Starting captions:
- Other than a bit of expected Hollywood license with respect to the little-elaborated Narnian adulthoods of Peter, Susan and Lucy, the film sticks quite close to the original story.
- One of these things is not like the others…
- The Lion, the Action Hero and the Warrior Princesses
“The long-expected remake of The Lion in Winter hits theaters this, uh, winter, and features Hollywood’s hottest rising new stars in the roles of King Henry II, Henry’s mistress, and Henry’s queen Eleanor of Aquitaine.”
Aslan’s Angels.
Barnum & Bailey’s announces new “Circus Xtreme”…
Deeply Macho Movie Trailer Voice-over:
Aslan’s back…
and THIS time, he’s gonna kick some butt!
Man, can these people wear some clothes that actually, you know, clothes them?
I find it highly offensive that one would consider posting such pictures on a Catholic weblog. The women in this picture look like many I have seen at Masses around Southern California. What has happened to our sense of decency? Looking at such pictures can be considered a near occassion of sin. This is morally unacceptable for any Catholic to post on a web site.
Is that guy carrying a _pistol_? I think I need to go reread the books again.
As to a caption, how about “This Lion’s not staying in the closet!”
I’m sorry, JMJ_fashions, but while the one outfit may be rather suggestive, it is hardly “highly offensive.” If this particular image is a serious near occassion of sin for an individual or causes them acute mental anguish, then such an individual has far more serious issues to attend to than the subject matter of this website. It may very well be prudent for such an individual to avoid the possiblity of being exposed to such visual stimuli (avoid the beach, masses in Southern California, or even the supermarket), but I would not rule out the prospect of therapy to address the issues at hand.
Actually, Waffling, if you look closely, it’s the Matrix-Trinity lookalike up front who’s pointing the pistol.
Other than a bit of expected Hollywood license with respect to the little-elaborated Narnian adulthoods of Peter, Susan and Lucy, the film sticks quite close to the original story.
It’s just gotta be caption 1. Hands down.
It may very well be prudent for such an individual to avoid the possiblity of being exposed to such visual stimuli (avoid the beach, masses in Southern California, or even the supermarket), but I would not rule out the prospect of therapy to address the issues at hand.
Not only would I not rule out therapy, I would positively encourage it. Anyone who responds so extremely to this poster is probably a danger to women.
Wow Baumgartner…I said that I personally found this image highly offensive for a Catholic website. Immodest dress is always a near occasion of sin for men. This is why women (and all folks)should be modestly dressed at Mass and whenever out in public. I have no mental anguish…I have an intense preoccupation with getting to Heaven! In terms of prudence…No Catholic should be hanging out at a beach full of bikini clad women! I personally avoid the beach, the mall, and anyplace filled with immodestly dressed women (bars, etc). My wife also insists on this!
One does not need therapy when they know how to avoid sin…one needs to avoid therapy in order to avoid non-Catholic advice on sin. Immodesty in dress is a grave sin for those dressing that way too! Especially at Holy Mass. It shows disrespect for our Lord and may provide the occassion of sin for those at Mass. Assisting one in sin is a sin in itself. Try reading “Dressing with Dignity” if you need a refresher on Christian modesty.
It is a shame that these types of images keep getting posted on this weblog!!!!!!!!!
Listen up, hunters. In this part of the country they have really big lions. But don’t sweat it. You’ll be okay if you just stay together, keep your wits about you, and keep your guns at the ready. I mean, the lions around here are so big, there’s no way one could sneak up on you.
Pha…anyone with such liberal views on Catholicism is a danger to the faith of all those reading their posts. Oh yeah, I forgot…this is a “Catholic” answers-derived weblog. Sorry, I need to keep myself in check whenever I mistake this for a Catholic forum, especially given the state of so many in our Church.
“Immodest dress is always a near occasion of sin for men.”
I agree. They really should avoid those Speedos at the beach. And go back to those tank tops.
