January 25, 2007
Criticism of violence and adult content in video games came from an unexpected direction yesterday - the Vatican.In a message issued for the Catholic Church's World Day of Communications, Pope Benedict XVI said:
Any trend to produce programmes and products - including animated films and video games - which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion, all the more repulsive when these programmes are directed at children and adolescents...
I appeal to the leaders of the media industry to educate and encourage producers to safeguard the common good, to uphold the truth, to protect individual human dignity and promote respect for the needs of the family.
Pope Benedict also called upon parents to take responsibility for their children's media consumption:
Educating children to be discriminating in their use of the media is a responsibility of parents, Church, and school. The role of parents is of primary importance.
Comments
Which we know will never happen.
I'm sorry, dude, I missed it where you said that Benny is German. I call him Benidict, not Benny, I guess that's where I got confused. I'm not sure that this isn't a connect the dots situation. A crazy guy shoots a lot of people and then kills himself and that starts a chain reaction that gets the pope talking against all violent media. I know it's not just video games, but I'm sure that's the main one. I respect the Catholic Church, but I have absolutely no respect for those comments. Calling us perverts is a mile over the line. I hate his comments in the worst way and I hope that, in the future, he thinks before he speaks. He needs to watch his mouth because that was a generalized comment saying that we're perverts and I take personal offense at those comments.
"Morality is absolute, however one’s conception of morality is subjective."
The example I had in mind during the morality discussion was this: in some cultures it is not only acceptable, but expected, that one consume the flesh of one's slain kin (for myriad reasons: honoring the dead, acquiring their strengths, etc.). In "civilized" societies, this would be considered a perversion of the most heinous, and is usually very illegal.
So who's right? Is it morally acceptable to eat your dead relatives? If morality is absolute, the answer is either yes or no. If cannibalism is immoral, are you saying that a culture that endorses it as a matter of tradition is... wrong?
@ Daniel
Point taken. The comment about perversion does go a bit far. And you're right that it is insulting. Old people (and organizations), though, are often too set in their ways to adapt to the times. And religious folk, in my experience, love to condemn anything outside their narrow views.
For some reason I'm not allowing myself to get too upset about. Maybe it's because I just don't feel the statement is relevant, perhaps especially given the source. Or I'm just too tired to worry about it.
"Hey Bob, well, we're expecting some rain this evening which means that there will probably be water falling from the sky, and according to our experts here at channel five that water will most likely be wet. In our extended forecast, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow..."
In November of last year, there was an eighteen year old in Germany who shot up a junior highschool and shot a total of 37 people before killing himself. That was on this webiste in November. That is why Germany is thinking about banning all violent video games.
I am Roman Catholic and I like the Catholic Church and I respect the Catholic Church, but I have no respect at all for his comments. He was calling all of us gamers, who play violent video games, perverts. F that comment. I hate that comment and I am no pervert. I don't think anyone on this website is. F what he said. I have no respect only disdain and anger for the Pope's comment that consuming violent media equals pervertion.
First, the Crusades. Yes, we get organized religion was responsible for that, thank you. And we know that the Church made a lot of bloodshed, but c'mon people, that was a loooong time ago, and things change. The Catholic Church is corrupted, but last I checked they're not ordering Holy Wars or Inquisitions even on people that lead "sinful lives". By the logic some are following, then why not also hold the states of South Carolina, North Carolina Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee in contempt for seceding from the Union and for allowing things like slavery and genocide? Or better yet, why not condemn the British for all the crimes they committed in the name of their Empire (including the aforementioned slavery and genocide), which despite being long past was still more recent than the Crusades? Because they've changed over time, and the same people that made those crimes are certainly no longer alive. Same goes for the Church, which despite its corruption and hypocricy, certainly not the same Church that tried to take over Jerusalem. If you want to use an example of religious crimes against humanity, use the Islamic insurgents, at least they're current (even if like the Pope on Catholics they don't represent the whole of Islam).
Second, someone stated that the first thing people see when they enter a church is gold. That cracked me up, really. My family's religious, which means I've been to different churches of many denominations, and rarely do I see anything beyond paintings depicting Christ and such or banners. The idea that all churches are decorated like Russia's Amber Room is generalistic and in some cases insulting, and even if a few have rich furnishings and such (not many of the modern day churches have them), you can't generalize all churches as "gaudy".
