Censorship

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='24 August 2009 - 09:16 AM' timestamp='1251119765' post='1955506']
Ahhh I just saw Rex's thread right after I posted this! So a mod can lock this if they want I guess.

Anyway, what I said on the Banned Books thread:

Banning books is a huge insult to someones intelligence. I really, really, really dislike an uninformed and blind faith. I'm of the opinion that the people with the most rational and impressive religious conviction appreciate other ideas and viewpoints, rather than feel threatened by them.
[/quote]

I disagree. An uninformed faith is not good, but there is a reason we have bishops. We have bishops because we need to submit ourselves to their teachings, even when we don't understand them. We should be rational and informed, but it is very easy to stoke intellectual pride. Perfect obedience is submission even beyond the bounds of reason. Let me explain. When I was visiting Carmel of the Immaculate Heart one of the brothers was explaining perfect obedience, and he spoke of the submission of the intellect like this. "If your superior tells you to mop the floors using water, you don't say to yourself, 'Well I know that if I use a little bleach the floors will be cleaner, so I will put some bleach in the water.' You always do exactly what your superior tells you to do (keeping in mind the spirit of obedience). You always do what you believe your superior would want you to do, even if he has not given you a direct command."

I don't think that one who is rational would "appreciate" other ideas. I wouldn't say that one would necessarily feel threatened, because we know that Christ will win in the end, but of course I am not going to [i]appreciate[/i] someone spreading lies and propaganda. Of course I am not going to [i]appreciate[/i] eastern religions telling people that all they need to do is to look inside themselves, and they will find that they themselves are God. They will find that, in fact, everything is God. I will not feel threatened, because my faith in Christ is certain, but instead of encouraging the opening of minds and of thought I will encourage a propagation of the truth!

The reason this is so important is that we are talking about people's [i]souls[/i]. It is not that I do not want people to think. It's not that Carmelites are not allowed to think. It is recognizing that my intellect [i]is not the greatest intellect. It is recognizing that I can trust others' intellects more than I can trust my own.[/i] If we say that we can trust ours the most, it is a form of pride and if we feed it enough it will drag us down and make true spiritual life in the Church very difficult.


That is all a little (though not by a lot) off topic. I do believe that the CDF should reinstitute the list of banned books (and maybe films?). This is by no stretch of the imagination an insult to people's intellects, though if it be taken that way, the perception of an insult betrays great intellectual pride. The list of banned books [i]is itself a guide[/i]. Some of you spoke of a guide you would prefer to a blacklist, but the index IS A GUIDE! It tells us what books we can or cannot trust, and this guide is something we need! No, people cannot figure it out on their own! I know that some people can, but there are books in grey areas. Individuals will always have questions or hesitations. The Magesterium's job is to help us to live the most Christian life possible, so let them do it!

Someone mentioned that the only censorship they agreed with was parental censorship. Don't you see that the Church is in a very real way our Mother? Don't you see that the bishops are our fathers? This censorship IS parental... this censorship IS a decision by a competent authority about what is good for us to put into our brains and what is bad.

If, by censorship, a book became more popular, what then? It would become popular by decisions by individuals, and those individuals would incur guilt, especially if they were Catholic. The Church is always to lead us and to guide us. The Church's job is to preach the truth in love, and the excuse that "The truth may be rejected" is NO REASON NOT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. In fact, if greater persecution comes because of the revelation of truth, we should rejoice that we are found worthy to suffer for the sake of the Gospel.

Banning books is no insult, it was never intended to be condescending. It was meant to be a paternal gesture by our spiritual fathers, a guide to our spiritual lives in a secular world. We are supposed to view the bishops as our loving father figures.


Anyway, if you agree with any rating system at all, you already support censorship. No one nowadays really is against all censorship, so the question about whether censorship is good or bad has for the most part already been answered; it is good. The only question which remains is how best to practice moderation in the use of censorship. How much censorship is too much?

[Winchester]

In some cases, yes. The Church's only concern is the salvation of souls. Not anyone's concept of freedom or art. It's a dangerous action, but such is life.

And no, we don't always know hwat hurts our souls. We do not have perfect self knowledge and we are all capable of lying to ourselves and justifying our sins.

[Winchester]

In some cases, yes. The Church's only concern is the salvation of souls. Not anyone's concept of freedom or art. It's a dangerous action, but such is life.

