http://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/2021/07/millstones-on-road-i-be-yourself-message.html
This motivated me to give an answer to the question: "What should be the Traditionalist response to modern entertainment?" I will begin by showing a disturbing trend in adult movies; an indoctrination to the idea that there are no absolutes--not just moral absolutes---but absolutes of any kind whatsoever. It is the philosophy of postmodernism, which is the belief that there is no underlying objective reality or meaning to existence. Certainly, there are harmless movies not based in reality (e.g., the Spiderman franchise) in which we suspend our disbelief and allow ourselves to be entertained.
However, the films infected with postmodernism seek to have us suspend our beliefs, thereby giving in to lessons embedded within the motion picture's story that tell us how to behave, think, and even perceive reality. How many movie viewers find themselves hoping that a man commits adultery with the wife of his next door neighbor, that an embezzler will not get caught, and that a murderer will escape, because the plot of the movie makes circumstances such as to seemingly "turn bad deeds into good ones" based on the situation? Bye-bye objective morality. The people who cheer for the wrongdoing still (most likely) realize the action is always wrong, but how often can someone subject himself to such experiences with no effect on Faith and morals?
According to theologian Butler, whose exposition of Catholic principles regarding plays applies equally to movies, writes :
True drama [entertainment] considers the plights of man and treats them with sympathy and good taste. When it fails to do this, it is failing to mirror human life and thus failing in its purpose. The theater becomes part of the American way of life. Once one has acquired a love for the theater, he will return time and time again. No one will deny that the constant spectator will be influenced in some degree by the plays [movies] which he is continually viewing. "For it is impossible in the nature of things that the scenes exhibited there should not exert a powerful influence, good or bad, upon both actors and spectators." (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pg. 6).
Movies That FUSE Reality and Fantasy
(I wish to credit Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide [2017], and VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 2021 for summaries of movies and some movie dialogue. Also used was the Internet Movie Data Base---Introibo).
Postmodernism concludes that because movies cannot be about reality (since it teaches there is no underlying reality), it must be about itself. There are action/animation hybrids such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), Cool World (1992), and Monkeybone (2001), in which the protagonists knowingly and willingly interact with cartoon fantasy worlds which they understand are cartoon fantasy worlds. Hook (1991) is live action fantasy, wherein a lawyer "forgot" he was really Peter Pan, and Neverland is real; once more blurring the lines between what actually exists and what is imaginary.
The most popular example of fusing reality and fantasy is the movie that reignited interest in the horror genre--Scream (1996) and its sequels. Scream is a horror movie within a horror movie, a so-called meta-narrative. Writer Kevin Williamson has the characters talking about classic horror films such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, and Friday the 13th throughout the movie while similar things happen to them. They even speak of their world as a horror movie.
Scream's protagonist, Sidney Prescott, is called by the killer on the phone and he asks her why she doesn't watch horror movies. Sidney responds that they are all the same with a deranged killer going after some pretty girl who can't act and just screams a lot; when confronted by the killer, the girl in the horror flick doesn't run out the door, but runs up the stairs instead. Later, the killer comes after Sidney and the front door is locked so she can't go out, and she goes running up the stairs while screaming; just like a stereotypical horror movie. Later, Sidney tells her boyfriend, "But this is life. This isn't a movie." He answers, "Sure it is, Sid. It's all a movie. Life's one great big movie. Only you can't pick your genre." The film even recites "the rules of horror movies" that get played out in Scream.
The idea of a "story within a story" is hardly new. Shakespeare used it in his plays. The difference is in the postmodern view, the focus is on the story only as a story. There is no tangible metaphor that relates to the real world; meaning is only a construct of the human mind.
Movies That CONFUSE Reality and Fantasy
How can we know what is real? In postmodernism, we can't ever be certain. This is seen in movies such as The Sixth Sense (1999). The main character is a child psychologist named Malcolm (played by Bruce Willis). There is one problem: Malcolm is dead but thinks he is alive. (Now that's confusion!). He tries to help a young "psychic" child named Cole who claims, "I see dead people." After Malcolm helps Cole accept himself and his "gift," only then does he realize he's dead and only Cole could see and interact with him. I have met several members of the Vatican II sect who believe if someone dies quickly (like in an automobile crash/explosion), the person doesn't "realize he/she is dead" until they complete some task.
When I inquire as to how a disembodied soul could not go to Judgement or realize he's dead (let alone figure out the "task" they must allegedly perform), I was always met with a blank stare and a pregnant pause. The usual reply was they heard it from a "friend of a friend" kind of story. I spoke to these individuals after 1999 and the huge success that was The Sixth Sense. I don't think it's coincidental.
The movie that truly makes reality confusing is The Matrix (1999), and its sequels. It is based on the old philosophical "mind in a vat" epistemic problem in philosophy, i.e., how do you know that what you're perceiving is real and that you are not just a brain in a vat with a mad scientist manipulating you to have your sense impressions? Some people have actually interpreted The Matrix as some Christian allegory, which it is most certainly not. It incorporates many false ideologies about the nature of reality. The result should be obvious; we can never know about God (if He exists) or which religion, if any, is true.
The movie depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside a simulated reality, the Matrix, which intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source. When computer programmer, Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo" (an anagram for the "ONE"), uncovers the truth, he is drawn into a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix. (See https://prezi.com/ybxwvr21r9lz/the-matrix-and-postmodernism/). At one point, Anderson/Neo is given a choice to take a blue pill which will make him think the Matrix is reality, while the red pill will enable him to see reality as it is. He chooses the red pill, and a new term for realizing the truth, i.e., "red pilled" was born into American parlance.
