is porn a mortal sin?

[Aloysius]

sex is sacred. he's drawing the comparison between the conjugal act of the husband and wife being videotaped and viewed by the husband and wife and the mass being videotaped.

the problem is that you didn't establish this as pornography by your definition of pornography, but you keep labeling it as such.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 08:06 PM']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.
[right][snapback]610074[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I hate to say it, but the people you're arguing with on this issue (and no doubt other moral issues) are not going to be convinced by any form or rational argumentation. I understand your desire to explain this to them without recourse to "religious" ideas, but to be honest, the concept of the natural law itself is a religious idea. Moreover, people today have basically rejected the natural law, and this is clear from the moral situation presently affecting our country (and the whole Western world). If it is nearly impossible to convince a man that abortion, contraception, homosexual activity, etc., are immoral, it will certainly be impossible to convince such a man that video taping sexual acts with his wife is immoral.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:24 PM']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.
[right][snapback]610093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No pornagraphy is not sacred but the conjurgal act is, and my point was eactly that the Mass is more sacred than anything and yet we tape it so Video taping the sacred itself does not "Cheapen" the sacred. You arn't reading very carefully Cam. Further videotaping the conjurgal act within a marraige which is for display ONLY to the Married couple and only in prelude to the act of sex is not Pornography, not according to the definition that you posted above. While we all agree it is not right apparantly none of us can come up with a reason [i]why[/i] it's not right. Since we are all pretty well educated in this regard this bothers me. Perhaps this is just something we find distastful andis not infact contrary to Gods Law. I don't think that is the case but I am increasingly thinking that might be the case.

[Aloysius]

no where did he say these people aren't Catholic... he said the question has been posed to him.

i don't see why other Catholics may not have this similar question. that's the impression I was under about DJ's questioning friends

i'm with DJ on this one.. I know it has to be wrong somehow.. but you cannot say it is pornography based on the Church's definition

[Apotheoun]

In my earlier post I was not equating video taping the Mass with video taping the conjugal act between a husband and wife. I was simply pointing out the different perspectives between East and West about the nature of the sacred.

As a Byzantine Catholic layman I cannot even approach the altar, because I am not allowed to go beyond the iconostas. Moreover, the Royal Doors, which are the portal into heaven, may only be used by a priest or a bishop, and so no one else at all may go through them. In the Eastern tradition the sacred is veiled from view, and so I was using that idea as a way of explaining my position on this moral issue.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:36 PM']sex is sacred.  he's drawing the comparison between the conjugal act of the husband and wife being videotaped and viewed by the husband and wife and the mass being videotaped.

the problem is that you didn't establish this as pornography by your definition of pornography, but you keep labeling it as such.
[right][snapback]610115[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is part of the definition. Anything that attacks chastity. Treating anyone as an object, even one's wife or husband, falls into the definition.

[quote]Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. (CCC 2354)[/quote]

Porn offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It immerses all who are involved in an illusion. This applies to married couples who tape for themselves. It is the attack on chastity and the perversion of the conjugal act and the intimate giving of spouses. It isn't necessarily because it is being distributed, but rather because it is perverting the conjugal act.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 10:51 PM']In my earlier post I was not equating video taping the Mass with video taping the conjugal act between a husband and wife.  I was simply pointing out the different perspectives between East and West about the nature of the sacred. 

As a Byzantine Catholic layman I cannot even approach the altar, because I am not allowed to go beyond the iconostas.  Moreover, the Royal Doors, which are the portal into heaven, may only be used by a priest or a bishop, and so no one else at all may go through them.  In the Eastern tradition the sacred is veiled from view, and so I was using that idea as a way of explaining my position on this moral issue.
[right][snapback]610140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Apotheoun I understand and it was not you I was directing that too. Perhaps it is that I have always found the great love for the eastern ideal of vieling the Sacred that this seems so wrong, but agian at Heart I am a Latin and I need to know why if I am going to tell people it is wrong. Still I cannot come up with any reason that wouldn't lead to absurd conclusions like " you can't have sex with the lights on" and stuff like that.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:05 PM']It is part of the definition.  Anything that attacks chastity.  Treating anyone as an object, even one's wife or husband, falls into the definition.
Porn offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other.  It immerses all who are involved in an illusion.  This applies to married couples who tape for themselves.  It is the attack on chastity  and the perversion of the conjugal act and the intimate giving of spouses.  It isn't necessarily because it is being distributed, but rather because it is perverting the conjugal act.
[right][snapback]610157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Cam your being obtuse-- read your own Post

[color=red][quote]removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.[/quote][/color] This has no application for married couples who show it to know one but themselves, it would not be porn even if used inappropriatly in the marriage, like kissing it would simply be inappropriate use. And so I ask agian HOW is this perverting the Congurgal act, anymore than taping a massis perverting the mass. How does putting it on tape pervert the Sacred, or mor to the point why does it make one sacred thing perverse and not the other?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:07 PM']Apotheoun I understand and it was not you I was directing that too. Perhaps it is that I have always found the great love for the eastern ideal of vieling the  Sacred that this seems so wrong, but agian at Heart I am a Latin and I need to know why if I am going to tell people it is wrong. Still I cannot come up with any reason that wouldn't lead to absurd conclusions like " you can't have sex with the lights on" and stuff like that.
[right][snapback]610160[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What is the meaning inherent in the conjugal act? Is it meant to be something that is "viewed," or is it meant to be enacted in love between a husband and wife. The whole idea of viewing the conjugal act betrays a metaphysics founded solely upon outward phenomena. The conjugal act is meant to be enacted, not watched.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:15 PM']What is the meaning inherent in the conjugal act?  Is it meant to be something that is "viewed," or is it meant to be enacted in love between a husband and wife.  The whole idea of viewing the conjugal act betrays a metaphysics founded solely upon outward phenomena.  The conjugal act is meant to be enacted, not watched.
[right][snapback]610169[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That is why I specifically stated this could only be watched as a prelue to the act of sex, thus watching it would be part of the act itself. However this is the best reason I've got yet but I can still see that response coming out. And I still don't have an answer for it. All of the Sacraments are to be participated in, not simply watched, yet we tape and watch them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 09:20 PM']That is why I specifically stated this could only be watched as a prelue to the act of sex, thus watching it would be part of the act itself.  However this is the best reason I've got yet but I can still see that response coming out. And I still don't have an answer for it.  All of the Sacraments are to be participated in, not simply watched, yet we tape and watch them.
[right][snapback]610172[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It would still be a misuse, i.e., an abuse, of the original act. The conjugal act is not meant to be "watched," it is meant to be enacted by a husband and wife in a covenant of love, and each act of love is a complete whole, and as such it is unrepeatable in itself.

