DAKOTA FANNING IN NUDE RAPE SCENE?

January 26, 2007 by Father Joe

WARNING: This post was written to share a concern about the possible exploitation of children. Some good discussion and reflection about the topic has resulted. However, I am concerned that this post on my Blog often receives the highest number of hits. Given the use of certain search-engines, it may be that some of the visitors to this site are themselves looking for obscene and inappropriate images. If this is the case with you, turn off your computer, fall to your knees, and ask the good Lord for help against sexual addiction and any perverse fascination. Give yourself to Jesus Christ and ask for spiritual, psychological and physical healing. Pornography desensitizes the heart and poisons the imagination. It destroys relationships and damages families. ESCAPE this path before it is too late. Now you can read the post below… if that is the reason you visited my site.]

http://festival.sundance.org/filmguide/popup.aspx?film=4694

Fanning plays Lewellyn, a girl with an obession for Elvis Presley living in the South during the 1950’s. Headed by her grandmother, her character’s family is poor and dysfunctional. This sets the stage for what follows.

The movie HOUNDDOG has attracted some questionable attention and significant controversy over Dakota Fanning’s depiction of a young victim of sexual abuse and rape. Some groups contend that it will bring needed attention to a continuing crisis in American society. Others focus upon the young actress herself and argue that the scene of rape was too explicit for a twelve year old (she will be thirteen in February). This controversy caused the original financial backers to withdraw from the film, suspending filming for a time. The concern was understandable given that the screenplay would have Fanning appear naked or in her underwear for an explicit rape scene. Displayed at the Sundance Festival, viewers tell us that Fanning is not nude in the scene although she wore a body suit that made her appear so from the waist up. The scene takes place in a dark alley. Most of what is seen is her face and hands.

Some critics have contended that the film itself, instead of drawing attention to an important issue, might in itself be sexual exploitation.

Dr. Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, made the following statement: “This movie looks like a clear case of child abuse to me. The legal authorities should take harsh action against it.”

It was misreported by the AP that the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights had asked for a boycott. The truth was that Bill Donahue requested that the matter be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if any federal child pornography laws were violated during the making of the motion picture.

What do you all think?

Years ago there was similar controversy about a young Brooke Shields playing a prostitute; such films caused a rift with her mother when she got older, although they have since reconciled.

Fanning’s mother and tutor were on the set during the filming of the problematical scene and have taken some heat for the business. Is it pornography? How far can children feign sexual intercourse and/or rape scenes without it becoming sexually exploitive?

What about movies that have minors use or listen to foul language? Is this a corruptive influence?

Hollywood has not protected young actors in the past, why should we think things would change now?

I suppose many viewers are particularly protective of Fanning since she has grown up before our eyes in many films. We feel a connection and want her to be safe and happy.

REMEMBER to VOTE for FATHER JOE!

The competition this year is steep, especially for BEST PRIEST’S BLOG, but hey, at least I am begging. Voting ends March 17 so don’t delay! CLICK the logo to vote!

Posted in Asides, Television/Movies, Uncategorized | 54 Comments

54 Responses

on January 26, 2007 at 8:02 pm Dana LaRocca

Father,

“How far can children feign sexual intercourse and/or rape scenes without it becoming sexually exploitive?”

You ask.

What fruit does it bear? I ask.

I don’t know anything about this particular movie. But it seems to me that if the rape scene is essential to telling the story that an adult who appears younger than her true age could have been chosen to play the part.

If, on the other hand, the screenplay could have eluded to a rape without depicting it, it might have been made that way with a child actress. It might still have been in poor taste, though.

I think Miss Fanning is a gifted young actress and I pray that her future will not be dimmed by this misfortune.

Peace,
Dana LaRocca

FATHER JOE RESPONDS: My question here is rhetorical. The Holy Father has recently reitterated that sexual simulation by actors is itself inappropriate conduct. Obviously, this would be even more the case with children. Thanks for your thoughts, Dana. I join you in prayer for this gifted young girl, particularly that the seductions of Hollywood will not prevail in corrupting her innocence.
on February 16, 2007 at 4:26 am Joy Bell

I am pleased that people are praying for child actors in Hollywood. These little darlings are forced to grow up to early, in a land of many adults, that are so broken inside that they want adoration from the public, at the cost of everything.
I am pleased that are prayer groups in an around Hollywood.
I pray that Dakota Fanning find Jesus as her Lord and Saviour, and that her testamony will be a blessing to many.

