Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:08 PM']This kind of behavior is intrinsically immoral because it involves the objectification of the spouses for the purpose of sexual gratification and titillation, even if it is done with their mutual consent. The spouses do not have a right to simply "use" each other as sexual objects, nor do they have a right to voluntarily offer themselves to each other in this way. This kind of behavior violates the sanctity of the conjugal act. [right][snapback]609988[/snapback][/right] [/quote] While I would agree that it is immoral, it still would not be porn. Not according to the definition above. Further I would appreciate a more detailed explination of why it would be neccesarly more objectification, anymore than say wearing negligee or a sent your spouse finds attractive, there is nothing there but the spouse, titilation is not immoral only objectification. There has to be better explaination than that, sense that that definition of Porn takes it out of the Porn Catagory. Is it immoral for a women to wear a a satin negligee to bed knowingthat her husband finds the touch of it "titilating" you have to have a better reason than that for why this is immoral because frankly we are not Puritians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:40 PM']While I would agree that it is immoral, it still would not be porn. Not according to the definition above. Further I would appreciate a more detailed explination of why it would be neccesarly more objectification, anymore than say wearing negligee or a sent your spouse finds attractive, there is nothing there but the spouse, titilation is not immoral only objectification. There has to be better explaination than that, sense that that definition of Porn takes it out of the Porn Catagory. Is it immoral for a women to wear a a satin negligee to bed knowingthat her husband finds the touch of it "titilating" you have to have a better reason than that for why this is immoral because frankly we are not Puritians. [right][snapback]609994[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Anything that turns the spouses into "objects" for purposes of pleasure, is immoral. The sexual act is not a form of entertainment, it is an expression of love that transcends man's own being. It is a participation in the divine fecundity. If the nature of the sexual act is cheapened for visual pleasure, even with the mutual consent of the spouses, it is in itself a gravely offensive and immoral act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:44 PM']Anything that turns the spouses into "objects" for purposes of pleasure, is immoral. The sexual act is not a form of entertainment, it is an expression of love that transcends man's own being. It is a participation in the divine fecundity. If the nature of the sexual act is cheapened for visual pleasure, even with the mutual consent of the spouses, it is in itself a gravely offensive and immoral act. [right][snapback]609998[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Okay I agree with that, but how exactly does such a thing "cheapen" the act? As long as it is only for the spoues and they only use it as a method of arousal why is cheapening anything. You avoided my question aboutthe differance between this and Satin negligee or A prefered arousing sent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:54 PM']Okay I agree with that, but how exactly does such a thing "cheapen" the act? As long as it is only for the spoues and they only use it as a method of arousal why is cheapening anything. You avoided my question aboutthe differance between this and Satin negligee or A prefered arousing sent. [right][snapback]610009[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Perhaps this is more of a problem for Latin Catholics, because in the East the idea that something is sacred involves a certain shielding of that thing from plain view, or from any other kind of common vision. That is why in the East there is an iconostasis which separates the presbyterium from the nave of the Church, and that is also why certain prayers of the liturgy are taken in a low voice, because the actions are so sacred, so awesome, that they must be veiled from man's whimsical gaze. The idea that the sacred act of union between a husband and wife could be so common that it could be video taped for later viewing pleasure simply makes no sense from a Byzantine perspective. I don't think I can properly convey to you the reasons why the idea of video taping the act of supreme love between spouses is so evil, but in my humble opinion the desire for "instant replays" is wholly contrary to a proper understanding of the nature of the conjugal act. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:54 PM']Okay I agree with that, but how exactly does such a thing "cheapen" the act? As long as it is only for the spoues and they only use it as a method of arousal why is cheapening anything. You avoided my question aboutthe differance between this and Satin negligee or A prefered arousing sent. [right][snapback]610009[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The sexual union of the man and woman are part of the sacramentality of marriage. It is part of the outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace. Anything that cheapens or degrades this; which pornography does, in all instances, is a grave sin. This is an action that is not only contrary to the chastity of the married persons, as has been amply stated above. But it is also a sin against the very sacrament, in which the persons have engaged in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:54 PM']You avoided my question aboutthe differance between this and Satin negligee or A prefered arousing sent. [right][snapback]610009[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I avoided this question because it is simply a non-sensical comparison. But I would point out that if a wife bought a satin neligee in order to arouse lustful desires in her husband, she would be tempting him to sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:45 PM']The idea that the sacred act of union between a husband and wife could be so common that it could be video taped for later viewing pleasure simply makes no sense from a Byzantine perspective. [right][snapback]610048[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It is the same