More and more frequently, usually from more liberal-leaning folks (but sometimes from the far-right as well), I hear of the need to limit free speech. I am not in favor of greater limitations on free speech by legal means in any way. Rather, I think that speech should be regulated by social pressure.
Pornography is a kind of free speech that is regulated by social pressure. There are heavy social and religious stigmas (stigmata?) against the production and use of pornography. Unfortunately, in our day, it is ever easier to consume it in secret, but at least it isn't often publicly promoted.
On the other hand, I think that there's another kind of speech which is often equally as sinful as pornography, but its consumption is widespread and done without shame. Even devout Catholics participate in its use, or even its production, without any qualms, and the Church seems almost silent on the matter. This kind of speech is, in most cases, called "journalism".
Now, as I said above, I think there should be very few legal restrictions on speech, and journalism is included. Rather, I think the more pernicious journalism ought to be stigmatized, both socially and in religious institutions. Unfortunately, not many Catholics see journalism as being as pernicious as it is. So, I will compare it to pornography. For short, I will use the term "media" (so as to include what is often shared on social media as well.)
Pornography: presents human beings outside of the context of their full humanity for the purpose of eliciting passions contrary to charity.
Media: presents human beings outside of the context of their full humanity for the purpose of eliciting passions contrary to charity.
Pornography: objectifies and degrades human beings for the sake of profit.
Media: objectifies and degrades human beings for the sake of profit.
Pornography: violates the privacy of individuals for the sake titillating and gratifying the curiosity of an audience.
Media: violates the privacy of individuals for the sake titillating and gratifying the curiosity of an audience.
Pornography: substitutes real action with the illusion of action. (Viewing nudity or sexual acts replaces authentic fulfillment of one's sexuality.)
Media: substitutes real action with the illusion of action. (Following the minute-by-minute actions of politicians and institutions replaces one's duty to be active in one's community's affairs.)
Pornography: wastes time with something damaging to one's soul and spiritual progress. Addictive.
Media: wastes time with something damaging to one's soul and spiritual progress. Addictive.
Pornography: diverts ones thoughts away from noble, beautiful, generous things and toward degrading things unworthy of attention.
Media: diverts ones thoughts away from noble, beautiful, generous things and toward degrading things unworthy of attention.
Pornography: harms people's lives, divides communities and families, threatens peace and harmony with one's neighbor.
Media: harms people's lives, divides communities and families, threatens peace and harmony with one's neighbor.
And so on...
These are undeniably true, but I wonder if anyone has ever confessed their consumption of media as a sin? Or ever considered that it may be a mortal sin to consume these things, just as pornography usually is?
Not only is there little or no stigma against this kind of rampant objectification and dehumanization, but often its consumption is promoted as a kind of patriotic duty. I think the Church ought to consider a "crusade" against it, for the good of society. Or, are sexual sins still the only serious sins ordinary Catholics ought to worry about?
If you think that consuming the news media is not as sinful as consuming pornography, why do you think so? Are my comparisons unfair or invalid?
If you think that consuming the news media is not as sinful as consuming pornography, why do you think so? Are my comparisons unfair or invalid?
I think you're on to something, Ross. This past Advent (I should have done it again in Lent), I tried to fast from absentmindedly clicking through the Washington Post at work. I ended up simply feeling better, less anxious, with my priorities in better order. I suppose I thought of it more in terms of gluttony than pornography, but I think your comparison is not far off the mark.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, this topic came up in discussion this week with a coworker. I was making the point that back in the day, a paper was only so big and editors had to, you know, actually edit in order to meet the demands of the standardized physical medium. Now, everything is limitless and we are all victim to that little red banner that blinks up at the top of the Washington Post website every so often: BREAKING NEWS.
Thanks for your thoughts, Matt. I think that the gluttony comparison is good, especially in the sense of filling oneself indiscriminately. I think that pornography is also an apt comparison, because what are consumed are portrayals of human beings that corrupts the consumer’s view and ways of relating to his fellow man.
ReplyDeleteAs for your second point, it made me want to look up something I read from Sertillanges (The Intellectual Life, pp. 148-149):
“As to newspapers, defend yourself against them with the energy that the continuity and the indiscretion of their assault make indispensable. You must know what the papers contain, but they contain so little; and it would be easy to learn it all without settling down to interminable lazy sittings!…
A serious worker should be content, one would think, with the weekly or bi-monthly chronicle in a review; and for the rest, with keeping his ears open, and turning to the daily papers only when a remarkable article or a grave event is brought to his notice.“