Your in Christ.
on June 11, 2007 at 4:52 pm gomez

Lets be blunt here. At the very least the controversial scene has already done two things (which it was probably designed to do ) for the producers.

One was to get the subject of child abuse into todays discusion on a national basis.

The other thing it has done is get some major publicity for the movie. Many people will be clamoring to see the movie simply becouse of the noises made over this scene. A perfect example of this was the movie “last temptation of christ”. This movie, at best, would have gone by with the wimper, with few people seeing it, but with all the negative publicity it recieved the movie made millioins in profits.
on September 12, 2007 at 4:03 pm Kniffin

Since when did the human body become this horrible thing that if shown it must be “sinful”. This is a rape SCENE depicting how horrible this act is. No one is forcing this girl against he will to have intercourse on camera. Furthermore, no one here has the right to tell anyone how to live their life how they wish. If they wish to show the world the sickness in it by doing a rape scene, they have the right. Why would it be alright to watch the torture of “jesus” (in the passion of the christ) be tortured to depict how horrible it must have been to go through crucification. But no one else is allowed to show how horrible life can be.

kniffin
on September 21, 2007 at 4:44 am Mike

It is ashamed how the movie industry and families today exploit there children as to sexual matters, whether tv or a destructive family life that is surrounded around the topic of sex is so prevalent as to make kids curious as to try what they see in the movies or at home between those who are supposed to be guardians over them. Lets face it the movie industry does not care about the children, just about the ” profit”… todays all mighty dollar is more important then the proper upbringing of children. How many children in hollywood are going to turn out acting out the part of harlots and so called idols not being looked at as actors or actresses but only sex symbols…I pray that God will deal a severe blow to the movie industry and stop preying on children.
on October 9, 2007 at 6:43 am Ron T

I pray that Mike learns the difference in their, there, and they’re. Also that he stops trying to use big words to sound important when all he is actually accomplishing is making himself look ignorant. If Hollywood has that much control over the children, it is only because they have terrible parents!

FATHER JOE RESPONDS: English is not everyone’s primary language. Your personal attack against Mike is out of place.
on October 9, 2007 at 6:48 am Ron T

P.S. MIKE….. if your kids suck….it’s because you suck… there was, is and always will be bad influences… yet good kids come from bad places because of good parents…. bad kids sometimes come from the most ideal situations…because they had bad parents who tried to blame their failures on holllywood….GET A LIFE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!! You are one of those people who takes credit for al the good things that you are involved in and blame all the bad on others…. WEAK!!! Pray for yourself!

FATHER JOE RESPONDS: You are reading too much into a short personal response.
on October 14, 2007 at 8:58 am Mike2

It doesn’t really even matter what is said for the people trying to defend dakotas’ decision, her pearents’ decision, and hollywoods’ decision. Father Joe only seems to leave negative comments for the people not n his side of the argument. Then he graces the people on his side with nice comments making us seem like bad people. The truth is, if Dakota is so “innocent” why is she so eager to do this scene? It is not like she will be tainted for teh rest of her life! She even tell the crowd about the rape scene with extreme intellect for a kid her age, and how she understands how it is relevant to the plot.

FATHER JOE RESPONDS: I am not sure what you are implying? I am simply saying that a child can be easily misled and that we should protect the innocence of any child.

Further more, children might be innocent, but that doesn’t mean they can make NO decisions for themselves. In my country, America, the government can force a child into somebody elses home against his will, and against their pearents will, isn’t that rape in itself? Dakota is a very talented actress. She could film an entire movie nude and still get the crowd to forget about it and concentrate on her because she is that fine of an actress. I do agree she doesn’t need to be nude at all, and the movie is showing mild nudity, not head-to-toe. She could make any movie good, but you people are trying to limit what she can and cannot do.