As far as the Pope's statement goes, big deal. As has been stated, he has enough skeletons in his closet (and probably a few altar boys), and it's not like he can actually enforce his statements. I'd pay more attention to our own respective governments cracking down on the media, not some religious figurehead that has as much control over human lives as Queen Elizabeth II (by that I mean aside from followers, he has none). Now if there were some Catholics in government that thought the Pope's word was gold and would enforce it, then I'd see it as a problem.
Honestly, this is about as temperate as we could have expected. Like it or not, his job is to lead a Religious faith which discourages violence, sex, and other naughtiness in a dogma so clear that the average person could probably name over half of the commandments. Even if he wanted to (and I doubt he would), he couldn't say "And yea, Gears of War is beloved of the Holy Trinity, and the Pope is willing to own all nooblets at his XBoxLive tag 'Pope-Sidious'."
Honestly, I was expecting more fire and brimstone-type stuff. Some of his other speeches have been calling for Old Testament-style smitings.
"That movie glorifies the beating, torture, and eventual crucifixion of Jesus."
Gotta disagree with you there. I find a difference between glorifying it, and simply overdoing it in the name of pushing a message. The message I believe the Catholic church is endorsing is that Jesus went through hell on earth for you, so buck up and be grateful damnit! ;)
Personally I didn't like the movie, but more for the fact that the sheer volume of violence desensitized me to it by the end of the movie. I didn't really feel any empathy at the end, because I'd use it all up during the torture scenes.
I took the Pope's message to be calling out not those games that contain violence, but rather "exalt" (glorify) it. He's repulsed by media that glorify violence for violence's sake, that glorify anti-social behavior, and glorify the trivialization of human sexuality (presumably referring to the prostitutes). It certainly gives a lot of leeway for media that is violent, yet don't trivialize it. Perhaps those where violence is shown to have consequences, or penalties, for example.
"which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality"
Nowhere in this statement is there a call for a ban on violent/sexual media. It is media which "exalts" violence or "trivializes sexuality." By way of example, IMHO the game Postal 2 exalts violence (there is no theme being presented here), while GTA San Andreas does not (it is a social satire and commentary on violence). The Pope is smarter than you. And me.
If you read my damn post you would have noticed "benny is German".
Sorry Daniel, but this is not a simple connect the dots situation. Most of the dots are missing.
Daniel, I remember those with crystal clarity. I know what is going on, I don't have the problem of being oblivious like you do.
This is targeted at ALL MEDIA. Media, that he feels is violent for the sake of violent, be it games, movies, or cartoons. He has a problem with the media as a whole at this juncture.
Dude, the shooting has everything to do with this. Don't you remember that two months ago there was a thread on this site talking about the eighteen year old that went crazy and shot 37 people? Do you also remember that there were threads after that talking about Germany making anti-game laws? It's all conntected to the shooting that happened in November in Germany. All through the holiday season there were entries on this site talking about how politicians in Germany were getting tougher on video games because of that shooting. You don't remember that?
Don't you know that the pope is German and probably agrees with the politicians in his home country? The shooting has everything to do with this. It was a German version of Columbine except that the shooter was the only one killed. The 37 people he shot were only hurt. Go back and look at all the entries about Germany's tougher video game laws because the shooter played Half-Life Counter Strike. The pope's statements have everything to do with the shooting. It's all linked to that one event. It has set off a chain reaction that is all but banning violent video games in Germany. You don't know that?
No he didn't, unless you have something else eating at you. You know, you have been screaming your life story and why you love "Violent video games" so much on the site for a while, whats changed all the sudden eh?
One more thing? I know Benny is German, but what does the shotting have to do with this? I mean, its a little late to make a statement about that. have you considered that maybe he has a problem with all media, and not just games? Or has your little mind grabbed the word game and started screaming "violent games rock! They are gods gift to man LAWLS!"?
Let the diehard Catholics believe I'm perverted for the entertainment I choose. Maybe I am. It's certainly among the least of my perversions, though.
