HARVEY WEINSTEIN IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG! LOOK AT WHAT IS ON SCREEN IN MOVIES AND TELEVISION AND THE INTERNET. LOOK WHAT ACTORS MUST DO ON SCREEN AND OFF SCREEN TO GET A JOB. AND OFTEN THEY GIVE IN TO MAKE THE BUCKS THEY NEED. LET'S DEAL WITH THE CULTURE OF HOLLYWOOD WHO KICKED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OUT OF ITS BUSINESS SO IT COULD DO THE SEX BUSINESS AND MAKE MORE MONEY BY EXPLOITING EVERYONE, FROM ACTORS TO VIEWERS.
From about the mid 1930's until the late 1950's the Catholic Church was able to influence the movie industry by forcing them through censorship to produce movies that did not glorify immorality.
I read this unattributed article which is eye-opening in terms of the power of the Catholic Church over the movie industry but lost now because of the modern Church's loss of credibility:
Hollywood once lived in fear of the Catholic Church and its movie watchdog, the National Legion of Decency.
The Legion of Decency was founded in 1934 as part of a campaign for the “purification of the cinema,” the church’s response to the growing popularity of movies—especially gangster pictures that glorified violence and the widespread portrayal of the free-and-easy sexual attitudes of the Roaring 20s. Catholics were urged to pledge to “remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality.”
At the same time, a handful of influential Catholics—including Joseph Breen of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Fathers Daniel Lord and FitzGeorge Dinneen (both Jesuit priests), Father Wilfrid Parsons, the editor of America, and Martin Quigley, editor of the Motion Picture Herald—created a code for motion picture standards. It was designed to self-police the industry and turn popular entertainment into an “ally” of “basic teachings of the church,” according to Gregory Black in his 1996 book, Hollywood Censored.
The code they designed became the Motion Picture Conduct Code, popularly know as the Hays Code after it was adopted by William Hays, a Presbyterian elder who was hired by the major studios to help clean up the industry’s image after it was rocked by a series of scandals. The code, says Black, “was a fascinating combination of Catholic theology, conservative politics and pop psychology—an amalgam that would control the content of Hollywood films for three decades.”
Beyond banning images of married couples sleeping in the same bed or criminals profiting from criminal activity, the code was designed to emphasize that “the church, the government, and the family were cornerstones of an orderly society; that success and happiness resulting from working within this system,” says Black.
The Legion of Decency was created as a counterpart to the code to make sure that the threat of a Catholic boycott of indecent movies keep Hollywood on the straight and narrow, a task that, Black notes, the church was well-equipped for:
The Catholic Church, twenty million strong, heavily concentrated in urban centers, and boosting its own national press with a circulation of more than six million readers a week, was in a unique position to exert influence on the industry.Films were rated on a scale from “A” (morally unobjectionable, which had four sub-ratings, from acceptable for all to acceptable for adults with reservations), to “B” (morally objectionable in part), to “C” (condemned). This rating system, which was even more stringent than the Hays Code, “dominated film production during Hollywood’s golden era,” says Black. Movie producers lived in fear of obtaining a “condemned” rating from the Legion and adjusted their output accordingly.
The Legion of Decency's motives was not only to protect the morals of America, but directly protect actors from being exploited on the screen, since making movies was their bread and butter, how they supported themselves. Movie moguls, especially if they were amoral, could take advantage of stars and make them do immoral things on screen and off screen for them.
Oh! That happened off-screen on the infamous and well-known casting couch. But in the movies themselves, actors were not exploited into doing something that could offend Christians and others who hold to a higher sexual morality.
The Catholic Church's preoccupation with modesty in general and in Hollywood pictures in particular is based on the reality of human nature disordered by original sin. What remains after holy Baptism is concupiscence.
Have you ever heard a homily on concupiscence? Has it been taught in Catholic schools and CCD programs today? What is it?
In Catholic theology, concupiscence is seen as a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. For Christians, concupiscence is what they understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to long for fleshly appetites, often associated with a desire to do things which are proscribed.
At one time, parents taught their daughters to be careful in their relationships with men/boys when they started to date. They should dress modestly so as not to tempt the boy into doing something or proposing something immoral. They should avoid the near occasions of the sin so as to prevent the desires of the flesh from overwhelming. Heavy petting and even kissing should be avoided because of concupiscence that could lead to actual mortal sin.
With the sexual revolution, promoted widely by the movie industry and the loss of Catholic censorship of the industry, rules of modesty were thrown out in society and the Church.
Will Harvey Wienstein help us to recover it? Maybe!
The Catholic Church has recovered common sense rules concerning the interaction of adults and children. The recovery of these rules acknowledges that reality of concupiscence and that children could be at risk because of it. Rules are in place to protect minors. But adults must be vigilant when the rules are thwarted in one way or another in favor of a predator.
Hollywood's problem goes way beyond Harvey Weinstein. Look at what actors are asked to do on screen and for what purpose?-- to titillate the audience, manipulate people into giving into base instincts.
We need the Catholic Church to be the Catholic Church and once again exert the influence of the Church toward modesty on and off the Hollywood screen.
Why should actors have to strip for a movie executive in order to show their bodies, because their bodies will be used on screen to sell a product. Why should actors have to sell their bodies on screen and give into the demands of movie executives to use their bodies for the executives' private pleasures off screen?
Modesty is not a four letter word.
23 comments:
Jeans are forbidden? What does God have against denim? What about polyester clothing? Can someone wear cotton and wool blends? Oh, the possibilities!
You know that tingly feeling you get when you see a pretty woman dressed in sexy, skimpy clothes? That is your common sense leaving your body...