FATHER JOE RESPONDS: The Holy Father has said that it is wrong even for adult actors to simulate the sex act. Do I believe in limits? Yes, I do, and I say that as both a Christian and an American.
on December 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm J

I think everyone is missing a huge point here. None of this is actually needed whether the actress wants to do it or not. Just like they used to NEVER show sex scenes but you knew what was going on. Now they throw in sex scenes wherever they can but it is so not nessesary to get the point across. I can’t remember the one with Matthew Mcconaughey but i cried so hard every time i saw that intro it hit so hard yet you barely saw anything but even what you saw was too much IMO. IF a director can’t get the point across without you seeing it, then they should get another job.

It is our fault they make movies like this, we demand it, we want to see more. Just think, if all the Christians never watched a single movie with ANY type of nude scenes, guess what they wouldn’t make them any more. SO it’s our fault, stop blaming everyone else.
on January 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm David (a future nudist)

I am a Christian, but I’m also a future nudist, where I believe nudity doesn’t have to be sexual. What Hollywood should do is stop making sex films and porn films. But, if people want to see celebrities naked, then Hollywood should make natural nude films where they do everyday regular activities in the nude without any of the “other stuff” if you catch my drift. Nude is not lewd! You wanna talk Christian? Okay. How about this? When God created Adam and Eve, did he clothed them in cloths or were they created naturally nude and unashamed? And, aren’t we all born nude, anyway? Or, should we start being born with clothes on so no one sees us naked again? I have not seen the film, but judging from what I hear about it, I don’t think Dakota or anyone in her family deserve the criticism they’re getting from it.

FATHER JOE: I am glad you are a Christian, but what about Scriptural exhortations about modesty? Nudity may not always have a sexual center of gravity, but neither is it neutral regarding sexuality, particularly given our fallen nature and concupiscence. Remember, Adam and Eve became ashamed and hid their nakedness. We are not yet in full control of our members and men are not angels. The other issue that is particular here is that of a feigned intercourse. We should protect the innocence of children.
on February 16, 2008 at 6:58 pm David

There is a website that deals with the issue of Adam and Eve and something called good nudity. Yes, it does exist. Am I allowed to post a website on this one? Because, if I can, I’d like you to look at it.

FATHER JOE: No need for the link, did you read the posts on swim suits? The problem is feigning sexual acts and nudity that might make one a subject for perverts.
on February 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm David

And, about protecting children…let me tell you something. Children who are taught to cover up and never be nude around anyone will wonder what is wrong with their bodies. And then, you wonder why teenagers “experiment” with each other. Nudists, on the other hand, grow up knowing what the human body looks like. There’s no curious boys trying to look up girls’ dresses with nudists. And, nudist children are taught the benefits of nudity. In fact, they are much more likely to tell a trusted parent if someone touches them the wrong way than those who were taught to hide the body. I am a nudist now. There are many benefits to being nude. Clothes actually restrict some parts of the body’s normal functions. Good nudity does exist and it may be different than what most people originally were taught, but I’d rather be a nudist than…well, it’s best not to go there.

FATHER JOE: You make many suppositions that need not follow. People can respect their bodies but not go around naked. I take it that you are a practicing nudist? That is your business and the post does not address such a lifestyle. The issue here is not simply that, but the question of violating a child’s innocence by having her feign sexual rape. I suspect that you would not support raping children, right? As for boys and girls being curious, there are other matters, like explosive hormones and feelings and drives that are new to them. Let me tell you about an incident in the Church dating back to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Catholic missionaries came to an African tribal area where the women normally were topless. The converts were told that women had to wear coverings or bras when they came to Mass. Not long afterwards, the priests with their bishop wrote Rome about a serious situation that had developed. Seeing the women wear bras in Church was causing the men to get sexually excited. It was having the opposite effect as it would have on European and American men. The African males were used to seeing women’s breasts; however, covering them was making it hard for them to be chaste and to guard their thoughts. Everyone thought the Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments would say no. Earlier the clergy in India had asked permission for the priests to remove their shoes when saying Mass, since in Eastern culture one removes shoes before entering a holy or sacred space. In that case, Rome said NO, the priests had to remain “shod” because in the Latin tradition a working man puts on his work shoes or boots and the great work of the priest was the Mass. Anyway, the authorities waited in Africa with little hope about the matter. When the answer came it was short and to the point. It simply said, with the seal of the Church, “the women can take off their bras” and come as they are to the liturgy. What do you think about that? There is even a photograph on the Internet of a bare breasted African woman bringing offertory gifts up to the late Pope during one of his large outdoor Masses.
on February 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm David