Dear “JMJ Fashions,”
I respectfull submit to you that Jesus, Mary and Joseph are probably more concerned about the lack of fraternal respect shown by Catholics who consider it appropriate to sneer at the Catholic faith of other believers, and who elevate themselves above the problems of the “state of the Church” they judge so easily, than they (JMJ) are about the fashions on a movie poster.
Something about specks and planks comes to mind.
This post is directed towards that of “JMJ_charity.” I of course resorted to personally attack pha and what I view personally as other liberal Catholics, only after he and a previous post implied I need therapy for being concerned about Christian modesty. Perhaps this was uncharitable, but a criticism was certainly warranted.
Fraternal respect or “human respect” as it ought to more rightly be called should not be at the top of the priority list for one defending the faith, albeit, personal attacks are not good. In other words…living the faith as a Catholic is truly the most important and one must occassionally call a spade a spade. Charity does not imply being politically correct. I still surmise that it is un-Catholic to post a movie poster like this! Furthermore, many Catholics do exhibit an extreme lack of concern for important faith issues, such as modesty in dress, frequent confession, and other such things. That is aside from all the liturgical abuses, homosexual activism, drive for women’s ordination, eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand and other such things that plague our Holy Catholic Church.
Movie posters tend to be immodest because sex sells in our culture. The sixth and ninth commandments are very real, and posting such things on this weblog flies directly in the face of Christian modesty and charity for that matter. It is not charitable to post semi-nude or revealing pictures of women on a website, especially one frequented by Catholics. As I recall, Jimmy posted a similar image of a perverse nature referring to Battlestar Gallactica not too long ago.
Wise up Cathoic people…Christian modesty is at the heart of our problems. Women objectified…churchgoers scandalized at Mass. Wedding dresses looking immodest in the house of God? What is wrong with Catholics today? Many of your parents would have been scandalized had they seen people dressed the way people do today at their Churches or in public. Dressing with Dignity is a great book….check it out.
JMJ_fashions,
“Immodest dress is always a near occasion of sin for men.” As I understand that concept, it is any person, place, thing, etc. that would cause me to sin. Now, how do you know this would cause me to sin? How do you know the state of my soul? Prudential judgement?
Specks and planks indeed.
Pha…anyone with such liberal views on Catholicism
*LOL* If you think following the Pope is “liberal,” you’re welcome to call me liberal all you want.
a previous post implied I need therapy
I didn’t say anything at all about you. I said, in response to Baumgartner’s comment, “anyone who responds so extremely to this poster is probably a danger to women.”
If my meaning was unclear, I apologize. By “anyone who responds so extremely to this poster” I meant people for whom this poster is an occasion of sin, the people mentioned in Baumgartner’s post, which I quoted.
I stand by my statement, too. If this poster poses, for any person, an extreme temptation to lust, that person needs serious spiritual direction and counseling. Anyone who responds so extremely to this poster is probably a danger to women.
Ron Rolling Writes…
As I understand that concept, it is any person, place, thing, etc. that would cause me to sin. Now, how do you know this would cause me to sin? How do you know the state of my soul? Prudential judgement?
A near occasion of sin does not cause you to sin Ron. You said near occassion would cause one to sin…I say this means could cause one to sin. I could never know the state of one’s soul. I do, however, maintain that immodesty in dress (especially that of women in a public setting or on a Catholic weblog) can (not will as you misstated) cause men to fall into sin, thus it is a near occasion of sin and is therefore wrong. Can a man really go to the beach and not at least take notice of bikini clad women? That in itself is not a sin (seeing), but if you reflect upon it and look at her again (especially if with a lustful eye), knowing it is sinful to look at a semi-nude woman, then you have thus fell victim to her, a near occassion of sin she was. Men are weak and tend to fall through their eyes, thus, a woman sins by dressing immodestly in public, and a Catholic puts others in potential jeopary by posting images of immodestly clad women. I know it sounds like a blast from the 20th century and all, but Catholics seem so blind to the concept of sin these days, especially serious sexual sins, of the mortal variety. I call for a return to Catholic values, in a traditional sense.
