Is Watching Brokeback A Sin?

[Not A Mallard]

There is a difference between listing blasphemous words in order to educate others, and using blasphemous words as part of the content in music and movies. Just like how there is a difference between artwork and smut. That is unless you consider art as smut? Or maybe you find nothing wrong with listening to music where the lyrics are filled with blasphemous language?

From the article I posted earlier:

 

 

Like all things human, films and other works of art and culture are subject to limitations, imperfections, and flaws. Some are so flawed that they are unwholesome and should be avoided. But a thing can be basically wholesome without necessarily being perfect.

 

As an example, consider the family film Babe, a delightful film with no potential drawbacks other than a few scenes of menace that might frighten the very young and very sensitive, and a single line in which the farm couple’s city-slicker son-in-law ends a sentence with the phrase "for Christ’s sake."

 

Profanity is always wrong, but of course we make characters in stories do all sorts of bad things without necessarily approving of them, and profanity is no exception. In principle, an actor can recite a line involving profanity without being personally profane, just as a Christian actor playing St. Peter on Holy Thursday might swear that he has never heard of Jesus, or indeed as faithful Catholics all over the world on Good Friday utter the damning line, "We have no king but Caesar." This kind of sin is a matter of intention, not just syllables, and an actor who says "for Christ’s sake" is not necessarily profane.

 

That’s not to say that profanity in drama is neither here nor there. It can be morally objectionable, especially if used gratuitously or in a way likely to contribute to its casual acceptance in society.

 

Is the brief profanity in Babe justified or unjustified? It might be argued, on the one hand, that the line underscores a cultural divide between the farm couple and their callow son-in-law. On the other hand, it might be answered that this point doesn’t justify the use of profanity in a family film of this sort.

 

Let’s assume the latter view, that the line is gratuitous and unjustified. Babe is, then, an imperfect film. It would be better if that objectionable line had been omitted. But does this one line make the difference between a wholesome film and an unacceptable one? Does it neutralize Babe’s positive themes of treating others with courtesy and respect, overcoming prejudices, facing challenges, and so forth? Would the world be better off had this movie never been made?

 

No. That would be the same kind of thinking that would result in refusal to enjoy the company of imperfect people, to attend an imperfect church, to or eat imperfect food. That’s no way to live.

 

http://decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms

 

But no, I wouldn't listen to a song filled with blasphemy because it's easier to quote a song than to quote an objectionable line from a movie.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Not A Mallard

[Not A Mallard]

Another example I have is within the film The Scarlet and the Black, which is based on Germany's occupation of Rome during WWII.

 

At the film's climax (so yeah, spoiler territory ahead), the British arrive and start driving out the Germans, so German Col. Herbert Kappler (Christopher Plummer) meets Monsignor O'Flaherty (Gregory Peck), who had been sneaking Jews out of Rome, and asks him to get his wife and children out.  O'Flaherty refuses to help Kappler for all of the harm that he caused, so Kappler in a fit of anger and despair openly blasphemes by declaring, "There is no God."

 

As Kappler's being interrogated by the British, they ask him where his wife and children are, for O'Flaherty had a change of heart and rescued them.  The film ends with a scroll that recounts how O'Flaherty was the only person who visited Kappler in prison, which eventually led to his conversion to Catholicism.

 

So, does that mean that it was a sin for Christopher Plummer to declare, "There is no God," when that very moment was one of the most crucial moments in his character's pre-conversion?

[Credo in Deum]

After reading the Catechism I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong on being unable to simulate blasphemy. I've made the mistake of thinking only using the lords name in vain was blasphemy when there are other things which can be blasphemy and which can be simulated. You've made great points Mallard and thank you to everyone for dealing with me. .

I still do believe that the taking of the Lords name in vain should never be tolerated in music and film.

2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints.

Tons of movies and music violate the second commandment when they us the Lords name in vain in their scripts and lyrics.

Ps I also I love The Scarlet and the Black. It is an amazing movie.

[Not A Mallard]

Another exert from Decent Films:

 

 

I do take profanity more seriously than merely obscene or crass language, and try to note it when it occurs. However, my note-taking is sporadic and I sometimes forget things later on, so I always appreciate readers calling to my attention issues I missed.

 

It is important to bear in mind that a movie does not necessarily condone, promote or glorify the behavior of its characters, and that just because a character engages in blasphemy or sexual immorality does not necessarily mean that the movie encourages similar behavior.

 

One of my favorite examples of this with regard to blasphemy is in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in which Sean Connery’s Henry Jones fetches his son Indy a stunning slap across the face for misusing the name of Jesus Christ, admonishing, “That’s for blasphemy!”

 

Even if this is seen as an old man’s moralistic reaction, the scene still reminds viewers that there are people who do take offense at such language, and is actually more likely to discourage such language than to encourage it.

 

http://decentfilms.com/mail/mailbag-14/134

 

It's not that I like hearing blasphemy in movies, but I don't think a movie should be condemned for containing a few uses of profanity.  However, I do think differently about a film such as The Hunt for Red October, which is thrilling, well-acted, and well-directed, but the screenplay contains a high amount of profane language, which ruined the entire movie for me.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i say yes it is a sin for a christian to do that if they know full well what the movie is proposing.

 

It is different having a friend who is homosexual that isn't a christian unless there a christian homosexual that doesn't go to confession and doesn't believe it is a sin but a christian homosexual that goes to confession on the reg and understands what there doing is a sin is ok, a black sheep so to speak that of course hopes to be a white sheep one day, firstly in this life but if for whatever reason that is unaitanable within this life than in heaven.

 

Having a firend that is homosexual or a friend that uses drugs or a friend that is often angry is different to delibrately supporting such behaviour with your money at the theatre or amount of viewers on free to air.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

 

God is Good.

 

Jesus iz LORD!

Edited September 21, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

also the whole know your enemy croutons(not that homosexuals are our enemy personaly though sin is directly) is pop and over rated and often a stumbling block if not quickly eventually, focus on Jesus not sin.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Winchester]

bump

[Not A Mallard]

hit