Now, I’m not saying nudists don’t wear clothes ever. In fact, when the weather’s too cold, they do wear clothes…but only to protect them from the elements, not to hide their bodies or shame themselves. In fact, the sin Adam and Eve had was shame. They shamed themselves because they couldn’t handle good nudity, even though God created them that way. Are you saying His creation is wrong? I hope, being a Christian, you’re not saying that.

FATHER JOE: The human body is beautiful. God is good and what he creates is good. Clothes can compliment that beauty. The Church, herself, has sponsored works of great art that celebrate the human form. The concern here is concupiscence, original sin, and modesty.
on February 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm David

If the human body is beautiful, why then must it be covered up? Clothes only make it more enticing to some people, which causes lust for them. Isn’t that a sin?

FATHER JOE: I suspect that is not always the case. Pornography bases itself on nudity and provocative poses.
on February 16, 2008 at 7:46 pm David

Clothes were created by man, not by God. It is man who creates the lust…it’s in his mind. Humans are sexual by nature. Children are born nudists until parents teach them to keep their “beautiful” bodies covered up. If God had not want us to be nude, we would have been born with hair on our bodies like animals are. Does that make sense?

FATHER JOE: The Catholic understanding of concupiscence and the effects of the fall are important teachings in the universal catechism. They also reflect the reality of things. It may be that in your case, the way your brain and body responds to such stimuli is not the same intensity or as seriously inordinate as in other males. Not everyone has the same drive or the same temptations of the flesh. The Church is concerned about both the norm and the weakest among us. We should not be an occasion of sin for others. Catholics are not puritans. We are not prudish about nudity. Have you seen the art in St. Peter’s at Rome?
on February 16, 2008 at 7:55 pm David

But, nudity is different from pornography. Nudity is simply that…nudity. Okay, it’s much harder to explain without posting some websites that help explain the issue. Let me try this, then. Natural non-sexual nudity is different from pornography. People can be nude without leading to the obvious course. I’ve been to websites that show people of all ages doing normal things everyone does…only, they do them nude. Pornography is a whole different issue…and something I’d rather not go into detail here if you know what I mean.

FATHER JOE: But this post is about Dakota Fanning feiging sexual intercourse and rape? Your comments are not really topical. I am not directly addressing the topic of nudity.
on February 16, 2008 at 8:01 pm David

The problem is our society and the media. Look into any movie that has nudity and 9 times out of 10, it will be the bad nudity that most people are familiar with. And, our society is really the problem at hand. It’s much easier to get away with violence, sex, and murder than it is to walk down naked on Main Street. Okay, maybe not “get away with”, but people seem to be okay with seeing those things in movies and television, but cringe at seeing a nude person on tv. Now, in Europe, there are many places where nudity is accepted and no one gives it a second thought. It’s not the fact that they are nude in Europe. It’s the fact that they are closer with nature or closer to God, actually. They accept good nudity that Adam and Eve had prior to their first original sin. Why can’t we here be more like that?

FATHER JOE: They also have red-light districts and legalized prostitution. What is your agenda here David? You do know this is a Catholic priest’s Blog. My experience of human nature is much more sober and dark. Men and women today are not Adam and Eve before the fall. The redemptive work of Jesus has not restored the damage done to human nature, although his message points to a kingdom where there will be no more shame nor fear. But that day is not yet here.
on February 16, 2008 at 8:03 pm David

Sorry. Sometimes, I go off-course to explain my beliefs that I get carried away a lot. Trust me, I’ve been to many websites and commented about a certain celebrity who posted nude pictures if you know what I mean. As for Dakota Fanning, depicting rape is pretty harsh, but having not seen the movie itself, I can’t make any kind of judgement on the scene in question.
on February 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm David

I’m not giving up. I’ve been to so many websites and I will continue to spread my belief of nudism until people learn to understand the benefits of it…even if it takes me until I’m on my deathbed if it comes to that. I’m sorry. I’m a little crabby tonight because I haven’t slept well and I’m trying to prove a point…a point that hardly anyone understands.

