Ask a Question - or - Return to the Faith and Spirituality Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Acting, not a sin?	John	Monday, November 14, 2011
Question: Bro. Ignatius Mary, I’m sorry Bro. Ignatius, but I must disagree with your answer concerning an actor portraying a role. Regardless of the role being portrayed, the words spoken, and the action being portrayed, just because he/she is acting, just following a pre-written script, in my mind does not grant them immunity from sin. Accountability to God for our actions should not be given a pass simply because an actor follows a pre-written script, and that it is not real life, should not excuse it. What about the actor who portrays a role, one where explicit sexual content is involved? What if a role should contain a scene where explicit same sex relationships are involved. And, what is that role called for explicit same-sex sexual content, would this, as well, be excused as just acting? Do we not have an obligation not to portray such roles knowing full well that others, those who pay to see such plays or movies, just by attending commit a grave sin. If, as an actor, in a play or movie, you are only reading lines from a script, or portraying physically what the script tells you to do, you get a pass from God? Does not the Church condemn certain types of plays and movies that contain such immoral content? Acting, I understand, is just acting. However, as Catholic's, do we not have a moral obligation not participate, as an actor, or as someone who, knowing that such a play or movie containing such immoral content that it has been condemned by the Church, willingly, attend said play or movie, saying, "this is just acting, not real, so no sin is being committed". I have always believed that if you condone what God has condemned then you are guilty of the same sin. God bless, John.
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r), L.Th., D.D. Dear John: Being an actor does not excuse sin. There are movies to which no Christian should particpate, but an actor can use cuss words written in the script and not sin. There has never to my knowledge been a condemnation by the Church of any movie merely due to the language contained in the movie. The bottom line John is that your view does not match Church teaching. According to the Church motive does matter. This question was asked many years ago of one the ETWN experts, if I remember correct, and he gave the same answer I have given -- language spoken by a actor because the script calls for it is not sin. Actors that say the words of consent in marriage does not make those people actually marred. The words of Institution of the Eucharist does not actually create the Real Presence even if an actor is a valid priest. Words are not magic. In the movie about the life of Richard Nixon if the script writer censored all vulger language and instead had Nixon saying, "Oh gee wiz", it would not only be a lie to the nature of Nixon, but would be laughable. The actor commits no sin in saying those words from the script. People do use profanity. To depict a character that uses profanity, like Richard Nixon, to say "oh gee wiz" is just plain silly. The sexually explicit, however, is always condemned because the sexual faculty is for the privacy of the marriage bed alone. Nudity and sexually explicit scenes in movies are motivated solely by purient interest. There is no other reason for it. The Church teaches that such scenes are pornography. Even if the actors are actually married to each other, it would still be sin because that behavior belongs in privacy. Movies can easily depict illicit sex between the characters, or what would be licit sex between a husband and wife, without even a hint at any nudity or other explicit activity. We only have to look back to the movies of fifty years ago to see that all sorts of sex is going on without any depiction of nudity or sexual explicitness. Thus, since people do have sex, even illicit sex, it will come up in stories. But, that reality of human behavior never has to be explicit. These two subjects are apples and oranges. When I get these sorts of questions I must answer in a manner that is consistent with technical moral theology. Some issues may be technically permissible according to the strict moral theology, but not desirable. Indeed, there are sexual practices between married couples that are technically permissible but you and me would be horrified at the thought. St. Paul gives us this principle in the bible, twice: (1 Cor 10:23) All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful; but all things edify not. (1 Cor 6:12) All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. As I said in the original posting, while certain things are technically permissible under mortal theolpgy, it may not pass the test of our own conscience. If that is the case, then follow your conscience. Just because something is technically allowed does not mandate that action. We have a choice according to our own perferences and conscience. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below: Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum. Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

Acting, not a sin?

John

Monday, November 14, 2011

Question:

Bro. Ignatius Mary,

I’m sorry Bro. Ignatius, but I must disagree with your answer concerning an actor portraying a role.

Regardless of the role being portrayed, the words spoken, and the action being portrayed, just because he/she is acting, just following a pre-written script, in my mind does not grant them immunity from sin.

Accountability to God for our actions should not be given a pass simply because an actor follows a pre-written script, and that it is not real life, should not excuse it.

What about the actor who portrays a role, one where explicit sexual content is involved? What if a role should contain a scene where explicit same sex relationships are involved. And, what is that role called for explicit same-sex sexual content, would this, as well, be excused as just acting?

Do we not have an obligation not to portray such roles knowing full well that others, those who pay to see such plays or movies, just by attending commit a grave sin.

If, as an actor, in a play or movie, you are only reading lines from a script, or portraying physically what the script tells you to do, you get a pass from God? Does not the Church condemn certain types of plays and movies that contain such immoral content?

Acting, I understand, is just acting. However, as Catholic's, do we not have a moral obligation not participate, as an actor, or as someone who, knowing that such a play or movie containing such immoral content that it has been condemned by the Church, willingly, attend said play or movie, saying, "this is just acting, not real, so no sin is being committed".

I have always believed that if you condone what God has condemned then you are guilty of the same sin.

God bless,

John.

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r), L.Th., D.D.

Dear John:

Being an actor does not excuse sin. There are movies to which no Christian should particpate, but an actor can use cuss words written in the script and not sin. There has never to my knowledge been a condemnation by the Church of any movie merely due to the language contained in the movie.

The bottom line John is that your view does not match Church teaching. According to the Church motive does matter. This question was asked many years ago of one the ETWN experts, if I remember correct, and he gave the same answer I have given -- language spoken by a actor because the script calls for it is not sin. Actors that say the words of consent in marriage does not make those people actually marred. The words of Institution of the Eucharist does not actually create the Real Presence even if an actor is a valid priest.

Words are not magic.

In the movie about the life of Richard Nixon if the script writer censored all vulger language and instead had Nixon saying, "Oh gee wiz", it would not only be a lie to the nature of Nixon, but would be laughable. The actor commits no sin in saying those words from the script.

People do use profanity. To depict a character that uses profanity, like Richard Nixon, to say "oh gee wiz" is just plain silly.

The sexually explicit, however, is always condemned because the sexual faculty is for the privacy of the marriage bed alone. Nudity and sexually explicit scenes in movies are motivated solely by purient interest. There is no other reason for it. The Church teaches that such scenes are pornography.

Even if the actors are actually married to each other, it would still be sin because that behavior belongs in privacy. Movies can easily depict illicit sex between the characters, or what would be licit sex between a husband and wife, without even a hint at any nudity or other explicit activity. We only have to look back to the movies of fifty years ago to see that all sorts of sex is going on without any depiction of nudity or sexual explicitness. Thus, since people do have sex, even illicit sex, it will come up in stories. But, that reality of human behavior never has to be explicit.

These two subjects are apples and oranges.

When I get these sorts of questions I must answer in a manner that is consistent with technical moral theology. Some issues may be technically permissible according to the strict moral theology, but not desirable.

Indeed, there are sexual practices between married couples that are technically permissible but you and me would be horrified at the thought.

St. Paul gives us this principle in the bible, twice:

(1 Cor 10:23) All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful; but all things edify not.

(1 Cor 6:12) All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

As I said in the original posting, while certain things are technically permissible under mortal theolpgy, it may not pass the test of our own conscience. If that is the case, then follow your conscience. Just because something is technically allowed does not mandate that action. We have a choice according to our own perferences and conscience.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum