is porn a mortal sin?

[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

[Cam42]

[quote name='Don John of Austria']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.[/quote]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM']ewwwww
[right][snapback]610260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It would be. And I agree with your thought Kilroy.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 12 2005, 05:21 PM']Because it is grave matter, with full knowledge and consent, yes, viewing/distributing/etc pornography would be a mortal sin.
[right][snapback]609892[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think this thread took a sideturn here. I think the question is very interesting, so forgive me if I attempt to bring it back on track with a question of my own.

The question posted is wether or not pornography is a 'mortal sin', not wether or not it is a sin. (the rest of the discussion turns around a single example of what might be, or not be pornography).



If I may quote myself the good old CCC 1855:

"Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. "



It would thus seem the core of the question lies upon just how much of a violation pornography can be. I can find examples that would place participation of this act in both categories, venial sin, and mortal sin. So how is the line drawn exactly? Does pronography utterly destroy charity?


As for the example of the married couple taping themselves, though i find no contradiction directly relating to the CCC or other church teachings for myself I would definately not recommend such a practice. I believe the right or the wrong lies in what is done with the tape (if it is copied and distributed, it becomes porn, if not, it is not porn strictly speaking). The existance of such a tape is a faximily of a sacred act, and the existance of such a thing, in my honest opinion, can definately lead to redenring the act itself to banality, thus making it less than what it was intended to be.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='*lil girl 4 jesus*' date='Jun 12 2005, 05:21 PM']is porn a mortal sin?
[right][snapback]609862[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


goodness gracious yes.

Have you seen what they get up to? All sorts of disgusting things. It objectifies women and men, turning the act of love into nothing more than a sham.
taping yourself just opens up all sorts of awkward situations! didn't you see that commercial with the couple who returned their tape to Blockbuster? That was terrible. Why bother anyway? ya got the real live person right there. lack of imagination right there. consequence of all this television and video games. read a book or something.
taping yourself is still making a porn. The Pam and Tommy video is a good example. They kept that in a safe and ooooops.

[Guest Eremite]

There's an old saying that "hard cases make bad law", or in this instance, "hard cases make bad definitions".

The Catechism is not an exxhaustive treatment of moral or dogmatic theology. It is a sure norm for teaching the faith.

If people have questions about "hard cases", then they should seek out a trustworthy priest, or moral theologian.

[Phazzan]

For the best in Christian porn check out www.xxxchurch.com

Number 1 Christian porn site by miles.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jun 13 2005, 07:10 AM']ewwwww
[right][snapback]610260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Kilroy, THANK YOU for saying that.

[Semalsia]

Is making or watching pornographic paintings/drawings/sculptures a sin?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 13 2005, 12:48 PM']Is making or watching pornographic paintings/drawings/sculptures a sin?
[right][snapback]610387[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is a difference between pornographic and nudity.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]The creation of the atmosphere favorable to education in chastity contains these two elements. It concerns a reciprocal circuit which takes place between the image and the seeing, between the ethos of the image and the ethos of seeing. The creation of the image, in the broad and differentiated sense of the term, imposes on the author, artist or reproducer, obligations not only of an aesthetic, but also of an ethical nature. In the same way, "looking," understood according to the same broad analogy, imposes obligations on the one who is the recipient of the work.

True and responsible artistic activity aims at overcoming the anonymity of the human body as an object "without choice." As has already been said, it seeks through creative effort such an artistic expression of the truth about man in his feminine and masculine corporeity, which is, so to speak, assigned as a task to the viewer and, in the wider range, to every recipient of the work. It depends on him, in his turn, to decide whether to make his own effort to approach this truth, or to remain merely a superficial consumer of impressions, that is, one who exploits the meeting with the anonymous body-subject only at the level of sensuality which, by itself, reacts to its object precisely without choice.

--John Paul II[/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb62.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb62.htm[/url]

[Semalsia]

[quote]There is a difference between pornographic and nudity.[/quote]

Sure. Otherwise National Geographic would be in big trouble.

I was talking about sex. Not just nudity.

But now that you mentioned it... is nudity (in art) perfectly kosher in catholicism? Or is it considered somewhat, hm... unchaste?

Oh and is watching MTV a sin? It's basically a soft porn channel.

[Aloysius]

you ever seen Catholic Art? we made David.

don't forget the sisteen chapel... where they elect the pope... big pic of Adam ya' know.

yeah we're definitely cool with nudity in artwork. although when it gets out of hand and starts to be for the purpose of pornography then it's not cool. there were a couple of popes that seemed to think it had gotten out of hand and went around castrating statues. but all in all, we're cool with nudity in art. we're not puritans

[Semalsia]

Oh right, didn't think of that.

Still, I had in my mind those ancient greek/roman artworks that can be found in museums. They are not just nude, they are having sex. And quite often it's what you would call sodomy. Sex with animals is not uncommon.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I can't believe this topic has gone on for 3 pages.

I am somewhat offended by the comparison to a husband and wife taping themselves. Talk about SICK and disgusting--there is no justification for a husband and wife taping the conjugal act, even as a prelude to sex. Such a thing could fall into the wrong hands, etc. there are too many risks. Taping the Mass isn't going to scandalze anyone if someone happened to find the tape.

[Aloysius]

we were discussing treatment of sacred things. if taping the most sacred event of the mass does not disrespect the sacred aspect, then how would taping the sacred event of a husband and wife's conjugal act.

no one was saying that'd be alright, we were simply looking for the REASON it wouldn't be alright. It is not considered pornographic, there is no way for us Latins to really say it's disrespecting the sacred aspect of the act, so what exactly is it (other than repulsive, that's our emotional response to it)?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 13 2005, 12:52 PM'][snip]

only at the level of sensuality which, by itself, reacts to its object precisely without choice.

--John Paul II
[/quote]

Very true, someone can get perversed thoughts from a carrot if they want to, perversion is as much a function of the observer than it is a function of the artist.

*sigh* Papa was a wise man.