesekopf]

Jerome, please see your PM. 

If you do not cease posting in this manner, you will be permanently banned. 

You said: "You are not teaching what the Church teaches."

If I do not teach what the Church teaches, as you said in the pm, then it means that the Church teaches the opposite of what I teaches, which means that the Church approves of watching lascivious and sinful movies, approves of putting oneself in the occasion of sinning, approves of giving scandal to others, approves of promoting and encouraging evil, etc.

I don't think anyone here really believes that; and in fact, we have already seen many agree with the points Iv'e made, although I'm sure some think I am too strict. Well, God is even stricter!

You want to silence me, that is obvious. But why?

We have many examples in the Bible also of people not wanting to be admonished. That is not a good sign.

This isnt a discussion, Jerome.  I am instructing you as to how you are to post on this forum.  If you dont like it, leave. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Kaesekopf]

No one has any interest in taking moral advice from some random layman on the Internet.  You are WHOLLY unqualified to render such advice, besides.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Bernadette]

No one has any interest in taking moral advice from some random layman on the Internet.  You are WHOLLY unqualified to render such advice, besides.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I really hope you're not talking to me!    Maybe I should delete my post?

[Kaesekopf]

No one has any interest in taking moral advice from some random layman on the Internet.  You are WHOLLY unqualified to render such advice, besides.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I really hope you're not talking to me!    Maybe I should delete my post?

To Jerome, not you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Maximilian]

No one has any interest in taking moral advice from some random layman on the Internet. 

I disagree. In fact, your statement more or less describes the raison d'etre of SD.

"From some random layman on the internet" is where I learned a lot more about the Catholic Faith than I ever did from the institutional church.

[Jerome]

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

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

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains Scandal thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

[piabee]

So is this then something that should be recommended to others or be written in a positive way as if it was anything good with it?

The majority of posts here are completely neutral; it's just what people have watched most recently. Few films are actively recommended. Carleendiane even returned to the thread once to revoke her recommendation after seeing a film, yet you still took offense at her post.

[JubilateDeo]

If you fast forward through something on Netflix you don't actually see the scene. 

[Jerome]

So is this then something that should be recommended to others or be written in a positive way as if it was anything good with it?

The majority of posts here are completely neutral; it's just what people have watched most recently. Few films are actively recommended. Carleendiane even returned to the thread once to revoke her recommendation after seeing a film, yet you still took offense at her post.

It seems you still do not understand the points. Perhaps you should read this thread:

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15694.0

And read what I just wrote again above more carefully. I think what I wrote and the teaching I presented was clear.

Thanks.


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

And the fact that this person took back his recommendation did not take away the fact that he exposed himself to it in the first place. That is also one of the points you seem to miss. I think I have been clear about what the Church teaches concerning doing things just like that, and we are not ignorant about how the media works today.

We must be responsible of our Souls that God gave us. He wants them back pure from us. If we fail in this, we have to account for it later.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

No Jerome.The Finest Hour(2016) is actually a clean movie. Very good. It shows human valor and courage to face impossible. You should watch this movie and find out for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2025690/

The Coast Guard makes a daring rescue attempt off the coast of Cape Cod after a pair of oil tankers are destroyed during a blizzard in 1952.

I don't believe Jerome was referring to this movie.  He's providing general words of caution for us.  All of us, even the best of trads, are vaccinated in the culture and have quite a high level of tolerance for immorality.  We've convinced ourselves that we can handle it / to be too strict is prudish.  Those, like Jerome, who have a higher level of Catholic consciousness are one percenters and walk the talk much better than I.  We really need to own up to our modernist bent in many areas. None of my confessors (traditional that is) have ever encouraged compromise in regard to Hollywood, yet I would still tempt fate, deciding for myself what was acceptable vs what the Church encourages for edification, let alone the state of my soul.

I appreciate the Jeromes who remind us to be ever vigilant.  I know I've made excuses for viewing something that crosses the line in language, humor or gratuitous violence if the "message" is good.  I try very hard to filter these now through Church guidelines, which means we view much less.

I realize Jerome's style is black and white, and some are put off by it, but I've not read anything contrary to Church teaching in his comments.  Of course I'm open to correction.

[JubilateDeo]

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

You seem very preoccupied with what other people are watching and doing. 

[JubilateDeo]

No Jerome.The Finest Hour(2016) is actually a clean movie. Very good. It shows human valor and courage to face impossible. You should watch this movie and find out for yourself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2025690/

The Coast Guard makes a daring rescue attempt off the coast of Cape Cod after a pair of oil tankers are destroyed during a blizzard in 1952.

I don't believe Jerome was referring to this movie.  He's providing general words of caution for us.  All of us, even the best of trads, are vaccinated in the culture and have quite a high level of tolerance for immorality.  We've convinced ourselves that we can handle it / to be too strict is prudish.  Those, like Jerome, who have a higher level of Catholic consciousness are one percenters and walk the talk much better than I.  We really need to own up to our modernist bent in many areas. None of my confessors (traditional that is) have ever encouraged compromise in regard to Hollywood, yet I would still tempt fate, deciding for myself what was acceptable vs what the Church encourages for edification, let alone the state of my soul.

I appreciate the Jeromes who remind us to be ever vigilant.  I know I've made excuses for viewing something that crosses the line in language, humor or gratuitous violence if the "message" is good.  I try very hard to filter these now through Church guidelines, which means we view much less.

I realize Jerome's style is black and white, and some are put off by it, but I've not read anything contrary to Church teaching in his comments.  Of course I'm open to correction.

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

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3436688.0

I can be edified when someone says "This is what our family does..." and explains what they do and why they do it, but it is another thing when people act as if they are on some high and mighty throne looking down on everyone else.  Notice that he doesn't participate in threads about anything else, it's just long posts lecturing people.

[Jerome]

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

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3436688.0

I can be edified when someone says "This is what our family does..." and explains what they do and why they do it, but it is another thing when people act as if they are on some high and mighty throne looking down on everyone else.  Notice that he doesn't participate in threads about anything else, it's just long posts lecturing people.

I take it that you don't agree.
Tell me, what Church teaching, saint etc. can you quote approving of watching or reading such kind of material that I, the saints and the Church's own teaching speak against and condemn?
That you just don't want to agree, will that excuse you, if you are wrong, you think?

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

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

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

        AAS 15-152; Holy Office, Monitum, 15 Mar, 1923
        Periodica, 12-33.
        From 'The Canon Law Digest'
        Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law
        1917-1933