FATHER JOE: Then start your own Blog, David. I don’t mind you making comments, but a dozen or so rapid-fire non-topical comments is too much, a kind of spamming.
on February 16, 2008 at 8:48 pm David

As for Red-Light districts and prostitution…why is that okay when simple non-sexual nudity isn’t? Explain that one.

FATHER JOE: Who said it was okay? I was suggesting a causal relationship.
on February 16, 2008 at 8:52 pm David

Why can’t a nudist be a Catholic at the same time? In fact, in Europe, there are Catholic people who are not ashamed of being naked and they know the benefits of it, too. It’s here in this prudish country that inforces clothing be worn except in private. I’m still trying to practice nudism myself, but I’ve done a lot of research about it. That’s why I know what I know.

FATHER JOE: There are issues of culture, convention and modesty. Such things vary from place to place. Should not the rights and sensitivities of those who prefer clothed bodies also be respected? How one might dress (or not) in their home or at certain beaches is one thing… at the local grocery store is something else.
on February 18, 2008 at 1:12 am David

I see my other post got deleted, anyway, even though I asked please not to delete it. That website was a good site. If you had seen it, I don’t know if it would have changed your mind or not, but at least, it might have brought some light of the issue I’ve been raving about.

FATHER JOE: It is not an issue in which I am interested or willing to promote. Whose Blog is it, after all?
on February 18, 2008 at 1:21 am David

As for respecting the rights of people who’d rather be clothed…well, to be honest, wearing clothing all the time is not healthy for our bodies. Yes, there are times when it’s appropriate, but the human body…besides being God’s greatest gift (He created us in his own image)…needs to be free and I’m not just talking about alone in the bathroom or bedroom at home. No wonder so many people have health issues, myself included. If I lived in Europe, I would not be wearing clothes now, but thanks to our sick-minded society, I’m forced to here. The website I was trying to get you to look at mentioned something about Vitamin D from the sun (in moderation) is healthy for our bodies. I think it’s in there somewhere.
on February 18, 2008 at 1:22 am David

Now…like I said, I haven’t seen Dakota Fanning’s movie Hounddog, much less the rape scene in question, so I cannot make a comment on something I haven’t seen myself. That’s why I talk about nudism instead of the article at hand here.
on February 18, 2008 at 1:24 am David

When Hounddog is released to VHS or DVD (whenever that is) and I see it, then I will comment on what I see on film based on what I believe.
on February 19, 2008 at 3:35 am David

I guess even you can’t handle the truth…or the good nudity that I’ve been trying to explain to you and to other readers on this website. Speaking of which, why hasn’t anyone else commented on this site since I started?

FATHER JOE: David, what you want to do with your own life is your own business but I do not generally allow links to religious sites that teach things contrary to Catholicism (like saved by faith alone). Further, who said this was your soapbox to talk about public nudity? You are welcome to make topical comments, but please do not bombard us with propaganda about nudism. The first time I saw your comments I thought they were spam. No one else has commented upon your remarks, this is true. This is probably NOT a burning issue with most people who come to this site.
on February 19, 2008 at 3:42 am David

But then, some people can handle it and others can’t. I have learned to handle good nudity and, despite my ravings, I am still a Christian. That’s why I tried to post that website. I still haven’t seen Hounddog with Dakota Fanning, so don’t ask me to write about the scene in question until after I see it. Meanwhile, I will continue to rave on about nudism and good nudity until people realize it’s nothing gross, obscene, pornographic, sinful, or anything else it’s been known to be.
on February 19, 2008 at 7:51 am Emery

I was a subscriber to the naturalism that David advocates and it cost me dearly.