for Latin Catholics as well, but I think that you knew that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:45 PM']Perhaps this is more of a problem for Latin Catholics, because in the East the idea that something is sacred involves a certain shielding of that thing from plain view, or from any other kind of common vision. That is why in the East there is an iconostasis which separates the presbyterium from the nave of the Church, and that is also why certain prayers of the liturgy are taken in a low voice, because the actions are so sacred, so awesome, that they must be veiled from man's whimsical gaze. The idea that the sacred act of union between a husband and wife could be so common that it could be video taped for later viewing pleasure simply makes no sense from a Byzantine perspective. I don't think I can properly convey to you the reasons why the idea of video taping the act of supreme love between spouses is so evil, but in my humble opinion the desire for "instant replays" is wholly contrary to a proper understanding of the nature of the conjugal act. God bless, Todd [right][snapback]610048[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well this is a problem for me, because I am a Latin Catholic and I agree that it is immoral but I cannot just go around telling peoplethat something is immoral with out Cause, with the Definition of Pornography posted by Cam I cannot see anyway that I can justify this as anything more than my feeling and that makes me uncomfortable. It could be argued that it is a near occasion of objectification but that is not objectification itself. hmmmm. I'll have to think on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:49 PM']It is the same for Latin Catholics as well, but I think that you knew that already. [right][snapback]610056[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't think it is the same for Latin catholics, the Sacred for us is rutinly exposed more now that the Novus Ordo has us facing the Mass Celebrant. What is more sacred than the Mass, yet we video it ALL THE TIME. No it is not the same for use at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:53 PM']I don't think it is the same for Latin catholics, the Sacred for us is rutinly exposed more now that the Novus Ordo has us facing the Mass Celebrant. What is more sacred than the Mass, yet we video it ALL THE TIME. No it is not the same for use at all. [right][snapback]610061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Huh?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 07:50 PM']Well this is a problem for me, because I am a Latin Catholic and I agree that it is immoral but I cannot just go around telling peoplethat something is immoral with out Cause, with the Definition of Pornography posted by Cam I cannot see anyway that I can justify this as anything more than my feeling and that makes me uncomfortable. It could be argued that it is a near occasion of objectification but that is not objectification itself. hmmmm. I'll have to think on this. [right][snapback]610059[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ah yes, the desire to define everything down to the smallest detailed. You certainly are Latin. Not everything can be defined, and definitions do not exhaust the nature of the thing defined, in fact definitions barely even touch upon the true nature of the thing in question. Christian morality is not simply reducible to a form of "naturalism," and as Catholics we have to be careful not to reduce the Gospel to the natural law, because the Gospel exceeds the natural law. We are not after all Pelagians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:58 PM']Ah yes, the desire to define everything down to the smallest detailed. You certainly are Latin. Not everything can be defined, and definitions do not exhaust the nature of the thing defined, in fact definitions barely even touch upon the true nature of the thing in question. Christian morality is not simply reducible to a form of "naturalism," and as Catholics we have to be careful not to reduce the Gospel to the natural law, because the Gospel exceeds the natural law. We are not after all Pelagians. [right][snapback]610069[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I am not disputing the Idea that this is contrary to Gods Law, But I have delt with this with many people. I have had this exact question posed to me and I have always counciled that this was infact wrong on the Grounds that it was pornographic because it was placing sex in a visual context that [i]was not[/i] ( in actuality) the spouse. But that is not the definition presented the Chruch, this doesn't violate that at all, now when this comes up agian... and it will come up... I cannot say it is intrisicly evil, because frankly I can't come up with a reason it would be. That Bothers me, alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:56 PM']Huh?????? [right][snapback]610064[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What are you huhing. The Latin Church does not View anything to sacred to see, Not the Concecration, not the Anointing, nothing. It doesn't concider video taping to Cheapen anything else sacred, we have telivised Mass from the Vatican. How could video tapeing "cheapen" the Conjurgal act, unless you are saying that it cheapens everything sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:09 PM']What are you huhing. The Latin Church does not View anything to sacred to see, Not the Concecration, not the Anointing, nothing. It doesn't concider video taping to Cheapen anything else sacred, we have telivised Mass from the Vatican. How could video tapeing "cheapen" the Conjurgal act, unless you are saying that it cheapens everything sacred. [right][snapback]610079[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Are you making a comparison between pornographic tapes and the Mass? They are not even on the same level. The Mass was videotaped well before Vatican Council II. I believe that Archbishop Sheen taped a Mass for educational purposes, in the 1950s. Also, there is taped footage of Mass celebrated by Pope Pius XII. Bad comparison. The Mass is sacred. Pornography is most certainly not. It is not a fair comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Cam, I think that they're just arguing about a difference between the East and the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now