And no, we don't always know hwat hurts our souls. We do not have perfect self knowledge and we are all capable of lying to ourselves and justifying our sins.

[Saint Therese]

I voted no.From my own experience one can often learn more about why one's own position or belief is correct by reading/studying views contrary to my own.

[Kitty]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='27 August 2009 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1251408920' post='1957019']
We have bishops because we need to submit ourselves to their teachings, even when we don't understand them.[/quote]

So thinking for yourself and making decisions based on your own judgement of things should not be allowed?


[quote] We should be rational and informed, but it is very easy to stoke intellectual pride. Perfect obedience is submission even beyond the bounds of reason. Let me explain. When I was visiting Carmel of the Immaculate Heart one of the brothers was explaining perfect obedience, and he spoke of the submission of the intellect like this. "If your superior tells you to mop the floors using water, you don't say to yourself, 'Well I know that if I use a little bleach the floors will be cleaner, so I will put some bleach in the water.' You always do exactly what your superior tells you to do (keeping in mind the spirit of obedience). You always do what you believe your superior would want you to do, even if he has not given you a direct command."


The reason this is so important is that we are talking about people's [i]souls[/i]. It is not that I do not want people to think. It's not that Carmelites are not allowed to think. It is recognizing that my intellect [i]is not the greatest intellect. It is recognizing that I can trust others' intellects more than I can trust my own.[/i] If we say that we can trust ours the most, it is a form of pride and if we feed it enough it will drag us down and make true spiritual life in the Church very difficult. [/quote]

So let me get this straight, I am baffled. You can trust OTHER'S intellect more than your own? That's a massive insult to your own intelligence. What happened to your own intellect? What happened to making decisions and conclusions based on your OWN research and judgment? So you decide that because men in this large organized religion say they know what they're doing, they must be right and more intelligent than you, rendering your intellect essentially unimportant when it comes to making judgments? I hope you realize how dangerous of a mindset this is.

From what I understand, you just said that you cannot be very smart if you want to be a true follower of the church. I do trust my intellect, but I do not think that I am "more intelligent" than everyone else. Making your own assessments of things is not being prideful.


[quote]Anyway, if you agree with any rating system at all, you already support censorship. No one nowadays really is against all censorship, so the question about whether censorship is good or bad has for the most part already been answered; it is good. The only question which remains is how best to practice moderation in the use of censorship. How much censorship is too much?
[/quote]

Well, according to everything you said, the banned books list is a list of what books you can and cannot trust, or which ones are "truthful" and which are not. The rating systems on many forms of media, for example, are nothing like the banned books list. They are merely a number or letter telling you what age they would be most appropriate for. It doesn't mean that "children CANNOT watch this film". It is just a suggestion saying what age it would be appropriate for.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='05 September 2009 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1252131930' post='1961226']
I voted no.From my own experience one can often learn more about why one's own position or belief is correct by reading/studying views contrary to my own.
[/quote]

You don't have to read others' positions to strengthen your knowledge of the Truth. Many Catholics argued that it was ok to read the Davinci Code because they would know how to defend the Truth better if they knew the lies. This is not true- to defend the Truth all you have to do is know it. If you know it you can defend it against anything. It won't matter what people throw against it because the Truth is impenetrable. It is not ok to read the Davinci Code. Filling your head with lies is a bad use of the intellect, even if you have good intentions.

[quote name='Kitty' date='05 September 2009 - 03:49 AM' timestamp='1252136978' post='1961251']
So thinking for yourself and making decisions based on your own judgement of things should not be allowed?
[/quote]
Not what I said... I just said that we shouldn't trust our own intellects the most.


[quote]
So let me get this straight, I am baffled. You can trust OTHER'S intellect more than your own? That's a massive insult to your own intelligence. What happened to your own intellect? What happened to making decisions and conclusions based on your OWN research and judgment? So you decide that because men in this large organized religion say they know what they're doing, they must be right and more intelligent than you, rendering your intellect essentially unimportant when it comes to making judgments? I hope you realize how dangerous of a mindset this is.

From what I understand, you just said that you cannot be very smart if you want to be a true follower of the church. I do trust my intellect, but I do not think that I am "more intelligent" than everyone else. Making your own assessments of things is not being prideful.
[/quote]
Yes, I can trust others intellects more than my own. That's essential, really. According to every Saint who has ever written about the spiritual life, it is very easy to fall into intellectual pride- trusting yourself more than the Church. I base my own mindset on Ss. John of the Cross and Francis de Sales, as well as Lorenzo Scupoli. In fact, if one does not give up everything of oneself (intellect, will, AND passions) then one will never truly come into union with the Divine. Our own intellects are fallen, and we need to recognize the fallen nature of them.