Some claim The Matrix suggested a parallel between Neo and Christ as Neo is referred to throughout The Matrix trilogy as the One, that is, the chosen one, which also describes Christ—a messiah, sent to deliver salvation. The idea of a mere human being as The Christ is blasphemous, but that is not the message of the movie; it is actually based on Gnosticism and Buddhism. According to The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Gnosticism is:
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
(See https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm).
In The Matrix, the people need liberation from their illusions, not necessarily salvation. Neo is a liberator, not a savior. Gnostics believe that by learning about one’s self, one’s world, and one’s spiritual essence, one may reveal "divine sparks" of original spirit (God). At the end of The Matrix, Neo actually seems to glow, because knowledge of the self is the key to liberation and power. The most obvious and Buddhist theme can be found in the basic principle that, in the world of The Matrix, what most people think of as "reality" is a computer-generated simulation. This appears to align closely with the Buddhist doctrine that the world as we know it is maya, illusion, of which we must break out in order to achieve "enlightenment." Indeed, according to Buddhism, the biggest problem that faces humanity is our inability to see through this illusion. By presenting a patchwork of religious themes, The Matrix makes clear that reality is not objective, and all religions are equally useless.
What Constitutes Unfit Entertainment?
The answer of the Church on what makes a movie fit, or unfit, for watching was beautifully elucidated by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in his Address to the International Union of Theater Owners and Film Distributors, given October 28, 1955. All emphasis is mine.
Movies in Relation to Religion
The first: in the plot-films, is it permitted to take religious topics as subject-matter of plot-films? The answer is that there seems no reason why such topics should be, in general and on principle, excluded; the more so, since experience, tested in this type, has already given some good results in films whose content is strictly religious.
But further, when the theme is not expressly such, the ideal plot-film should not pass over the religious element. Indeed, it has been noted that even films morally above reproach can yet be spiritually harmful if they offer the spectator a world in which no sign is given of God or of men who believe in and worship Him, a world in which people live as though God did not exist. A brief moment in a film can sometimes be sufficient, a word on God, a thought directed towards Him, a sigh of confidence in Him, an appeal for divine help. The great majority of people believe in God, and in their lives religious feeling plays a considerable part. Nothing, then, is more natural and more suitable than for due account to be taken of this in films.
Films Representation of Evil
The second question about the content of the ideal film of action concerns the representation of evil: is it lawful to choose, and with what precautions must one treat, evil and scandal, which without doubt have such an important part in the lives of men? Surely human life would not be understood, at least in its great and momentous conflicts, if our eyes were closed to the faults which often cause these conflicts. Pride, unbounded ambition, lust for power, covetousness, infidelity, injustice, depravity -- such, unhappily, are the marks of the characters and actions of many, and history is bitterly interwoven with them. But it is one thing to know evil, and to seek from philosophy and religion its explanation and cure; quite another to make it an object of spectacle and amusement. Yet for many there is an irresistible fascination in giving artistic shape to wrongdoing, in describing its power and its growth, its open and hidden paths, and the conflicts it generates or by means of which it advances. One might say that for a basis of story and picture many know not where to look for artistic inspiration and dramatic interest except in the realm of evil, even if only as background for good, as shadow from which light may reflect more clearly. To this psychological attitude of many artists corresponds an analogous one in the spectators, about which We have spoken previously.
Now then, can the ideal film take such matter for its theme? The greatest poets and writers of all times and of all peoples have grappled with this hard and thorny theme, and will continue to do so in the future.
To such a question a negative answer is natural, whenever perversity and evil are presented for their own sakes; if the wrongdoing represented is at least in fact, approved; if it is described in stimulating, insidious or corrupting ways; if it is shown to those who are not capable of controlling and resisting it.
But when none of these causes for exclusion are present; when the struggle with evil, and even its temporary victory, serves, in relation to the whole, to a deeper understanding of life and its proper ordering, of self-control, of enlightenment and strengthening of judgement and action; then such matter can be chosen and inserted, as a part of the whole action of the film. The same criterion applies here that must rule any like artistic medium: novel, drama, tragedy, every literary work.
Even the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, faithful mirrors of real life, contain in their pages stories of evil, of its action and influence in the lives of individuals, as well as in families, and peoples...
Therefore the ideal film should flee from any form of apology, much less of glorification, of evil, and should show its condemnation through the entire course of the film and not merely at the end; frequently it would come too late, i.e. after the spectator is already beguiled and entrapped by evil promptings.
(See https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-xii_exh_25101955_ideal-film.html).
Theological and Practical Considerations
When trying to determine what you (and your family) will and will not watch, theologian Butler gives some considerations in addition to the sage guidance of Pope Pius XII:
If a movie portrays anything blasphemous or directly contrary to the Natural Law and/or Divine Positive Law, it must be shunned. Next, you must consider the occasion of sin, which is defined as any "person, place, or thing external to man, inclining him to sin." The occasion may be remote, when the danger of sinning is slight, and no sin is usually committed. The occasion is said to be proximate when the danger of sinning is grave and very often sin is committed.
The proximate occasion of sin is absolute when it would induce the generality of mankind to commit sin. It is relative if it is such an inducement to certain persons only.
Three principles must govern the person watching movies:
1. To expose oneself to the proximate occasion of mortal sin without sufficient reason is itself a mortal sin. If a man knows that a movie which shows scantily dressed women (however briefly) will cause him to sin against holy purity, he must avoid this movie and all movies like it.