My wife and I joined a nudist group and we thought we were truly going back to nature. Betty, my wife, became upset with me at first because I kept having very visible erections (not just because of her but on account of other women). Later, I challenged her for small physical reactions to certain men around us. Admittedly, it got a little easier as time went by and I thought we could make a real go of it.

The long and short of it (no pun intended), she left me for Erik the aerobics instructor. When it came to body development, I could not compete. I was devastated.

Adding to my tragedy, I was constantly getting burned (no matter what lotions I used) and bitten by bugs. One of the guys got a serious foot infection with parasites and we all started wearing sandals.

I saw a doctor and he told me that blood pressure medication made my skin very photo-sensitive to rays from the sun. He told me that 120 million Americans have this problem.

Later I discovered I had skin cancer from the tans and sun-burns. Indeed, I know over a dozen people in the group with skin cancer. Now I have to have laser treatments and surgery. I asked the doctor, what could I do to help myself? He said that much of the damage was already done and it was too late. However, he said the remedy was very simple and to pass it to others: wear a hat outdoors and put some clothes on!

Most of us in the United States are from European immigrant stock. Our skin is not able to deal with the amount of solar radiation in North America. Note how many nudist colonies are in those countries with naturally white skinned people. As for Africans, blacks have pigment that protects them from the sun’s rays. Whites freckle and burn amd grow cancers. Today I am covered in them and have them removed as they become life-threatening.

I also live alone.

So you can keep your naturalism and nudism. From ancient days to the present, men made clothes for themselves. I guess they had more sense than some of us. (Notice that most nudist colonies are in places with mild winters!)
on February 19, 2008 at 12:36 pm David

I am sorry for you, Emery. Believe me, I am. But nudists are generally better people than most textiles. In fact, you know why teenage pregnancies are higher in the U.S. and other non-nudist countries than in those that support nudism? Know why that is? Because nudists don’t need to experiment with each other nor are they curious about bodies different from their own. Kids are taught at an early age about nudism and they are more inclined to tell if someone touches them the wrong way. I think I already said this on one of my other posts, but I feel it’s necessary to repeat it again. Granted, most nudists are not naked in really cold weather…though I’ve seen a few exceptions, don’t ask! And, someone, anyone…answer me this…if nudism is nothing like sex and pornography, why is nearly everyone embarrassed and uncomfortable even discussing it, much less trying it?
on February 19, 2008 at 12:45 pm David

By the way, nudist “colonies” as you’ve called them, are offensive to nudists. They prefer resorts or camps, never “colonies”.
on February 21, 2008 at 7:29 am minister townsend

nudity is not sin in the eyes of God, but in the flesh of a man or woman it can become sin
on February 22, 2008 at 1:44 am David

Only if people make it out to be that way. Nudists, however, don’t lust for human flesh the way other people do. I don’t lust for it, either…if it’s handled right and not trying to tease me with “stuff”.

FATHER JOE: You are not everybody, not even representative of every nudist. But human nature is human nature! Why are we still discussing this? Enough!
on February 22, 2008 at 1:47 am David

My point is anyone can be nude if they want to as long as others respect them and not be driven insane with impure thoughts that comes from pornography…and our society’s way of teaching people. The more people make a big deal about nudity, the more it’s going to become sinful and won’t that be great? I’m being sarcastic with that question, by the way.

FATHER JOE: Other than issues of basic modesty and the matter of concupiscence, why are you posting here? Catholics do not have the same hangups about the human form as the more puritan forms of Christianity. This post is not about the beauty of the human form but about lost innocence and feigning sexual acts.
on February 22, 2008 at 1:52 am David

The reason for that (more people make a big deal about nudity, more it’s going to become sinful…) is because it’s going to be the object of lust. Ever been to the beach or pool? Well, I have and…sigh!…I have to admit that sometimes when I see girls in bikinis, I can’t help feeling something. I never said I was perfect. In fact, I’m far from that and probably will never be. But, the point of this is that bikinis…not nudity…is what makes the lust that much more powerful for men, including myself. If nudity were normal and bikinis thrown out, the lust would go away…at least in my opinion.