[quote]
Well, according to everything you said, the banned books list is a list of what books you can and cannot trust, or which ones are "truthful" and which are not. The rating systems on many forms of media, for example, are nothing like the banned books list. They are merely a number or letter telling you what age they would be most appropriate for. It doesn't mean that "children CANNOT watch this film". It is just a suggestion saying what age it would be appropriate for.
[/quote]

Actually they do say "children CANNOT watch this film. Kids under 17 aren't allowed in a theater for a rated "R" movie without parental guidance, and they are also not allowed to rent or buy rated "R" movies, or Mature video games. The rating system is a form of censorship.

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='05 September 2009 - 08:21 AM' timestamp='1252153292' post='1961266']
You don't have to read others' positions to strengthen your knowledge of the Truth.
[/quote]

Some people would see it as an important part of discovering if the Church is the "Truth" after all.

[Selah]

Oh, that's easy:

No.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Kitty' date='05 September 2009 - 03:49 AM' timestamp='1252136978' post='1961251']
So let me get this straight, I am baffled. You can trust OTHER'S intellect more than your own? That's a massive insult to your own intelligence. What happened to your own intellect? What happened to making decisions and conclusions based on your OWN research and judgment? [/quote]
The people who do that die young. If you don't rely on the experience of others, you will die. Choosing to follow someone is a choice, as well. You do it 99.9 percent of your life, as well. As for this being insulting to one's intelligence--do you consider yourself the intellectual equal of Aristotle? You certainly, as a Westerner, use much of his thought to guide your life. Or did you come to all these conclusions about life using your great brain without referencing the experiences of others?

[Kitty]

[quote name='Winchester' date='07 September 2009 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1252332040' post='1962565']
The people who do that die young. If you don't rely on the experience of others, you will die. Choosing to follow someone is a choice, as well. You do it 99.9 percent of your life, as well. As for this being insulting to one's intelligence--do you consider yourself the intellectual equal of Aristotle? You certainly, as a Westerner, use much of his thought to guide your life. Or did you come to all these conclusions about life using your great brain without referencing the experiences of others?
[/quote]

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about survival, finding a job, putting food on the table. I'm talking about making judgments about political/religious issues and debates. I'm not going to die just because I say support or protest a certain issue.

No, I am not a genius or a prophet or a philosopher. But I don't like to sit there and be told by a religious organization what I should and should not believe. I have a brain, and I can use it myself. There's a difference between learning from the experience of others and blindly agreeing to everything someone preaches, even if you don't understand it.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Kitty

[picchick]

edit: nothing

Edited September 7, 2009 by picchick

[Winchester]

[quote name='Kitty' date='07 September 2009 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1252365163' post='1962865']
No, I am not a genius or a prophet or a philosopher. But I don't like to sit there and be told by a religious organization what I should and should not believe. I have a brain, and I can use it myself. There's a difference between learning from the experience of others and blindly agreeing to everything someone preaches, even if you don't understand it.
[/quote]
Yes, we blindly agree. You've figured us out. You follow someone, you're simply not capable of perceiving it.

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='27 August 2009 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1251408920' post='1957019']
I disagree. An uninformed faith is not good, but there is a reason we have bishops. We have bishops because we need to submit ourselves to their teachings, even when we don't understand them. We should be rational and informed, but it is very easy to stoke intellectual pride. Perfect obedience is submission even beyond the bounds of reason. Let me explain. When I was visiting Carmel of the Immaculate Heart one of the brothers was explaining perfect obedience, and he spoke of the submission of the intellect like this. "If your superior tells you to mop the floors using water, you don't say to yourself, 'Well I know that if I use a little bleach the floors will be cleaner, so I will put some bleach in the water.' You always do exactly what your superior tells you to do (keeping in mind the spirit of obedience). You always do what you believe your superior would want you to do, even if he has not given you a direct command."