This isn't the first time a Pope has condemned things I like, and it won't be the last. The fact is, the Pope has no authority over me, so I don't care what he decrees. It's not like congress has said I'm not allowed to do these things.
the view is violence is evil and darkens our hearts. and god wants us to be pure in heart when we enter heaven.
There is more to it than i can think of at the moment.
and this is my understanding of the Catholic Church as a practicing catholic.
I'll do more research on it, and I can only ask that all you do as well.
Misguided article? Are you referring to GPs coverage? Commenters here being hypocrits? Where?
You want hypocrisy? Look no further than raining judgements from a golden chair about media, "which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour." All the while the Church's official position on Mel Gibson's, "Passion," is one of acceptance - even as far as endorsing viewing of it in Catholic High Schools (read: adolescents). That movie glorifies the beating, torture, and eventual crucifixion of Jesus. And it does so without any form of mediating prespective - it's only about the violence, and not about the reason for said violence. Hell, even GTA has some shallow 'reason' for its violence. The 'Passion' does not. Hypocrisy defined.
I won't go into the child abuse in the Church, others have done so, perhaps blowing it out of proportion, I'll admit. But it happens, and the the Churches handling of it reeks of: "Under the rug with you."
Perhaps, as AM mentioned, the Pope was calling out all violent, sexual media as perverse, and not just the marketing of it to kids as I originally thought. I admit that that part wasn't clear to me. But that is even worse. I'm an adult. Forgive me if I am offended by the Pope calling me 'perverse' for supporting the production of violent and/or sexual media by consuming it. Forgive me for calling out hypocrisy where I see it. Forgive me, but I don't follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church to the letter, and being called out as contributing to the decline of the common good, not upholding the truth, not protecting individual human dignity nor promoting respect for the needs of the family kind of pisses me off.
It wouldn't bother me if it was one 80 year old virgin telling me how to live my life. I can ignore that. But every time the Pope, old or new, opens his mouth, millions of blind sheep eat it up without a second thought. And those people I have to deal with daily. And I really get tired of people telling me I live I sinful life. Sue me, I play violent video games, I watch violent movies, and I fornicate as often as possible. Oh, and I'm not married yet, but my fiancee lives in my apartment. But sinful old me gets to watch blatant hypocrisy from on high, as well as from the people around me, but I get called out for it because I refuse to pretend I practice mainstream religious beliefs. And when I open my mouth to point out these facts, I am the one being a hypocrit.
If my views offend you, print them out and take them to your pastor/reverend/preacher. I'm sure that person has a nice bag of religious balm to sooth the sores of independant thought.
Yes, the Catholic church has issues it needs to solve. Progress is made on those issues. But to say it has to remain totally silent on all other issues in the meantime is like saying the police cannot even begin to address ANY of the robberies in the neighborhood until they solve ALL of the murders, since, after all, murder is worse then robbery.
"The Pope represents Catholics on a good day. He does NOT represent the views of all of Christianity."
Exactly. He doesn't even represent all Catholics, EVEN on a good day. His group is ROMAN Catholics. He certainly doesn't represent eastern or oriental orthodox Catholics...
True, there are some churches in the world that are humble in their structures. However, the one's that reside in my town are far from it. The fact that I can walk in and see grand marble statues depicting the birth of Christ is still a testament to the fact that I believe they are wasting their money. It would not be hard to spot gold in the church I once was a member of. I've also been to churches outside of the one I used to be a part of and again saw gold and marble statues that must have cost a fortune. The Catholic church simply wastes its money on the idea that it needs such grand items in it, to appeal to the people. The fact of the matter is, if you go to church it should simply be to pray to God. If the church was nothing but a mere hovel, it should not make a bit of difference. In the bible it states that Jesus was a simple man. Therefore, the churches built in order to people to pray to him in, should be simple as well. To go in and be taken in awe of how grand the statues that stand before you may make one think, "this is truly a grand place to worship my God". What should be more awe inspiring is not the art work, but the lesson you learn when you leave. Even this past Sunday, my parents went to church and when they returned home, talked about how they gave extra money so that the church could obtain a new statue. That money should be used for the poor & homeless. Not more "eye candy". Those are just my opinions however & this argument could go on forever. The only thing I wish to point out is that what the church believes it's using its money for is a good idea, I find it to be nothing more than squandering.