Pha…I think this poster is immodest and that semi-nudity is a near occassion of sin for men. That said…it is ridiculous to state that because of this opinion, I would probably be a danger to women. I am no danger to my wife, coworkers, or to anyone else. Preposterous.
JMJ_fashions, for someone very concerned about the possibility of a near occasion of sin caused by viewing this poster, you certainly have been visiting this site a number of times today and placing yourself in a situation you have said can be an occasion of sin. Might I suggest that you set an example of avoiding what you believe to be near occasions of sin by avoiding this thread?
I had to turn off my internet security to see the picture, which had me laughing since I didn’t see it till after I had read all the comments.
The whole issue of modesty consists of how you carry yourself as well as what clothing you are wearing. Wearing the expression and attitude of “I AM ONE HOT BABE” can turn relatively innocent clothing into trash. I wouldn’t recommend the outfit on the left to anyone for any occassion, but what’s wrong with the black number?
I think you all should stop this fight. Please. Both sides are getting a little to heated over all this.
Just say a prayer for each other and let it go.
typo: I meant “too” not “to”
A passion for justice often corrupts into wrath. Shall we prevent ourselves from nuturing zeal because it may develop into anger? I find the sin of wrath a very common result of Catholic weblogs. Should we prevent potentially inflammatory subject matter? Of course not. Should some people avoid reading these blogs because they have a tendency towards falling into this sin. Quite likely. It is the same situation with images that may show the female form (and this image is hardly “semi-nude”). Should some people avoid even the possibility of seeing these? Quite likely. But this is a result of serious problems of their own. They should not project their own particular weaknesses onto others. Christ was called a glutton and a drunkard (among other things, I am sure..) because He did not avoid the places where people in need of repentence were. Yes, Christ was immaculate and we aren’t. Many should avoid the places where sin abounds, but should all Christians categorically avoid the places where one could possibly be tempted toward sin? In the end, it usually comes down to avoiding the sinful people themselves and refusing to minister to them. The pharisees were very good at avoiding the occasions for sin and there was much to be said for their method, but when someone actually tried to reach into the lives of public sinners, they couldn’t accept it. They threw labels and revealed their own sins of pride, malice, and even greed.
There is a fine line between preserving the sanctity of something inherently good and despising it. Sometimes we can cross the line without even knowing it. Beauty, even physical beauty, comes from God and is duly appreciated by the moral person. It is perfectly acceptable to argue as to where the line is drawn. I agree that the leather costume in question is immodest and wouldn’t recommend that it be worn in public. On the other hand, I appreciate the poster’s inherent mockery and commentary on the values that created this image.
BTW, communion in the hand is an ancient custom and legitimately approved ecclesiastical discipline.
Anyone notice that the one on the left is wearing a cross?
I just want to make it clear that although we disagree, I do not doubt that JMJ_fashions is a holy man and that his concern for others is genuine. Like pha, I do not intend to imply that he needs therapy.
I’d like to point just how many far less clothed depiction of women I’ve seen at such scandalous institutions as the Louvre, the Met, and The VATICAN MUSEUM!
Modesty is a virtue, not a dress code.
My caption is “Rambo VI: bring your whole crew.”
*depictions*
JMJ Fashions,
Calling a spade a spade is one thing. Doing it from a position of assumed superiority is another. You could have just said “Guys, I don’t think the girl on the left is appropriate for a Catholic forum,” or “kids look at this,” or any number of things.
Instead we are all treated to soapbox outrage. Do you think that’s the way to change people’s minds about something? Have you won any “converts” here? Do you think anyone else, having read your posts, wants to think like you now?
Factually, there may be reasons to agree with your side of the debate (as well as theirs). That particular character on the left is from an R rated movie, based on a video game rated “Mature” for sexual content, and who was the first video game girl to “pose” for playboy. A case can certainly be made that it isn’t appropriate for this forum.
But how you make a case is, ironically, at least as important to persuasiveness as the case itself. The problems:
1) You didn’t post an argument
2) You implicitly insult the intelligence of those who hold a different view from yours, whether you intend to or not
3) You fail to acknowledge that intelligent people can hold opposing positions. This is necessary to approach a discussion with charity.
