Hg Potter – May 4 at 6:46 PM

I write fiction with a heavy religious content. I enjoy critiquing the Arts and I was a university teacher of Greek Drama way back when before seminary. My fiction works describe many horrors and evils, sins and wickedness-within that heroes must overcome, but I never have depicted the Name of God being used in vain or any indiscreet scenes.

I take issue with those authors, script-writers, and film directors who do. Shakespeare did not need to depict such scenes, nor did the other greats, like Tolkien. I am a priest and do not have time to see “Father Stu”. I understand that the film found it necessary for realism to depict the taking of the Lord’s Name in vain. If this is true it is very disappointing.

Take note I am not taking issue with Father Stu and his life story. I am the last who should do so. What I take issue with is the lack of skill in the directors that they could not communicate the breaking of the commandment in some other, perhaps indirect way, appropriate for a Catholic audience, as Shakespeare would often do for his audience.

Normally the taking of the Lord’s Name in vain is a venial sin. That’s still a sin and must therefore be shunned, but its venial (not causing spiritual death) because its usually done habitually and in anger, (still not a good excuse) but not out of malice. The problem comes when you deliberately take the Holy Name of God in vain and are just downright being wicked or mean or irreverent.

Another problem is watching a film with the Name of the Lord being taken in vain and continuing to watch anyway, because its a good story, or even involves the Church. Depending on various factors. doing so very well could turn into a mortal sin for someone, just like those indiscreet scenes can. Its hard to fathom that the film got raving reviews even from clergymen just because it was realistic, or encourages vocations, and had a great ending.

I propose to you that we have forgotten how Holy is the Name of The Most High.Yes, actually to take the Name of the Lord in Vain, even for a good cause, such as making a vocational movie about a Catholic priest, is still a sin. Remember the basic teaching of Catholic Morality: we may not commit an evil so that a great good come from it. In other words, an evil act must not be the instrument to ensure a good outcome. But how, you ask, could acting, ie pretending, be a sin? The moral teaching goes for many impure scenes displaying carnal relations between two people. But…you say… that’s depicting real life…its not real. You take the argument further…were we to be so strict, it would mean we could not even make a murder mystery, since murder is a sin, as well as many other things God calls sinful. Where do you draw the line? ANSWER: In a film depicting murder, a sinful action is represented, but the actor is not actually doing it. No one is really being murdered. That’s right. As long as it does not glorify sin it would be okay, after all, there are many such scenes depicted in Scripture. But taking the Lord’s Name in vain is different because its the audible reality of the Word, which has divine power. It is the essence of God’s Name to be spoken in Holiness. That cannot be represented. You can represent reception of Holy Eucharist by mere unconsecrated bread being consumed by actors kneeling, because the circular shape can symbolize the real thing, the real thing however being not a symbol. But with the Holy Name being spoken you cannot. You cannot symbolize the speaking of The Name.

The ancient Hebrews would not dare pronounce it even while reading Scripture. Its like misusing electricity. If you shock someone with an electric charge, its real and has an effect. You cannot do that even if the script requires lightning bolts. You could depict lightning with CGI and with some acting, as in Darth Vader’s final moment, but real electricity is not used. Likewise, with the Holy Name of God. It cannot be used/represented as acting/vocalization and not have an actual “charge,” that being some effect on the soul and all souls in audible range, including the audience. It’s evil to use that power of The Name for anything but sacred invocation or righteous discussion, just as it’s evil to depict couples in union which must be preserved for sacred marriage bed. By watching/listening the audience is then involved. (There will always be a warning so turn it off after the character curses in the beginning of the story).If our God is the living God we must not consent to anything that suggests otherwise.If you wonder why the Muslims have so many converts, in part it is because they are fervent and go ballistic if the name of the Prophet is not respected. They completely lose their cool, and he was not even God. Here in Christianity the true name of God has been revealed to us and we refuse to get upset if it is dragged down because, well, after all, it’s for a good cause, the story describes a bad man who later became good. For the Muslims such an excuse would never fly. The film would be banned and utterly torched, regardless of its artistic merit. Its because the Muslims, even with all their various theological errors, demand that sacred things be respected. And we wonder why we in The West do not have many vocations…