Presumably because of that whole "soul" thing. Deeds/thoughts make the man, so to speak. I think it even applies to those who don't believe in a "non-corporeal morality appendage" (such as myself). Someone who does "bad" things, or thinks "bad" thoughts, can certainly be a warning sign that they may not be the best person to hang around. Christianity especially addressed that. Coveting means thinking selfish thoughts of want towards something else (as an example). Which in itself can be bad for you if you do it too much.
I guess the biggest quirk is that those thoughts would still be there, and the games are only an indication of their presence. So eliminating the games would not really affect the thought process. It's like throwing out the litmus strips and hoping that eliminates the problem of unbalanced pH...
“video games are evil.”
So are reality shows. :p
"I don’t think you’d make the same argument that he’s speaking out against the economic pressure if he were decrying Playboy by name."
I would if he worded it the way he did. By implicating the economic pressures, among other things, he's spreading equal blame to the industry, the consumer, the parents, and the education system that children are raised in.
"what I see here is still just a (somewhat) tactful, 'video games are evil.'"
I don't quite see it that way, (the video games are evil part, he was quite tactful), I think he was focusing more on a specific content of media (the ones portraying violence and anti-social behavior), mostly for the example they set.
I really can't read it that way at all. I read that the trend in media toward violence is the perversion, and if that's so, then the components of that trend (of which games are one) are part of that perversion. I don't think you'd make the same argument that he's speaking out against the economic pressure if he were decrying Playboy by name. That said, I do agree that he's calling for economic weight to go in the other direction, to remove incentive for the media.
Maybe my view is colored by my upbringing, which was a fairly fundamental Protestant one, however what I see here is still just a (somewhat) tactful, "video games are evil."
I beg to differ on a minor piece here. Morality is absolute, however one's conception of morality is subjective. If one man thinks that a particular subject is wrong, I agree that it does not change how right or wrong it is. However, it is not more wrong for one person, otherwise a great many more things could be gotten away with. At the very least, even if I'm wrong, belief in an absolute morality is why society works.
This all relates to this article because it means that the Pope's conception of media violence does not change its state. Further, media violence is not more sinful for certain people than for others. In the end, we have to choose on our own experiences what media is wrong and what media isn't. This is probably not the opinion of your average Catholic, but as a Catholic myself I can say with regret that IMHO our religion is not so much about worshipping God anymore so much as following doctrine mandated by a clergy that tells us what God is like. It is unfortunate, and I keep the denomination "Catholic" only because the parts that do not comprise Catholic "Tradition" seem correct to me, so I still agree with the core beliefs but not with the method of enacting them.
“Educating children to be discriminating…”
I want to be surprised by this, but I can’t be.
Why not? It's not as if he meant it as in "discriminating against blacks" or something of the sort. The word "discriminating" has another definition, which is more fitting for this context. From dictionary.com:
showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste
"Educating children to be discriminating…"
I want to be surprised by this, but I can't be.
... I'd just like to point out that he is critising ALL media, as far as I can tell he doesn't single out games at all.
And as much as I generally disagree with the Catholic Church on most issues... I do think that media has a lot to answer for.
Possibly I'm just getting old though :(
your words ring true. I am just so disturbed by people here using the misguided article as an opportunity to attack the religon. Certain people here should some maturity before coming off as total hyprocrits (judging and generalizing in retaliation for judging and generalizing).
Perhaps I'm giving him more leeway because he is supposed to be a speaker on morality (he is a spiritual leader afterall, remember that even thinking impure thoughts is supposed to be sinful in Catholicism). So it is his place to say that games about killing and anti-social are certainly "against the grain", even for adults (we don't get a free pass just because we're adults, spiritually anyway).
I have a line in the sand for comments like that. People can be disgusted with content all they want. Afterall, to not allow to do so would mean I'm just as much of a thought-control freak as they claim they are not. And I feel the Pope's latest comments certainly tread the line, but do not cross it.
