Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English Spanish Portuguese

Father Angelo’s replies are in italics within our visitor’s email

Dear Father Angelo,

I submit to you some doubts about deliberate consent to commit a sin and about the definition of pornography presented by the CCC.

– Actually, if positive effects do not justify a disordered act, why is it excused by the absence of deliberate consent?

Certainly, a disordered act like selling pornography is not justified by any positive consequence, for instance profit.

Evil should never be done.

Negative moral precepts (those that prohibit an evil action) always oblige and in every case (semper et ad semper).

Pornography is never justified.

But there is no sin if, finding oneself in front of a pornographic image, one does not accept it, and rejects it as well, although one may subjectively experience some disorder.

Let us suppose: I point a gun at a person telling him that I shoot him unless he blasphemes, which blasphemy is a grave sin that would be committed in view of the positive consequence of not being hurt. And so, if the only way to verify the presence of a serious disease is through a semen sample, could we say that there is no deliberate consent in the impure act that produces that sample?

Here, the disorder is not in the semen analysis which is a useful and necessary diagnosis.

But, the method to procure the diagnostic material could be intrinsically disordered, especially since there are other lawful and decent ways to procure it.

It is known that some people, regardless of religious reasons, reject methods disrespectful of personal dignity.

In its time, the Italian bioethics committee remarked that.

– The CCC says that pornography turns sexual acts, real or simulated, away from the partners’ intimacy. Are “simulated” acts those when two actors only pretend to perform such acts but not really, and therefore with no involvement of the genitals (as in many movies), or those mannered acts when the genitals are really involved (as professional actors do in pornographic movies) and therefore not between partners?

Simulated certainly means what you said, but it also means depicted.

If the first case were meant, how is it possible to watch a movie in company without having to ask others to “go forward” and skip such scenes?

The problem is upstream.

Before watching a film, you must wonder whether you approve of it or not, just like when one reflects if a purchase is worthwhile and convenient.

Otherwise, if you unexpectedly face rough scenes, you will try to protect your own inwardness with the most appropriate precautions.

However, do not exclude the idea to lift your own heels and leave or even to say: “I didn’t come to look at this rubbish and to suffer continued violence”.

As you see, it is not a matter of being excused or not, but of protecting one’s own inwardness.

Clearly, it is a grave sin to watch such scenes for the excitement they cause. But if one just wants to lightly watch a movie, is it so necessary to skip a fake sex scene as soon as it appears?

In the latter case, common sense will suffice.

Thanks a lot, and have a good week!

I return your greeting, wishing you every good.

I bless you.

Father Angelo