What you are doing is called trolling; going on a site and trying to rile up the posters. Unintentional, but still trolling.
“Anyone notice that the one on the left is wearing a cross?”
That character is supposed to be a vampire. Kind of contradictory, isn’t it? :-p
And then there are the NFL and NBA “bimbos”. Is it somekind of breast size contest amongst cities since they can hardly be described as cheerleaders??
Nice that baseball has not gone down that route. You just have to admire the Philly Phanatic for good taste in dress. :))
JmJ fashions- You are right and this attack you are enduring is typical of the modern Catholic.
The beach and the malls today are a reflection of a pagan society which has abandoned God enmasse.
I personally know many good and holy Catholic
families who are scorned for keeping their children in modest dress and away from beaches malls and nightclubs.
Often such attacks come from other Catholics.
You are right in your beliefs and words and Scripture tells us we wil be persecuted for following Christ and holding to the high moral ground.
My thanks to you for being a True catholic and posting as you did. Your post shows True Catholic charity, while those who blast you likely need a refresher course in the Works of Mercy.
I think this poster is immodest and that semi-nudity is a near occassion of sin for men. That said…it is ridiculous to state that because of this opinion, I would probably be a danger to women.
You are still misinterpreting what I said.
I didn’t say you are a danger to women. I’m not talking about you at all. I said that anyone who looks at this poster and is consumed by an extreme temptation to lust is a danger to women. Such people need serious spiritual help. Lust is predatory. Lust does not see or treat human persons as persons.
Can a man really go to the beach and not at least take notice of bikini clad women? That in itself is not a sin (seeing), but if you reflect upon it and look at her again (especially if with a lustful eye), knowing it is sinful to look at a semi-nude woman, then you have thus fell victim to her, a near occassion of sin she was.
Seeing a bikini clad woman is not a sin. Reflecting on her beauty and finding her attractive is not a sin. Lust, which degrades her and views her as less than a complete human person, is a sin against God, the woman, and other people.
Among predators, a woman can and should defend herself through greater modesty. But her modesty, however virtuous, will not cure the predators of their sin. They must change; they must learn to love.
The whole issue of modesty consists of how you carry yourself as well as what clothing you are wearing.
I agree. In fact, I think one’s personal bearing is the greater part of modesty.
The fact is 90% of women at the beach today sin due to the revealing nature of the swimsuits they wear.
To suggest a woman can walk on the beach, with a skimpy bathing suit on, and that is NOT a sin, is just not true.
To disagree means one could go to a stripclub, view the naked woman and it is not a sin.
That is called Vatican2 talk, and post Vatican II, it becomes nearly impossible to sin, in the eyes of some.
Does Vatican II abbrogate the Scriptures ?
Back to the captions:
— “No,” said the lion, “it is I who will eat YOU!”
Or one straight from the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:
— “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver, “‘Course he’s not safe! But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you!”
Meister Eckhart writes:
“…The inclination to sin is not a sin, but to want to sin is sin…Indeed, if a man thought rightly, and if he had the power to choose, he would not want to choose that his inclination to sin should die in him, because without it he would lack decision in everything and in all that he did he would be without care in these matters, and, too, he would lose the honor of the battle and of the victory and of the reward; for it is the assault and the force of vice that bring virtue and the reward for striving. It is this inclination that makes a man ever more zealous to exercise himself valiantly in virtue, and it is a stern whip driving a man on to caution and virtue. For the weaker a man finds himself, the more he should protect himself with strength and victory. For virtue and vice too are a question of the will.”
From the “Counsels on Discernment,” Counsel 9
Having NeoCon defend ME in print would cause me to step back and take a long, hard look at my position.
One of the great things about Jimmy’s blog and Steven G’s website is that they explore the interface between faith and culture. If we wish to effectively evangelize, understanding the culture is part of our homework. If we wish to change the culture, we have to jump into the mix.
I understand that some people can’t handle seeing a woman in an above-the-knee skirt, and if that is the case, maybe they SHOULD barricade themselves in their homes.