[journeyman]

This is a question that has bothered the courts as well:

Despite all their efforts, the most honest statement may well have been Justice Stewart's concurring opinion:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:11 PM']Cam your being obtuse-- read your own Post

[color=red][/color]  This has no application for married couples who show it to know one but themselves, it would not be porn even if used inappropriatly in the marriage, like kissing it would simply be inappropriate use. And so I ask agian HOW is this perverting the Congurgal act, anymore than taping a massis perverting the mass. How does putting it on tape pervert the Sacred, or mor to the point why does it make one sacred thing perverse and not the other?
[right][snapback]610164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why are you looking for a loop hole? Is it possible that once something is made, although not intended for viewing by others, will be? A la Pam and Tommy?

It is pornographic. It may not follow the definiton to the letter, but it does fit within the spirit of what is being said.

Appy said:
[quote]It would still be a misuse, i.e., an abuse, of the original act. The conjugal act is not meant to be "watched," it is meant to be enacted by a husband and wife in a covenant of love, and each act of love is a complete whole, and as such it is unrepeatable in itself.[/quote]

I said:
[quote]Porn offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It immerses all who are involved in an illusion. This applies to married couples who tape for themselves. It is the attack on chastity and the perversion of the conjugal act and the intimate giving of spouses. It isn't necessarily because it is being distributed, but rather because it is perverting the conjugal act.[/quote]

He and I are saying the exact same thing. Pornography isn't so much about the third party aspect as it is about the blatant attack on the virtue of chastity. Distribution is merely the means. The evil is applied through the attack on chastity. That is what is intended in the definiton in the Catechism.

[quote]Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. (CCC 2354)[/quote]

[Myles Domini]

I have not read this entire thread so forgive me if I simply restate someone's point. However, it is quite clear to me that there are plenty of reasons based on natural levels why pornography is evidently counter productive.

Pornography is by its nature objectification and it cannot be anything other than that. Even if viewed by married couples it still objectives one, two (or sadly maybe even more) individuals while they are doing that which can be deemed as morally inappropriate. To use other people in order to become aroused effectively reduces the dignity of that human being to nothing more than a tool. Those humans become instruments by which we excite ourselves and if we get into a habit of thinking this way it can be extremely corrupting.

There are cases, for instance, of spouses who find it difficult to get aroused within their relationships without the use of pornography. Some spouses become addicted to pornography, other spouses are encouraged to engage in practices potentially damaging to their marriage and which are contrary to the natural law e.g. swinging because of what they are influenced to do by the pornographic medium.

In everyday life moreover pornography influences our way of thinking. When one begins to treat other human beings as tools for ones own amusement in any area of life before too long we begin treating human beings as tools for our own ends in all areas of life. Perhaps only in small ways but if one persists in this direction it can become increasingly detrimental. From being in a self-giving relationship of love, the two partners can become twisted to being selfish and self-satisfying. This can only be damaging to their relationship.

Also is the effect pornography has on the whole of society. Nobody sins in isolation. Whether or not you are married by sponsoring the pornographic industry you are supporting the viewing of pornographic materials by people who are unmarried. You are also, often, supporting unmarried men and women in removing the conjugal act from marriage which is again contrary to the natural law. Children may also stumble over these images and how does it affect their thought patterns and attitudes? Seeing sex as merely a means of self-pleasure feeds the contraceptive mentality. Removing sexuality from its unitive and procreative functions teaches people (often teenagers --boys mostly through my experience--) that sex can be used solely for the ends of meeting their 'urges'. In this vein can we seriously wonder why so men young men engage in sex and seem unwilling to bring new life into the world? Again this kind of intimacy, which tries to actively circumvent procreation and is willing to terminate life to prevent it is contra natural law.

Pornography is a grave sin against chastity. Its true power is that it seems so distant from reality but it actually draws you into that distance and seperates you from the reality and gives you a skewered picture of it. Pornography can influence peoples thoughts, actions, and attitudes in ways detrimental to having successful marriages, ways that fuel the contraceptive mentality, ways that often televise married people commiting adultery or the unmarried committing fornication, and ways that can corrupt innocents.

Porn is dangerous and should, of course, be avoided at all costs and if one finds oneself [i]stuck[/i] if possible seek daily confession--even when one has not fallen into impurity--and daily communion (if daily isnt possible, then as often as possible). Above all else remember God is harsh on sin and gentle on sinners, dont take that as a cue to be presumptious just remember if even only atrition is present God will continue to drag you along the path to true freedom.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 12 2005, 06:56 PM']So would it would not be porn from the above definition for a married couple to tape themselves and them watch it later as a prelude to sex.
[right][snapback]609952[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


ewwwww

Edited June 13, 2005 by Kilroy the Ninja