He doesn't order the industry to stop, nor does he call people who consume this media perverted. He's just commenting on the trend, which in itself could be a comment on society's willingness to buy into such game genres...
I suppose it all boils down to what he MEANS by perverted. Does he mean deviancy to the tune of sexual perversion (ie as bad)? Or the concept of using something in the "wrong" way (ie a perversion of justice?) Maybe it's a call similar to Doug Lowenstein's speech, that the industry can "do better"...
"The Pope, surely, is not to blame for this, but a message from his denomination, which has continually struggled with its own perversion, seems out of line."
As a leader, it's his job to set the stage. Perhaps if he had been the one turning a blind eye to the scandal, then yes, I would completely agree that it would be hypocritical of him to criticize others. But seeing as he has come down on both his own congregation as well, then I don't see a conflict.
Insert between the first and second paragraphs quoted in the article:
"How could one explain this ‘entertainment’ to the countless innocent young people who actually suffer violence, exploitation and abuse? In this regard, all would do well to reflect on the contrast between Christ who “put his arms around [the children] laid his hands on them and gave them his blessing” (Mk 10:16) and the one who “leads astray … these little ones” for whom "it would be better … if a millstone were hung round his neck" (Lk 17:2)."
Note that the Pope opted to leave out the end of Luke 17:2. In full:
"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble."
In other words, if a game leads a child astray, those of who produce these games would be better off being drowned. Nice.
Reference, the Vatican's own website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/d...
The part we've been discussing is in point three, second paragraph.
Parents should be educated to understand the ESRB code - sure. But if you ask me, the definitions ARE out there.
If concerned parents really care about understanding this medium they should do thier own research.
Thanks in advance.
"Note that the Pope opted to leave out the end of Luke 17:2. In full"
I imagine because to do so could be construed as a threat against those who make the games. Which is not the message he wants to portray. By deliberately leaving that part out, he is merely comparing someone who blesses and guides the children, vs. someone who leads them astray. He chooses to say that they should be weighed down with a stone (akin to the Simpson's Mason's "Stone of Shame"), and deliberately avoids saying they should be killed.
This Pope knows very well the danger of not choosing his words carefully. Remember the firestorm he touched off a few months ago with some not-so-carefully chosen words in regards to Islam...
If you read the earlier section, the "perversion" he is talking about seems to be in reference to the need for ethical guidance when commercial pressures encourage a lowering of standards. Namely he seems to be acknowledging that you can't just blame the industry, if the economic pressure weren't there, then the games he finds repulsive wouldn't get made.
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/01/24/utah-committee-hearing-audio/
thats what I meant ^^
Glad I broke from the Catholicism for years ago. Now I know that Catholics today are just a bunch of Hypocrites, as if the "God" himself promote Hypocrisy.
?? How in any way is that announcement hypocritical?
I'm not sure where you're seeing "Stop blaming the industry."
From the article:
"Any trend to produce programmes and products - including animated films and video games - which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion..."
He's flat out calling the production of violent and anti-socially themed games a perversion. That's a great many games where he's blaming the industry, and given that he calls "Any trend to produce" games that fall into those categories a perversion, it doesn't read like he wants M rated games out of the hands of minors ("tell the industry to be mindful" as you put it), so much as out of existence. He went on to say "all the more so," when related to minors, but it can't be "more so" unless he's already calling it a perversion regardless of context.
I absolutely do agree and applaud his call for parents to be of primary importance in all this.
LOL.
Look at your own backyard first before critizing others.
Maybe they could also apologise to the thusands of young girls held in the magdelene laundries against thier will despite having commitedno crime as well while they're at it.
Then and only then can he pass comment on fictional pieces of entertainment
See my first post in the thread for an example of why The_None may consider it hypocritical (and why several others in the thread have as well, without using the word, as witness their comments similar to mine about the church cleaning itself up first).
Havent you've ever seen South Park?! Touching boys is essential!! :p :p :p
Who can guess the episode of South Park?
Nothing about bans, or demanding government involvement. Education is the word of the day.
Usually I roll my eyes when Pope "The Enforcer" Benedict speaks out on an issue. But this was actually quite moderate for him.