is porn a mortal sin?

[Apotheoun]

[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.

[Cam42]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[Cam42]

[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??????

[Apotheoun]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[Don John of Austria]

[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.

[Cam42]

[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.

[Q the Ninja]

Cam, I think that they're just arguing about a difference between the East and the West.

[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.