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:
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
***