For the life of me, I don’t see why people like NeoCon and JMJ Fashion would want to keep returning to this site, unless they just enjoy stirring up discord. That would be like me going on the Pax Christi site and flaming everybody there. I prefer to just stay away from sites that make me angry (though I might pop in to monitor once in a while).
If you think that Catholic Answers is a bastion of liberal, modernist Catholicism, I can only ask (along with a previous commenter), “what color is the sky on your planet?”.
WHY????
Why is any liberal misunderstanding of Catholicism dubbed Vatican II talk?
Why is any disagreement of opinion dubbed Vatican II talk?
Why does Vatican II have to take the bad rap for every bit of modernism and liberalism and relativism in the Church?
Anyone who claims to be a faithful Catholic had darn well better accept an infallible council for what it is- A gift from the HOLY SPIRIT.
and, frankly-READ THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II before blaming the council for women on the beach in bikinis!
Every Modernist priest tells us every new novelty or innovation is from Vatican II and its implementation. Hence my observation.
To say Vatican Ii is Infallible show a complete, a complete lack of understanding of the Council.
When Pope Paul VI said it was not infallible , then I accept that.
By the way, how is it that a document like Nostra Atete can overturn scripture?
Scripture says the jews are accursed , displease God for all time, and are adversaries of all men.
Vatican II attempts to make this null and void.
Which is the case, Scripture is infallible or Vatican II. The ans: Scripture.
As to others who have posted that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die a Catholic, that is also wrong.
To the extent a person can provide any proof this is wrong, I will gladly listen.
My source, which otes she did die as a Catholic
is the Vatican.
The issue of women waking 99% naked on the beach is not the fault of Vatican II.
Rather, the fault lies in priests not explaining to the flock tht today, going to the beach is a occasion of sin for Catholics, because this lack of modesty is sinful.
But today deviance is protected and respected while modesty is sen as a oddity.
If you are able to view another person (clothed or naked) without lust, then you’re not committing the sin of lust. To suggest otherwise is irrational.
Such love and purity of heart should be every person’s goal.
“Someone told me of an extraordinarily high degree of purity. He said a certain man, on seeing a beautiful woman, thereupon glorified the Creator; and from that one look, he was moved to the love of God and to a fountain of tears. And it was wonderful to see how what would have been a cause of destruction for one was for another the supernatural cause of a crown. If such person always feels and behaves in the same way on similar occasions, then he has risen immortal before the general resurrection.” – St. John Climacos
Such a pure person has absolutely no desire either to use or prey on others.
I understand that some people can’t handle seeing a woman in an above-the-knee skirt, and if that is the case, maybe they SHOULD barricade themselves in their homes.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I still think such a person needs serious spiritual direction. Our goal is not merely “not sinning,” but actually loving other people purely. If someone “can’t handle seeing a woman in an above-the-knee skirt,” he needs to be working towards greater purity.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver, “‘Course he’s not safe! But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you!”
ROTFL!
Scripture says the jews are accursed , displease God for all time, and are adversaries of all men.
Uh…Christ was a Jew and followed the Jewish law. Also, the Jews were God’s chosen people all through the Old Testament, and God sees all time as one–he is not bound by past and future in the way that humans are. Thus, to him, the events of the Old Testament are as present as those of today.
JMJ Fashions and NeoCon,
You may be trying to have a decent discussion, but it sure does look like you’re flaming/trolling. I respectfully suggest that there are other forums in which to have this discussion (Catholic Answers’ website would be the perfect place: http://forums.catholic.com/ ), and that we should stop talking about this now before we get one of two things:
– someone’s insanely long post attempting to refute every egregious overstatement, oversimplification, or overextrapolation you two have posted, or
– cyberhands being thrown up into the air, perhaps turning into a lack of charity at your goading
Captions:
“Simba, would you get these people off the pridelands already?”
“Somebody’s underdressed for winter . . .”
“Hey, why does she get the guns, and all we get is this lousy MGM logo?”