I don't think that one who is rational would "appreciate" other ideas. I wouldn't say that one would necessarily feel threatened, because we know that Christ will win in the end, but of course I am not going to [i]appreciate[/i] someone spreading lies and propaganda. Of course I am not going to [i]appreciate[/i] eastern religions telling people that all they need to do is to look inside themselves, and they will find that they themselves are God. They will find that, in fact, everything is God. I will not feel threatened, because my faith in Christ is certain, but instead of encouraging the opening of minds and of thought I will encourage a propagation of the truth!

The reason this is so important is that we are talking about people's [i]souls[/i]. It is not that I do not want people to think. It's not that Carmelites are not allowed to think. It is recognizing that my intellect [i]is not the greatest intellect. It is recognizing that I can trust others' intellects more than I can trust my own.[/i] If we say that we can trust ours the most, it is a form of pride and if we feed it enough it will drag us down and make true spiritual life in the Church very difficult.


That is all a little (though not by a lot) off topic. I do believe that the CDF should reinstitute the list of banned books (and maybe films?). This is by no stretch of the imagination an insult to people's intellects, though if it be taken that way, the perception of an insult betrays great intellectual pride. The list of banned books [i]is itself a guide[/i]. Some of you spoke of a guide you would prefer to a blacklist, but the index IS A GUIDE! It tells us what books we can or cannot trust, and this guide is something we need! No, people cannot figure it out on their own! I know that some people can, but there are books in grey areas. Individuals will always have questions or hesitations. The Magesterium's job is to help us to live the most Christian life possible, so let them do it!

Someone mentioned that the only censorship they agreed with was parental censorship. Don't you see that the Church is in a very real way our Mother? Don't you see that the bishops are our fathers? This censorship IS parental... this censorship IS a decision by a competent authority about what is good for us to put into our brains and what is bad.

If, by censorship, a book became more popular, what then? It would become popular by decisions by individuals, and those individuals would incur guilt, especially if they were Catholic. The Church is always to lead us and to guide us. The Church's job is to preach the truth in love, and the excuse that "The truth may be rejected" is NO REASON NOT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. In fact, if greater persecution comes because of the revelation of truth, we should rejoice that we are found worthy to suffer for the sake of the Gospel.

Banning books is no insult, it was never intended to be condescending. It was meant to be a paternal gesture by our spiritual fathers, a guide to our spiritual lives in a secular world. We are supposed to view the bishops as our loving father figures.


Anyway, if you agree with any rating system at all, you already support censorship. No one nowadays really is against all censorship, so the question about whether censorship is good or bad has for the most part already been answered; it is good. The only question which remains is how best to practice moderation in the use of censorship. How much censorship is too much?
[/quote]

I think i agree with you in spirit, but it wouldn't be practical for the Church to bring back censorship, for two reasons. one, it would be impossible. Yeah they could "censor" certain materials, but with all the access to data that people have, it wouldn't be effefctive. Second, it would cast the Church as being a dictatorship. Even though it wouldn't be intended that way, can you imagine how the global population would view it's actions? I'm not saying that the Church should make decisions based on how people would feel, but I don't think it would be effective enough to make it worth the bad publicity.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Kitty' date='07 September 2009 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1252365163' post='1962865']
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about survival, finding a job, putting food on the table. I'm talking about making judgments about political/religious issues and debates. I'm not going to die just because I say support or protest a certain issue.

No, I am not a genius or a prophet or a philosopher. But I don't like to sit there and be told by a religious organization what I should and should not believe. I have a brain, and I can use it myself. There's a difference between learning from the experience of others and blindly agreeing to everything someone preaches, even if you don't understand it.
[/quote]

I'll guess that you live in the US so you are effectively being told what do do and what to believe. I'm guessing that you pay your taxes, right? Now you might agree that taxes are worthwhile and a good thing or you may not. But it doesn't matter. You pay your taxes! And if you don't, the IRS eventually hunts you down, charges you enormous fees and if you don't pay them, they charge you and send you to jail!

So yeah you are told what to believe by political organizations

[Hassan]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='17 September 2009 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1253197785' post='1968036']
I'll guess that you live in the US so you are effectively being told what do do and what to believe. I'm guessing that you pay your taxes, right? Now you might agree that taxes are worthwhile and a good thing or you may not. But it doesn't matter. You pay your taxes! And if you don't, the IRS eventually hunts you down, charges you enormous fees and if you don't pay them, they charge you and send you to jail!

So yeah you are told what to believe by political organizations
[/quote]


That doesn't make sense.

The state coerces individuals to pay taxes does not get you to political organizations tell you what to believe