FATHER JOE: You only feel something when you see girls in bikinis? I supect, David, that your opinion reflects a sexual libido that is somewhat more restrained or lacks the gravity that many men endure. Clothing can make a woman more alluring, but I have yet to meet a normal male who is not curious about naked females. The Christian gentleman does what he can to preserve his chastity and seeks to live out moral and wholesome relationships with women.
on February 22, 2008 at 9:16 pm David

I didn’t say that I’m not curious about naked girls/women. I just don’t feel any lust that some men do about them. Sure, I’ve been curious about nudism ever since I’ve been introduced to it. That’s why I’m trying to learn more about it and why I make these posts. You know, I’ve commented on many other websites about nudism. Know what I get back? Backlash because no one wants to hear about it. That’s why I come to this site, hoping someone has the decency to understand my ranting and raving.

FATHER JOE: Comments topical to posts are a sign of respect to bloggers.
on February 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm David

And, it seems no one here wants to hear about it, either. Where else can I go to comment about nudism so that people will wake up and stop living in the stone age?

FATHER JOE: Start your own Blog. They are free!
on February 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm David

By the way, I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t backlash at me for making these comments. Backlashing only leads me to anger, frustration, and cursing, which I do not like doing.

FATHER JOE: Huh? Please, can we change subjects?
on February 23, 2008 at 4:03 pm David

Change subjects? What else is there to talk about?
on February 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm David

The topics I talk about are my only concerns…at least, for the time being. Not much else concerns me at this point.
on February 29, 2008 at 3:13 pm David

Everyone’s so quiet. Is this some sort of “cone of silence” or something?
on February 29, 2008 at 8:12 pm MarkG

Sir, I think your outrage is misplaced. The crime of child rape or child sexual abuse is indeed outrageous; however, the depiction of such acts as part of a story line are not. Please consider the folowing Oscar nominated motion pictures featuring explicit child sexual depictions.

# Pretty Baby© 1978, Paramount Pictures, shows actress Brooke Shields (12 yrs old) partially nude and wholly nude in sexual situations while working as a child prostitute in 1917 New Orleans bawdyhouse.

# Blue Lagoon© 1980, Columbia Pictures, shows actress Brooke Shields (14 yrs old) as a stranded child on a tropical island; however, nude child stand-in actors were featured to portray a nude Brooke Shields in erotic and sexual scenes.

# Romeo and Juliet© 1968, Paramount Pictures, shows actors Leonard Whiting (17 yrs old) and Olivia Hussey (15 yrs old) as main characters with a variety of child erotica scenes; additionally, there is brief nudity in the sexual scene of their wedding night morning.

# Taxi Driver© 1976, Columbia Pictures, shows actress Jodie Foster (13 yrs old) as a child prostitute working in New York City with a variety of child sexual depictions; her older sister, Connie Foster, was a stand-in actress for certain explicit sex scenes.

FATHER JOE: I fail to see how you can validate one dirty and/or exploitive movie by listing four others. Feigning sexual intercourse (simulation) is judged as wrong by the Church, even for adults. The fact that children are obliged to commit immoral acts for films is utterly reprehensible. But I say this rather matter-of-factly, any outrage is yours.
on May 21, 2008 at 4:01 am callie

I remember being disturbed by the film Bast–d Out of Carolina, in which a young actress is forced to a lap dance in the car alone with her mom’s boyfriend. It seemed as if the child actress was really made to do this… the man grabbed her and moved her on him while bucking against her (no polite way to say it, very graphic scene). To me, this “acting” required of the male actor with the little girl is the same “act” that would take place if she were really abused; if you don’t agree, watch that movie.