In reality Jesus abbrogated the Jewish law and ended the practices of Jewish law, so we can say that Jesus was the first Christian and the last Jew. Jesus was the First Catholic. And the apostles, as semites who practiced the One True religion of its time, became followers of Jesus and hence Catholics as well.
True Jewishness is one prefers that term would be Catholicism, although that term is not used because it can confuse people into thinking the practices of the old law are still useful when they have been made null and void by Jesus.
My view is identical to that of St. Paul, one of the greatest saints ever. It is impossible to claim I am wrong on this point, without doing the same to the writings of St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is not a “Christian,” He’s the Christ.
I think I’m going to imitate some commenter at another Catholic blog, who said that for every anti-Semitic post she read in any Catholic blog, she donated a few cents to the Jewish Red Cross in Israel. Last time she counted, she had over 70 dollars… she also said she received a Jewish calendar that began in September as a sort of thank-you note.
Let’s see how much money I can donate… at this rate, it’s going to be a respectable sum.
Veronica- Wow! What an interesting idea. I’m going to do something similar. 🙂
Fighting ignorance is a great idea. I suggest
sending friends and neighbors a copy of the Culture Wars magazine article titled ” Elie
Wiesel and the Catholics “. The legends and stories this man invented will have you wondering why he held on to them for so long, when they have been discredited for decades. He has changed his story so many times, it
is enough to confuse a person.
Sadly, the anti Semitic comments of today, 99.99% of which are directed against our Arab friends in Eygpt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other arab countries are far too common today.
Such semetic people deserve our respect, our compassion and should at all times be treated with dignity.
I think donating money to organizations that help these countries is being very Catholic.
“Sadly, the anti Semitic comments of today, 99.99% of which are directed against our Arab friends in Eygpt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other arab countries are far too common today.”
Don’t try to ignore my point, please. I was talking about Anti-Jewish comments in particular, of the kind that too often gets posted in Catholic blogs like this one.
“I think donating money to organizations that help these countries is being very Catholic.”
Indeed. And so is donating money to Israeli charities, which is what I intend to do.
Which is supporting the Russian Khazars
who are about as semetic as Archie Bunker.
“NeoCon”, what a joke!! Better that you sign your true name i.e. “N.A.Z.I”.
Matter, meet anti-matter. Anti-matter, meet matter.
So NeoCon has finally shown his true colors.
Well, it’s a relief to have my suspicions confirmed. Maybe now Jimmy will give him the boot (once he gets back from the CA cruise).
But in the meantime, thanks, NeoCon Spy, for making the rest of us look that much more sane.
Realist –
To the extent you falsely attach a label to me, a smear which is competely false, you should know that first thing Monday morning I will be contacting my attorney.
To the extent you falsely attach a label to me, a smear which is competely false, you should know that first thing Monday morning I will be contacting my attorney.
Oh puh-leeze. You’re writing under a pseudonym. Is the reputation of “NeoConSpy” in blog comment boxes of any monetary value whatsoever?
“first thing monday morning I will be calling my attorney”
Let me guess….Denny Crane.
“It is impossible to claim I am wrong on this point, without doing the same to the writings of St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
Well . . . isn’t that convenient. I’m thinking you weren’t in the debate club in high school.
“Matter, meet anti-matter. Anti-matter, meet matter.”
Publius, in one fell swoop, both succinctly summed up the arguement above & made one of the best captions for the contest! Well done! 😉
So NeoCon has finally shown his true colors.
I’m sure we’re all shocked. Shocked!
As a faithful Jew, the post of Realist shows itself to be the lowest kind of ad hominem attack. Eliminating Bigotry and racism is all about good parenting skills.
she donated a few cents to the Jewish Red Cross in Israel
BTW, here’s more information about the relationship between Israel’s Magen David Adom (MDA) and the International Red Cross & Red Crescent Movement. The American Red Cross seeks full voting membership for MDA.
“The Lion, and the Witch with No Wardrobe”
Best Music Buys CD Search and Price Comparison
It’s generally considered one of the best albums in pop music history. For all that renown, Astral Weeks is anything but an archetypal rock & roll album: in…
watches 18kt replica rolex