2. The person who willing remains in the proximate danger of mortal sin chooses to sin. If something presents itself during a movie which could cause you to sin, you must leave the room, shut it off, or leave the theater. If you continue to watch you commit sin by choosing to remain in proximate danger of mortal sin.
3. One is never allowed to commit mortal sin for any reason, and God will always give us the grace to overcome it; a person must likewise take all reasonable means to avoid the occasion of such mortal sin. (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pgs. 111-113).
Having read my post thus far, it should be obvious why the postmodern movies are off-limits. I have also presented the correct principles and guidelines of the Church to apply in your life. What may be a proximate occasion of sin to one person, may not be such to another. What is morally acceptable for an adult will not necessarily be the same for a minor. Men and women will have different sensibilities. There is no way I can produce an exhaustive enumeration of movies. That used to be the job of many people in the Legion of Decency, long since disbanded by the Vatican II sect. You must learn to discern using said guidelines/principles of Holy Mother Church.
That being said, remember In Medio Stat Veritas--loosely translated as "the truth lies in the middle." Every single movie is not evil, and Traditionalists do themselves (and others who are potential converts) no favor when they condemn every film except the explicitly religious, such as the wonderful The Passion of The Christ. People will perceive our faith as "simplistic and overly rigid.” Here are some tips for having a healthy view of movies, in my opinion:
- Do not generalize every non-religious movie as worldly, and every depiction of sin as wrong without regard to context
- Do not claim all entertainment is a "waste of time." Entertainment is not intrinsically evil, and can be mentally/spiritually healthy
- Do not watch any film indiscriminately, without considering the subject matter and getting a synopsis. You will avoid having to leave or turn it off in most cases
- You should spend more time in prayer and spiritual reading than in watching secular movies
- Always ask yourself, "Is this movie against my faith and morals in any discernable way?"
Conclusion
You have to decide what you allow into your life. What goes into your mind will come out in your life. Watch movies that have a postmodern worldview, and you may begin to lean towards a relativistic attitude where there is no absolute reference point to decide between good and evil, true and false. I had to wince when a secretary in my office said she "binge-watched" the TV series Breaking Bad, and loved it. She was rooting for the main character ("protagonist" would be a meaningless appellation here) who was a science teacher turned drug dealer. How does cheering for such a grotesque character not have a negative impact on your sense of morals and decency? Keep inviting such evil in your home, and don't be surprised if one day you see something sinful and see it as "not that big of a deal.” You may even ask yourself, "Who am I to judge?"
I don't watch the movies you talk about in the post. In fact, I rarely watch a movie on TV or in the movies. I have watched films related to subjects that interest me like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Titanic". But the most emotional film I have seen is without a doubt The Passion of the Christ, which made me cry every time and even thinking about certain scenes. And yet, some say it is a violent or anti-Semitic film ... But current films and television series praise all kinds of evils such as sodomy. A good reason to boycott them and keep children away from them.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteI agree that the movie industry needs to be shaken up. If not, it will be NOTHING BUT GARBAGE in 10 years--just like the TV industry is doing.
God Bless,
---Introibo
And since I don't have children, they won't be exposed to all the junk produced by the film and television industry. But I would definitely make them watch The Passion of the Christ. I also saw Zeffirelli's film, although he was a sodomite commissioned by Montini, also a sodomite, to make a film on Our Lord. But nothing beats the Mel Gibson movie !
DeleteSimon,
Delete"The Passion of The Christ" is, in my opinion, the greatest movie of all time. I actually sat across from Mel Gibson at Midnight Mass in 1994, where he came to attend Fr. DePauw's Mass. He asked to speak to Father in private after Mass. The following Sunday, Fr. DePauw said he spoke to him for 30 minutes--and didn't know who he was as he didn't watch movies and only watched the news on TV.
He said Gibson had been inspired at Mass to "do something great for the Church." Ten years later, his movie came out. Let's hope Mel straightens his act out!
---Introibo
I don't know if Fr. DePauw watched The Passion of Christ. His feeling was correct because this is a great film !
DeleteWould it be a mortal sin to watch war movies that you know have cursing in it or which have gore that is so bad that it's a little too much? For example, I've been wanting to watch the movie Hacksaw Ridge but haven't done so because I know there is "mild" cursing in it based on the IMDB parents guide. At what point are we allowed to listen to cursing, swearing, blasphemy etc. or violence and gore before we should shut it off and not watch it? I liked The Patriot but would it be wrong to cheer for the father (Mel Gibson's character) who shot down and even mutilated the red coats in the famous scene where they get ready to kill his son after they had already killed his other son and burned his house down? For me the circumstance was just and he had every right to do it because it wasn't merely revenge, but war.
ReplyDeleteIn asking such questions about movies, I always wondered at what point should we not read or listen to what Bergolgio says? He no doubt blasphemes or says something nasty on a weekly basis, but if we don't know what he says or does we can't expose him or the Novus Ordo Church. Vatican II would have been on the index of forbidden books before Vatican II came out. In other words we as Catholics would not have been allowed to read any of it or what the modernist say like it was back in the day, but now is it not a different circumstance where it would be our duty to expose it and the only way of doing that is to know about it?
Lee
Lee,
Delete1. At what point are we allowed to listen to cursing, swearing, blasphemy etc. or violence and gore before we should shut it off and not watch it?
