is porn a mortal sin?

[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.