Censorship

[OraProMe]

Please explain your answer.

[Marie-Therese]

Ora!!!!!!! Where the heck have you been?? We missed ya.

My answer...no. I don't believe in censorship. People should be informed of content prior to reading and then make an informed choice for themselves.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='24 August 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1251119079' post='1955493']
My answer...no. I don't believe in censorship. People should be informed of content prior to reading and then make an informed choice for themselves.
[/quote]
I pretty much agree. I think it would be great if the Church put out a guide or something to certain books, to explain the errors contained therein, but I don't like the idea of actual censorship.

[OraProMe]

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.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='24 August 2009 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1251119079' post='1955493']
Ora!!!!!!! Where the heck have you been?? We missed ya.
[/quote]

Hey!, oh I think I annoyed one of the moderators with a comment I made about her avatar. I'll put it down to vast differences in American and Australian humour....

haha

I missed this place too!

[VeniteAdoremus]

I voted "yes", but I would have said "no" if the Church had the temporal power to actually do it

Some books are a waste of space, paper, thought, time, concentration, and concern. I wouldn't mind having them blacklisted.

Plus it would greatly increase their popularity...

Maybe I should have voted "no".

[OraProMe]

Hahahahah
I'd definitely love for a few television shows and magazines to be banned and the editors banished from society but my motivations are hardly religious >.>

[CatherineM]

If the church sensors things, it just makes people more likely to read it. I liked how the Vatican handled the Angels and Demon movie.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='25 August 2009 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1251159188' post='1955758']
If the church sensors things, it just makes people more likely to read it. I liked how the Vatican handled the Angels and Demon movie.
[/quote]

Oh, I loved that! Especially since the producers tried SO hard to make it controversial

[iheartjp2]

I agree that censorship is a disrespect to someone's intelligence. In a time when most of global society is free, people want their intellects to be respected, not condescended to. Censorship will also blow up in the face of the Church more often than not because when people are made to feel too inadequate to decide for themselves which media are acceptable to subscribe to or even be entertained by, they don't give a rip because society at large is free. If the Church simply set benchmark-type guidelines and let apostolates like EWTN or Catholic Answers put out more extensive info and analysis, people would be more likely to listen and decide for themselves what's good or not. Also, even if the Church did decide to ban certain media, while they have authority from God, they don't have any "power" as it were to police its members. If Nancy Pelosi and the like aren't even excommunicated yet for their stances on certain issues, how can we possibly expect the Church to come out full force on something as trivial as which movie we decide to spend money on on a Friday night or which books we read?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' date='26 August 2009 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1251298124' post='1956233']
Oh, I loved that! Especially since the producers tried SO hard to make it controversial
[/quote]

Really? I saw it and it didn't seem EXTREMELY controversial. If it had to be given an offens-o-meter rating from 1 to 10, it was probably around maybe a 3 or 4.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='26 August 2009 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1251298581' post='1956239']
Really? I saw it and it didn't seem EXTREMELY controversial. If it had to be given an offens-o-meter rating from 1 to 10, it was probably around maybe a 3 or 4.
[/quote]

The producers wanted the Vatican to tell people not to see it knowing that would sell more tickets. Instead the Vatican basically said it was okay to see it, because it is so silly it is obviously fiction.

[rhetoricfemme]

I don't think there should be any censorship when literature is concerned, and I think the same for film and music. It's important that we have rating systems in place that inform an individual of the type of content they're about to delve into, and people should be able to make informed decisions from there.

Pornography obviously excluded from the argument. No one needs that stuff. But I do think there's a big difference between a story (in book or movie form) that includes sexuality or violence or what have you, and smut. While it's important to let people know if that sort of content is ahead of them, it's not to say that something can't be learned from such a story. It'd be great for the Church or someone appropriate to speak on behalf of the Church to create a proper rating system for literature and media. Especially in a secular world, no one but oneself can be held accountable for what they are ultimately subjected to. If you know reading a book of a certain theme might put you in position to sin, then you should stay away from it, whether it be Charles Dickens or Stephen King. We know what hurts our souls, and what doesn't, and we all have our own personal pornography we need to stay away from.

So while I think censorship is wrong (unless you're a parent protecting your child), a solid rating system would be awesome.

[eagle_eye222001]

In this day and age where background information about a book can be found quickly and facts double-checked, I see no reason for the Church to censor stuff.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='rhetoricfemme' date='26 August 2009 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1251312699' post='1956412']
We know what hurts our souls, and what doesn't, and [i]we all have our own personal pornography[/i] we need to stay away from.
[/quote]


This is amazing. Well said!!

[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.