Ans. Blasphemy should never be tolerated, unless it happens once unexpectedly. Many people do not use terminology of bad language correctly, which is necessary to make proper decisions. According to theologian Jone, Profanity is the use of sacred names in anger against some creature (venial sin); blasphemy is the use of such names against God, or speaking in contempt of Him (mortal sin); abusive language, which is not a sin against the Second Commandment but may offend against charity or is a sin of anger (See "Moral Theology" [1961], pg 120). Most frequently heard in today's movies qualifies as abusive language (f-word, etc). Children should not be exposed to it. Adults can watch it, unless it might cause you to start using such language. If the foul language is pervasive (hearing it constantly as ordinary language) I would not watch, in my opinion. Used sparcely when a character is very angry, scared, etc. can be tolerated depending on the individual.
2. I liked The Patriot but would it be wrong to cheer for the father (Mel Gibson's character) who shot down and even mutilated the red coats in the famous scene where they get ready to kill his son after they had already killed his other son and burned his house down? For me the circumstance was just and he had every right to do it because it wasn't merely revenge, but war.
Ans. It would NOT be wrong for the reason you stated.
3. In other words we as Catholics would not have been allowed to read any of it or what the modernist say like it was back in the day, but now is it not a different circumstance where it would be our duty to expose it and the only way of doing that is to know about it?
Ans. Just as it is permissible for a doctor to look and read books that others shouldn't because it contains full nudity (he needs to diagnose or learn somethin to help others), it is permissible for us to hear the blasphemy in order to counter it and expose the false V2 sect.
God Bless,
---Introibo
But if you are tempted by what the Frankster says, send him down a tube.
DeleteDon't f forget about the existentialist movies, where the main character is a villain who is somehow justified in his deeds "bc experience": Breaking Bad, Dexter, Megamind, Joker, Cruella, Maleficent, Goodfellas. You know what I mean.
ReplyDeletePoni,
DeleteI understand what you mean, and I agree!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I wanted to know if the local patron saint feast is always a day of obligation
Delete@anon1:51
DeleteNo, it is not.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Inmho pretty much all “hero’s” in modern entertainment do what they do for bad reasons. Their motivations are primarily: vengeance, lust, greed, or some variant of Marxism. There is rarely found a protagonist whose story arc is driven by noble reasons.
ReplyDeleteHowever often movies will try to portrait nobility in their main characters by having them fight the bad guys in order to “help their friends” or “save their family” but these are usually superficial and the underlying main motivation of the character is usually selfish. They want to help their friends because of how the friend makes them feel, or because they feel the way their friend has been treated is a personal affront which can be remedied through retribution.
Case in point I recently rewatched Peter Jackson’s lord of the rings. As someone who as read the books I can say that Jackson consistently portraits the hero’s in the movies as far less virtuous and less noble minded than they are potrayed in the books. For instance the story is set against the backdrop of a global conflict between good and evil, whereby
However most conflict is framed in human terms of petty bickering, jealousies, and helping Frodo and the hobbits because they’re nice people. The movies really miss the idea that men can be motivated to do good for a higher purpose.
There is an interesting scene where Faramir is about to lead all his knights to their death because he wants to impress his father. (Not in the books of course) Gandalf confronts him and tells him he doesn’t have to throw his life away because his father will love him in the end. The scene is interesting because nobody cared at all about the greater stakes: defeating sauron (the main villain) or defending the city (killing off all your knights is a good way to loose a battle). Instead the scene is focused on the bad feelings between Faramir and his dad and the upcoming battle with tens of thousands of lives and the fate of middle earth are secondary to the characters.
Ironically the lord of the rings movies are considered to be wholesome and promote “good” values.
But all in all they employ the tactics of most all modern movies which is to make an emotional appeal to our lower nature.
The enemy is belligerent but he also very subtle, throw your tv in the trash.
Huh no i wont throw my tv in the trash just because of bad shows Ryan
DeleteI cancelled TV years ago. Don’t miss it at all.
DeleteThe medium is the message. Have you ever wondered why they do angle cuts literally every five seconds now a days? Or why half of all shots are close ups of the actors faces? It's not because it makes the show more entertaining.
DeleteRyan,
DeleteYou make many valid points. There are those like Tom who agree that we are better off without TV or movies. It may come to that. However, there are still some (ever decreasing) decent movies/shows at this point in time. It is not intrinsically evil, as Pope Pius XII proclaimed St. Clare of Assisi Patron Saint of television.
God Bless,
---Introibo
No introbio! Destroy it! Cast it into the fires from whence it was made!
DeleteBTW I am not against watching the occasional movie or show. If you really want to see a movie look it up online, I do every now and then.
But I encourage everyone to throw out their television, most of the programming tv does (that’s why they call television shows programming) is subliminally. It’s things most people can’t even pick up on. For instance ever notice the amount of frame cuts in a scene? Have you ever wondered why? It’s because it makes you more open to suggestion and programming. Visually jumping from one point of reference to another is unnatural and it is disorienting for the mind, it destroys your ability for focus, concentrate, it makes you a passive viewer rather than an actively thinking audience member. It makes you easily programmable, and you probably won’t even know it’s happening. That’s why things like frame cuts, music, and how the story narrative is framed are crucially important. People focus on the dialogue, but that’s usually always secondary because it’s what’s happening away from the dialogue where the real programming is taking place.
There’s a good interview with Charlotte Stokely where she talks about brainwashing. Basically before Pavlov it was discovered that’s it’s really really hard to change someone’s mind using traditional argumentative techniques. Well I should back up because the researches were all trying to convince people to become communists so….. anyways I progress. Basically they discovered that in order to get people to change their minds it was far easier to “rewire” the human brain. Overwealm it’s with stimuli, confuse it, disorient it, and while this was being done the brain should essentially be so overloaded that it would accept whatever message was being conveyed to it, by default.