Gene, concupiscence!
and yes, the snarky first comment is why many churches see bare midriffs, short short,tank tops, tee shirts with advertisements on them for beer and whisky (saw that last night myself) and God only knows what else.
Progressive rebellion against common sense modesty has worked realy, really well.
Bye, why is God opposed to denim?
And, please explain why God is offended by whiskey and/or beer adverts.
I (a grey-haired senior man) have some nondescript denim jeans that I sometimes wear to daily Mass, and am sure that God is in no way offended. But I suspect he IS offended by the tight stretch-denim jeans that are sometimes seen on young women at Sunday Mass. (Somehow, one never sees this type of young women at daily Mass.) So the offense, my dear clueless Anonymous, lies not in the fabric but in the person who uses it inappropriately.
No opne said that Giod is opposed to denim. Now, polyester...that should be at least a venial sin, if only for poor taste.
In which case, my dear clueless Henry, the person, not the fabric, should be proscribed.
I have never read the "dress code" in a bulletin, or heard it mentioned during a homily. Something to consider ? My fear of dress codes is that people come from many different backgrounds. Some are accustomed to wearing more formal attire, others don't even own it.
Beginning after Vatican Disaster II, I have seen dress codes in bulletins, in many parishes, particularly in the summer months.
Some pastors get all worked up over seeing knees, male and/or female. Some get apoplectic when they see a woman's shoulder. Some are looking for - looking for, mind you, clothing that is "too tight."
It's all a matter of 1) trying to roll back to the clock to "happier, simpler" times when all was right with the world, even though those times never existed. "If only men wore jackets and ties and hats and if only women ass came in dresses and gloves, my troubles would be over!"
Or it is about 2) control. "I'm pastor and I get to tell you how to dress.
Either way, it's only an issue for the pastor and the tiny handful of congregants who, like him, want to make other people behave the way THEY want them to behave, based on the same fantastical thinking.
Anonymous, it was a happier, simpler time when people showed proper respect to Our Lord and each other. You sound like a first rate jackass
We have a dress code at my parish. Rarely do people dress immodestly, but when they do, they stick out — as they should. There is such a thing as healthy shame.
So, the only way to show proper respect is for men to wear jackets and ties, women to wear dresses and gloves, and NO ONE can show their knees to the Lord.
Got it!
"Now go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." - Matt 9:13
Blue jeans don't bother me. It's just a color.
And yes, women should dress like they're at a serious occasion, not a cookout or a disco. That's true for everybody, of course.
But what irks me the most is people with T-shirts promoting a beer or some other commercial product, or a tacky tourist attraction or the Georgia Bulldogs or the team of your choice. I find those more distracting than jeans or shorts on a 100-degree day.
Rule of thumb, if you're distracted by the person in front of or next to you, asking why they hell are they wearing that, they shouldn't be wearing that.
Anonymous @ 10:31 said:
"Either way, it's only an issue for the pastor and the tiny handful of congregants who, like him, want to make other people behave the way THEY want them to behave, based on the same fantastical thinking."
But, isn't that what you are doing by bullying others here while trying to advance your viewpoint?
Disagreeing with others and expressing that disagreement isn't bullying.
You, and others here, a not victims.
Everyone who has read or participated in the comment section of this blog over the years is a victim. We have all been subjected to regular assaults on logic with violence done to our common sense. But we have only ourselves to blame.
Your method of delivery could be rethought eliminating the snarkiness and general unreasonableness.
Examples:
-It's all a matter of 1) trying to roll back to the clock to "happier, simpler" times when all was right with the world, even though those times never existed. "If only men wore jackets and ties and hats and if only women ass came in dresses and gloves, my troubles would be over!"
Who said this? Basic respect was all that was requested. It is unbelievable how some of our people come to church. Surely, they wouldn't wear some of what's seen to a family celebration, wedding or, funeral.
-Or it is about 2) control. "I'm pastor and I get to tell you how to dress.
Again, who suggested this? And, again, the way people come to church isn't the way many would go to work with shorts, tank tops, flip flops etc. Its a matter of decorum and respect for the institution, our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament and for Father's vocation.
-if only women ass came in dresses and gloves, my troubles would be over!
I'm not shocked by this line which is of questionable appropriateness for this blog. Maturity, however, helps me to see that there is a time and a place for this type of expression. Here wouldn't be it.
-You, and others here, a not victims
True, we are not victims in the strictest sense. I'm sure you remember at least one smart alec from school. The one who was always holding up the class because of tiresome behavior or comments. Made it hard to learn or, concentrate. And, generally, this type of guy wasn't a good student, had no particular talent in shop and wasn't skilled in gym or, on the field. You remind me of that guy.
Please be reminded of the recent post by Father regarding Southern Orders blog hit stats. Many countries read this blog and our comments. Take Russia for example. Imagine what the Russian people and, perhaps, any clergy who might be reading this blog think seeing some of these comment pages? Is this type of 'disagreeing' and 'expression' really helping to put our best foot forward as representatives of the Catholic Church? Something to think about.
I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel regarding people showing up at Mass in Georgia Bulldog attire. In my eyes, it's a mortal sin.
I have a hard time getting my arms around the idea that a person in a Georgia Bulldog attire at Mass, however inappropriate, has committed mortal sin, a very grave matter. I would need to know a lot more before I reached a conclusion like that.
TJM, please "Google" my name to understand my belief that wearing Georgia Bulldog attire to Holy Mass is a mortal sin.
HA!!!
"In 1958, members of the senior class of Agnes Scott College announced the wedding engagement of Burdell and fictional Agnes Scott student Ramona Cartwright in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The 50th wedding anniversary, of "Mr. and Mrs. George P. Burdell from Atlanta" was acknowledged on the September 23, 2006 broadcast of A Prairie Home Companion."
Most excellent!
Post a Comment