Dear CE:
I must take exception to some of what Stan Williams said in his article about sin portrayed in drama. I agree that real dichotomy exists between what we see on stage and screen and the real lives and hearts of the actors, but for Christians, there must be line drawn somewhere. After all, I could use his logic to justify starring in a porn movie. It's not real. It's only acting, right? Compared to “R” rated movies — which simulates sex scenes — there's nothing simulated about porn movies. According to Mr. Williams, I certainly couldn't be guilty of adultery since I would be only portraying a character and not myself. I guess Mr. Williams could also rationalize child pornography, since a child could be an actor, too.
It would be impossible to create a film or play that does not portray sin. Conflict, good and evil, and character development are fundamental elements of every drama. How could one show redemption of a character if we don't know the sin from which that character is redeemed? Yet it is the eternal challenge of every Christian actor to decide what line he or she should not cross. That should include portraying a sin in a matter that normalizes the act as if it weren't a sin.
In Christ,
Jim Lavin
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Catholic Exchange:
James Bemis may be right to say that each firefighter battling the wildfires is “twice the man” that Arnold will ever be, but he wasn't the first to say it.
Yesterday, Governor-elect Schwarzenegger hailed the exhausted firefighters with these words: “I only play a hero in the movies, but you guys are the real heroes.”
When asked if his celebrity status may have helped get money from the federal government he replied, “Help is help.”
Don't underestimate the humility of this man.
God Bless,
S.K. Bujnak
Dear Mrs. Bujnak:
Mr. Bujnak – Thank you for your note about my column. Like you, I've been impressed so far with Gov.-elect Schwarzenegger's humility, particularly with the firefighters. (How un-Hollywood of him!) He gave a group of them a great pep talk yesterday (off-camera, even) before they headed back to fight fires. Maybe he's a movie star of a different color — perhaps even of a Reaganesque hue.
If he is, I'll be the first to say so. Thanks again for reading Catholic Exchange.
God bless,
Jim Bemis
***
Dear Catholic Exchange:
The story of Jason Childress simply points out the miracles that are going on around us today. I have a child who, at age 9, was struck by a heavy truck and was not expected to “make it.” God assured both myself and my husband that she would be okay.
Today (she is now 30), she still has a bit of a problem with speech, but is doing great. She drives, has a child, cooks, cleans, has held a job. How did God allow us to know she would be okay? He gave me a vision of her playing with the other children at Easter. My husband saw the feet on the Crucifix at the foot of our bed moving and took that as a sign she would be okay.
Being human we still had doubts from time to time, but always came back to the “signs” God sent us. The doctors were wrong, God was right. It was not immediate and Karen had to be retrained to speak, walk, even breathe.
Gail Olive
Dear Gail:
What a beautiful testimony! We couldn't agree more that God is the ultimate source of all that is good and the author of miracles in our daily lives.
Let us keep praying for Jason and the courageous members of his family who have not failed to remember that. Thank you for your contribution.
In JMJ,
Luisa Wheeler
Associate Editor
Catholic Exchange
***
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I am in disagreement with Stan Williams on the substance of his article entitled “Sin on the Screen – a Reel Dichotomy.” Stan's premise is that in the movies, the first component of mortal sin (i.e., grave matter) does not exist. Briefly quoting:
“In a movie, the gravity just does not exist. What appears to be murder, is not…What appears to be adultery, is not.”
By that definition, one could logically argue that pornography is not sinful. Again quoting:
“the body alone, without soulful intent, does not sin.”
Now quoting from the Catechism on pornography (2354):
“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 is a grave offense.”
I understand what Stan was getting at (i.e., someone who commits murder on screen is not a murderer in reality). The problem is that I don't believe you can categorically condone any and all on-screen behavior as not being sinful.
Chris Stier
Springboro, Ohio
***