This is the theory that TV programming/movies are based on, lots of frame cuts in scenes, lots of face close ups, commercial breaks, etc.
Now I don’t think TV has to be evil, it could be a good medium, but in its current form it’s like Sauron’s Ring.
I always felt there was something going on with the movies I watched. I perceived the messages tended to be Un-Catholic. Maybe that's why I barely enjoyed anything I watched.
DeleteI've been slacking badly lately and watching the Sopranos.
ReplyDelete2 yrs ago I wouldn't even have considered watching that trash.
God bless -Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteAt least you realize it is wrong, and can change your ways! You are not blind to the truth.
God Bless,
---Introibo
It's a similar sensation as to my thoughts when watching "The Godfather" (a putative 'classic' of American cinema) for the first time some years back: by the end of it, I was practically ranting to my parents that NONE of the characters portrayed therein were good people.
ReplyDeleteThe juxtaposition of the infant baptism near the end with Michael Corleone's execution of other Mafia leaders via hitmen was just the icing on the sacrilegious cake.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteSadly, the Internet Movie Data Base has "The Godfather" as the second most popular movie of all time, and "The Godfather Part II" as the third most popular movie of all time. And this in spite of the fact that none of the characters portrayed were good people. What a sad commentary on "entertainment" for most people today!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I sometimes wish there were still a Holy Office (is that the correct term?) that would list and give advice on books, films and plays, like it did before and at the time of Pius XII; of course, I know it is a useless wish since such an office, not being Catholic itself, would give bad advice to Catholics on what entertainments would be fit for viewing. So we are, unhappily, pretty much on our own these days.
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of some of the films of the 30's and 40's. Some of you movie buffs may have read that the moral content of some Hollywood productions was getting out of hand by 1935, for which the Hays Code was formulated around 1936 or '37 as a help for filmgoers to measure the "decency" of movies. The Hays committee had at least one Catholic prelate on it (that may have been Hays himself). It was pretty powerful and producers paid attention to their input because Catholic moviegoers seemed to. Studios started putting out pictures with moral "absolutes": for example, that malefactors must get their "due" in the end.
Interestingly, one movie in particular from that era, The Letter, based on the novel by W.Somerset Maugham, filmed in 1929 then remade in 1940, gave viewers first the pre-code version in which the Adulteress who murders her lover, was tried and found not guilty of her crime, escaping all just punishment except for her husband's spiteful refusal of the divorce she wanted. I guess the idea was that being forced to continue to live with the spouse you wronged was a fate worse than death. Such is the modernist mind.
The later, post-Hays version has the guilty woman being herself murdered after her acquittal. I thought that was simply poetic justice rather than due punishment under the law, as the Church would approve of; her revenge murder at the end was a scandal only somewhat mitigated by the killers' being apprehended at the scene.
Anyway I am trying to but can't seem to find, an old list of off-limits films, similar to the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.
At least in the Sixties, when movies started to become much bolder in content, we still had some parish priests who would name them and rail over them in the pulpit and warn Mass goers to stay away from them if they valued their souls! I know because I heard those sermons and appreciated the warnings
Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteThe U.S. Vatican II sect "bishops" for a short time put out a list of movies which were rated from very good to "morally objectionable." When I saw the sacrilegious movie "Dogma" (which blasphemes God repeatedly) given a good rating, I threw the booklet in the trash. They stopped doing even the pretense of caring about good morals by shutting that down too.
If any of my readers knows of a listing concerning good moral guidance as to the content of recent movies, please send a comment here so I may share that information.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The TV just like the Internet can be used by others for good or bad. I won't throw my TV out because some other people choose to use it for bad as there is a lot of good on it. Just need to pick and choose wisely. The same for the Internet. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteI agree. Sadly, the good content gets less and less with each passing year.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'm in agreement with JoAnn on this one. I'm not against people not having a TV, but to say throw it away completely is unreasonable. Might as well throw your smart phone, computer/tablet, or any other electronic device away, if you are going to go by that logic. They all have access to all sorts of garbage as well. It's pretty simple: Don't watch, listen, or read anything that is potentially sinful.
DeleteI know a lady who doesn't have a TV (which is fine) and says it's wrong on so many levels, but who has blasphemous art (literally) hanging up in her house along with books that deserve to be burned.
One problem today is the excessive addiction of playing of video games by youngsters and sadly by men (mostly) in there 30's and 40's. While there is nothing wrong with playing certain games, most of the stuff I see people playing today is complete garbage. What's really sick is how the violent ones actively train the mind to commit crime while you are in control as your in the game. It's really a shame that those kind of games aren't banned altogether.
Lee
I'm in agreement with JoAnn too.
DeleteThough there is plenty of objectionable content on TV, there are decent and interesting things to choose from, too, especially if you subscribe to less expensive broadcast platforms. I found channels that take you around the world to castles, islands, beaches, undersea worlds - beautifully videoed and well narrated; and when my radio reception is poor, I can get classical music, pop standards, and holiday classics from the Music Channel. It's really not all bad - we and our grandkids enjoy the old "Leave It To Beaver" series, which is about the importance of the nuclear family, good parenting, and honoring parents in return.
All is not lost, Ryan. If you chose to ditch TV, I definitely respect your choice and there is merit to it. But it isn't strictly necessary. I trust if Pope Pius declared St. Clare the patroness of media, as Intro pointed out, then asking for her guidance can be a big help in steering in the proper use of it (which, again, can be not using it at all - it depends on individual circumstances).
Jannie
Lee and Janine,
DeleteI agree. If people want the TV gone like Ryan, there's nothing wrong with that. However, I disagree that it is a moral duty. I, too, respect Ryan's choice and he should follow his conscience, but I'm unwilling to promote the idea you can't have a TV. Fr. DePauw had a TV and only used it to watch the news and weather. Fr. Scott of the SSPX went so far as to accuse Father of "mortal sin." An enraged Fr. DePauw gave a sermon the following Sunday of how the SSPX priest would never have passed his Moral Theology class which he taught at St. Mary's Major Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore from 1955-1962. (He was also an approved pre-V2 canonist!). I wish I had a recording of that sermon to transcribe!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Fr.Scott is now unofficially with the Novus Ordo and has "jurisdiction" from false Pope Jorge Bergoglio.
DeleteFr.Depauw was 100% correct.
Bp.Lefebvre wouldn't want anything to do witb SSPX 2021.
-Andrew
I once tried to make up a list of truthful movies that could be watched with pure hearts and eyes. The list is included in the article:
ReplyDeletehttp://wirtualnewydawnictwowiwo.blogspot.com/2016/08/im-zy-film-lepiej-zrobiony-tym-gorszy.html
The article is in Polish as I am Polish. In Xpo
P.Antoniewicz
@anon4:13
DeleteAs I do not read Polish, I cannot recommend your listing. However, I ask Joanna From Poland, one of my guest posters, to read it and give her feedback here if she has time.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Btw John Daly beautifully amd convincingly explained here
ReplyDeletehttps://romeward.com/articles/239750087/the-priests-the-witch-and-the-wardrobe
why productions such as Gibson's Passion of Christ may not be such aa good, traditionally-oriented idea
He does defend allegory, broadly speaking, quite well, but Narnia is more than an allegory. It is literally fan fiction with Jesus Christ.
DeleteJohn S. Daly is a a child abusing scumbag. Years ago he partnered up with another scumbag named N. Martin Gwynne and they did a lot of damage to people i know personally. I think your readers deserve to hear this since your same readers refer to Daly as good resource. He is not a good resource but instead should be brought up on child abuse charges with his partner in crime Gwynne, who fled to another country to escape them.
Deleteanon@8:07
DeleteI don't know if what you're saying is true, but how does that make his writings bad? He's one of the best sedevacantist writers.
Why aren't you bringing up charges then for that big accusation?
Delete@anon8:07
DeleteYou wrote:
"John S. Daly is a a child abusing scumbag."
I NEVER heard such a charge leveled against Mr. Daly. Unless you have STRONG EVIDENCE WHICH YOU CAN PROVIDE, I must delete your comment as unsubstantiated calumny.
---Introibo
All the bad stuff happening and you have to bring an accusation you do nothing to prove. If what you say is TRUE, publishing anonymous accusations without evidence isn't helping to bring justice. If what you say is FALSE, then shut up, go to confession, and apologize, because you are acting like a scumbag.
Deletestill no evidence...
DeleteFor Polish readers: a fragment of the aforementioned Daly's article is available here:
ReplyDeletehttp://wiwopowiwo.blogspot.com/2019/05/john-s-daly-ksieza-czarownica-i-stara.html
P.Antoniewicz
Hi introibo,
ReplyDeleteI've never particularly liked movies in general for all (in regard to non-religious movies) the (in your words) abusive language, profanity, and blasphemy, and fornication that's hard (at least for me) to anticipate and avoid beforehand. Being the youngster that I am, I had also been swept away by the anime industry before I became sede. One of the appeals that it had on me was that there was rarely ever abusive language (and certainly hardly ever blasphemy or profanity) in the genres that I enjoy (slice of life and romance) along with the fact that Japanese culture is generally more traditional and the anime I saw were usually idealistic (escapes from reality, I suppose *sigh*).
However, it can't go without mentioning, that one the greatest downsides that plagues the industry and potentially makes it impermissible to watch (what I'm looking for input on) is the fan service. Frequently, straying from the main plot, there will be certain episodes or scenes centered around fan service (so-called "beach episodes", "bathing scenes", etc.) that, of course, are of a sexual nature. Though I rarely watch anime anymore since it's so hard to find anything decent, from time to time (looking of course, in genres that are not centered around such fan service-y or ecchi scenes), I'll encounter something that's pretty innocent, but occasionally contains a fan service-y scene which I'll quickly skip (I've gotten to the point where I can anticipate most of them and skip before the transition, though if the transition to these scenes is abrupt, I just pause and quickly skip and move on). My question (since I could always be desensitized and biased) is whether or not watching anime in general is probably impermissible for me given the above mentioned information even if I can anticipate and skip the worse-off scenes.
Thanks,
Dapouf
Dapouf,
DeleteThe tone of your comment seems to answer that you cannot watch it. You admit that you COULD ALWAY BE DESENSITIZED AND BIASED. This means it influences you, or at the least there is a clear and present danger of such. I know immediately if something will not bother me and those things that will--or have the potential of such. You're better off staying away in my opinion.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I meant the "could always be desensitized and biased" part as a justification to my inquiry in that since I had been watching these shows since before I had Catholic standards, I acknowledged that there was a possibility that what I was watching was bad without realizing it since I was already used to it and, as such, wanted an outside opinion.
DeleteBut that does answer my question, thanks!
God bless,
Dapouf
Apart from the rest of the article the list itself reads:
ReplyDeleteCentochiodi (Ermanno Olmi)
Powrót (Andriej Zwiagincew)
Buster Keaton → szczególnie: Sherlock Jr., Three Ages
Charlie Chaplin → City Lights, Modern Times
Man For All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann)
Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood)
Insider (Michael Mann)
Collateral (Michael Mann)
Bella (Alejandro Gomez Monteverde) * UWAGA: zastanowienia domagałby się fakt zezwolenia na adoptowanie dziecka nieżonatemu mężczyźnie (szalenie sympatycznemu, jednemu z głównych bohaterów); czy naturalnym środowiskiem wzrastania dziecka nie powinna być rodzina?
Local Hero (Bill Forsythe)
Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton)
Straight Story (David Lynch)
Wag the Dog (Barry Levinson)
October Baby (Andrew Erwin & Jon Erwin) * UWAGA: występująca w filmie Shari Wiedmann, która naprawdę zamordowała swoje nienarodzone dziecko, wypowiada się bodaj podczas napisów końcowych. Opowiada o swoim doświadczeniu z planu. Mówi, że w pewnej chwili poczuła, że "Bóg jest z nią", że następuje "całkowite uzdrowienie", że w konkretnym momencie odczuwa, że Pan Bóg mówi do niej: "Twój grzech został wybaczony". To koncepcja protestancka, opierająca się o subiektywne odczucie konkretnego człowieka. Wedle teologii katolickiej do tego, aby Bóg wybaczył czyjś grzech, potrzeba (poza sytuacjami wyjątkowymi) ważnej sakramentalnej spowiedzi.
Dekalog X (Krzysztof Kieślowski)
The Founder (John Lee Hancock)
The Rookie (John Lee Hancock)
I Confess (Alfred Hitchcock)
Inception (Christopher Nolan)
High Noon (Fred Zinnemann)
P.Antoniewicz
P. Antoniewicz,
Deletenice to hear from a fellow sedevacantist from Poland!
I'm not familiar with most of the movies you listed. However, "I Confess" and "High Noon" are great 50s classics. "City Lights" and "Modern Times" are indeed charming and wholesome silent pictures.
As for modern movies you listed, I remember watching "Collateral" with Jamie Foxx as the cab driver and Tom Cruise as the persuasive hitman on the run, and I wouldn't give it another try.
"Gran Torino" has some minor abusive language, plus the Novus OOrdo funeral speech by a young "priest" puts me off but it's not that bad overall.
I'm not that much into movies anymore but I used to be a real geek back in the day which meant watching all of the trash hailed as "masterpiece".
Now, I'm interested mostly in the classics that are on the safe-side, and the guidelines of the Legion of Decency come in real handy for me:
https://archive.org/details/motionpicturescl00nati/page/n9/mode/2up
As for newer ones, "Master and Commander" with Russell Crowe is a great movie for guys (no sappy romance, a manly tale od friendship, loyalty, and responsibility set against the backdrop of an adventurous sea voyage).
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for your feedback and the link!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It is not the TV that is the problem. The TV is a piece of hardware. The problem in our society today is selfish and self centered people who promote and abuse the TV for their own selfish gain and/or debauchery. I have never seen a generation of people such as we have today that seem to lack in ethics, integrity, morals and conscience. Even old fashioned reliability and dependability are difficult to find. It is difficult to find people who one can trust and that will do as they have promised. People are changing jobs from one week to another and can't seem to stick with a job even. It is disheartening to witness the vast and fast decay of society. I cringe to think what it will be like in another 10 yrs. God help us all!!
DeleteJoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteI couldn't agree more! It is for all the reasons you stated that I choose "old-fashioned" movies where men are courageous and responsible, and women are caring and feminine. A picture does speak a thousand words.
I've recently watched "The Wrong Man" (1956), directed by Hitchcock, with Henry Fonda playing a New York musician, husband and father whose life has been shattered by a wrongful accusation. Based on a true life story, the movie has a strong Catholic undertone. It's a totally safe and wholesome watch. The protagonist played by Fonda is the kind of true hero unheard of in modern movies: he's a calm, responsible,caring, devout husband and father, and a good Catholic. Truly, a pleasure to watch!
May God have mercy upon us!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
The Mission w Jeremy Irons has Catholic undertones and is safe.
DeleteIt showcases Catholic processions and Eucharistic adoration etc
-Andrew
Joanna,
DeleteMust watch "The Wrong Man". Thanks for sharing! Every morning I watch Leave It to Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show. I have seen most of them before but never tire of watching them again. The wholesome morals and family lives portrayed are a delight! Just hope the cancel culture doesn't cancel the shows.
JoAnn
JoAnn,
Deletethese good old shows are so comforting! Whenever I need a good laugh, I watch "I Love Lucy". Found it on the net for free here:
https://www3.watchserieshd.ru/series/i-love-lucy-kk6mv/n31pr1k
(caution! the pop-up ads on this site can be offensive!)
Also, I used to be quite fond of that 90s show with Jane Seymour "Doctor Quinn". It was a big hit back in the day in Poland, a Sunday afternoon must-watch. I re-watched the entire series a couple of years ago. However, its Protestant perspective can be troubling at times (the episode on Halloween, the one with a spiritualist seance, Darwin's evolution, false views on religion). Family values are strong, though.
Still, a much better option than "Miami Vice" that I used to be crazy about not so long ago.
Andrew,
thank you for mentioning "The Mission". I almost forgot I've been meaning to watch it.
God Bless,
Joanna S.
You're welcome.
Delete-A
Good advice from Cardinal Manning from his 1874 book Sin and its Consequences, chapter III Venial Sin:
ReplyDeleteThat which begins as a venial sin may easily end in mortal. There are two examples I would fain give if time would permit me. The one is theaters. I do not deny that theaters may be innocent—that to go to a theater may be lawful. I have been often asked during the long years of my duty in directing souls whether it is lawful to go to a theater. My answer has been always: If the representation is not bad in itself, I cannot forbid you. If you ask me what I advise, I say, without hesitation: Do not go. I cannot lay it upon you as a prohibition. This, I know, will sound rigorous; nevertheless, it is the better choice; it is the more excellent way. I do not say it is the way of obligation. The Apostle says, "All things to me are lawful, but all things are not expedient"(1 Cor . 6:12); therefore I distinguish and say: Those things which are lawful I cannot forbid; but those things, though not forbidden, I counsel you with all my heart to renounce. As to theaters, there may be, indeed, innocent representations; but I ask your own consciences, look over the representations which in a country, as I say, not far off, during this last winter, have been described to us by eye-witnesses. No man who has a pure heart, no man whose face is susceptible of the noblest and manliest suffusion, of a blush, could, if he remember himself, set his foot in any theater where such a representation is to be seen — I will not say no woman; I leave that to yourselves. As to our own theaters, I thank God it is not often they are openly and publicly stained. Such things happen sometimes. Such scandals are imported among us: it is not only English dramas that are presented to us. I leave the whole of this to your own consciences, saying only that I would to God that those who can refrain from such things, as an offering to our Divine Redeemer, would refrain forever. When people say, "It does me no harm," I say to myself, "You do not know what harm it does you. You are not conscious how much has been taken off from the bloom of your mind, or from the clear purity of your eye and heart, by what you have seen, heard, and been conscious of, even though it has neither met the ear nor the eye.”
It goes without saying that even the worst shows offered in theaters during his time are not even a pale shadow of the vile filth modern productions of every kind spew forth on a daily basis.
Pauper Peccator
Pauper Peccator,
DeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree that "even the worst shows offered in theaters during his time are not even a pale shadow of the vile filth modern productions of every kind spew forth on a daily basis." It is getting worse.
Cardinal Manning says almost the same message I do:
It is lawful to watch movies ("theater") and cannot be prohibited since it is lawful in itself. Unless people know EXACTLY what content they are watching (and what would put them in the occasion of sin), they should stay away. Unlike the Cardinal I disagree it should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be avoided as he suggests. Then Traditionalists would have to become Luddites. Out with the Internet too--which would include this very blog under the wholesale condemnation.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Speaking of good movies, I've just found the subtitled (in English!) version of the only feature film made about St. Pius X "Gli uomini non guardano il cielo" (orig. Italian) in 1952. To the best of my knowledge, it's a real rarity.
ReplyDeleteCan't think of a better way to conclude the feast day of the great Pope St. Pius X!
The link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGD6sD0Fpgw
Pope St. Pius X, Hammer of modernists, pray for us!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Joanna,
DeleteSomething very worth while for all of us to watch! Thank you so much for the link!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Also, The Reluctant Saint is a great film, from what I remember.
DeletePoni,
Deletegotta watch this movie on St. Joseph of Cupertino. Thank you for the suggestion!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
I request for prayers because I am in the process of healing from a mental health problem and I also require prayers for three friends of mine.
ReplyDelete@anon9:58
DeleteI will indeed pray for your friends and you, and remember you all at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my friend. I also ask my readers to please do the same.
God Bless you especially in your time of need,
---Introibo
I'm keeping you and your friends in my prayers, Anonymous.
DeleteGod Bless You and Our Lady protect you,
Joanna S.
Worked out perfectly. Thanks for the prayers
DeleteYour opinion on Fr.Montague Summers?
ReplyDelete-Andrew
Andrew,
Deleteto my mind, he's definitely someone to stay away from! Obsessed with the occult, acquainted with the Satanist Aleister Crowley (sic!), his alleged piety (wrote books on Saints' lives) must have been a cover for his diabolical writings on witchcraft and demons. Curiosity is the first step to hell, as we say in Poland. This wicked man (probably not a priest after all) must've lured many souls into damnation who wanted merely to "know some more".
As for us Catholics, we should be constantly reminding ourselves of our baptismal vows and invoke the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Joseph, the Terror of demons.
God Bless,
Joanna S.
I've read the exact opposite in that he was staunchly Catholic and warned the faithful about occult etc...
DeleteHe's definitely more known in Europa than here in the States.
From what I've gathered he was ordained by a valid Utrecht Old Catholic Bishop and worked for the Catholic Church in England.
God bless -A
Andrew,
DeleteI agree with Joanna. He was ORDAINED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and CLAIMED to have worked for the Catholic Church, but to the best of mt knowledge and belief, he NEVER WAS REGULARIZED. (A priest validly ordained outside the Church must be examined for fitness and received into the Church in order to function as one of Her priests).
He kept company with one of the best known Satanists of all time. This is not necessary warn the faithful about the occult. My advice: stay away.
God Bless,
---Introibo
His Priest friend (can't remember his name) stated he was ordained by a Catholic Bishop in Italy.
DeleteIDK obviously simply stating what I've read.
Thank you all for responding.
God bless -A
I need prayers for one relative. Thanks
ReplyDeletePoni,
DeleteI will pray and ask my readers to do the same.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Talking about movies, I made an article on Star Wars
ReplyDeletehttp://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/2021/09/millstones-on-road-viii-may-force-be.html