However, I will say that that film as a whole was powerful. Anyone would be ashamed to stay with an abusive partner after watching this for fear of the effects on their children. This is the first I’ve heard of the Dakota Fanning film, but I hope the directors will have enough sense not to exploit her for the sake of realism.
on June 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm Ira

The Catholic curhc should shut up. They allow, hide and protect sexual pretators and rapits as priests, pay billions of dollars to their victims and yell and scream about a movie. They are total HYPOCRITS!!!.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure I know what the “curhc” is that you are condemning. For that matter, what are “pretators”, some kind of mutant potato? Are “rapits” any relation to rabbits? As for criticizing or offering my two cents about things like a movie, the last time I looked this was the U.S.A. and I had as a citizen the right to free speech. As for being hypocrits, well, sadly that is true, not only of Catholics but most everyone. Whenever a Christian sins, no matter how slightly, he falls into hypocrisy. You are a sinner, too. Peace!
on June 24, 2008 at 11:47 pm Michael

As far as Catholics being hypocrites, I welcome you to join us. There’s always room for one more and you don’t have to be Catholic.

I don’t believe for one minute that anyone on this blog would ever want to see a family member nude before the entire world. If you do then there’s something seriously wrong with you. Think of the gals of yesteryear that posed nude for magazine centerfolds. They sold themselves down the river and a picture paints a thousand words. They can never take that back either. One day they woke up to discover that they were wiser, older, heavier, wrinkled, and also very remorseful over what they had done in youth. What about their children who were taunted in school? They must have suffered terribly and the magazine people don’t tell us about that. Many lives and relationships have been ruined and many hearts have been broken.

The point is that it’s a woman’s duty to keep society moral and she needs the proper attitude and the proper clothing to do it. The fashion trend should always dictate being clothed no matter the color or climate.
Smiles alone don’t count either.

God created everything beautiful and perfect, but we humans possess the proclivity to distort it since the time of the fall of man in the garden.

If public nudity was widely accepted then most of us would go around nude and we don’t. Something in our “unknowing” hearts and minds tells us that it’s wrong.

Public nudity is evil because it sends the erroneous message that the fall in the garden never happened and that there’s no such thing as original sin. We know how false that really is. We wouldn’t be here wearing clothes had the fall not occurred.

The problem wasn’t the apple on the tree. It was the pair on the ground.

Remember how Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves because they discovered that they were nude and were ashamed?

God then said:
“MAN, WHERE ARE YOU?”
Genesis 3: 8

Adam and Eve were hiding because they realized that they were naked. They sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. When the fig leaves wilted, God took a lamb and killed it. He took the skin from the lamb and made clothes for them so that they wouldn’t be ashamed anymore. This is where the term HIDE came from and ever since then we’ve been wearing clothes and dealing with sinful inclinations.

Incidentally, this act of God was the very first prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ….the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This act also reminds me of sacramental confession.
on July 27, 2008 at 11:06 am Jessica

I guess I can understand your concern over “perverts” watching this movie and feeling any sort of sexual feelings out of it, but, come on, I think the actaul problem here is that you PRE ASSUME that anything that contains nudity or sex is sexually arousing.

You know, I would like to think that, (thankfully to the couragous fighting of men and women for equality) that we have come a long way since the days early film where rape scenes were depicted psuedo sexually and showed no concern from the film makers (who were, mostly typical chauvinists with no regard to the sensitive topic of rape[think Clock Work Orange*shudder]) because, quite frankly, the subject of rape was never really discussed/almost accepted and hushed up until more recently, and the Catholic Church itself is at least in some small part to blame for that, with the whole guilt/temptation thing that every Catholic has ingraved in them.

I am not condoning child sexual exploitation, by no means.

But I am far less disturbed by a movie depicting something as disgusting as a child being raped (because it is just that; pretending. Remember folks, Fanning is an actress, her job is to act. And she has what? maybe 2, 3 more years of so called “innocence” before biology kicks in and turns her into a “sinful sexual being.”? I’m sure no member of the Catholic community would come rushing to her defence if she was ACTUALLY raped in her later teen/adult years, as she probably would have “had it coming” from all those “sexual, sexy” roles she partook in to make money.)

than I am disturbed by a Catholic priest worrying about, as well as bringing up the topic of, people being turned on by a little girl being sexualy abused. For the small percentage of people out there with that part of their brains scrambled, I’m sure NOT showing this movie is not going to curb their appetite for child abuse; they could always just go out and do it themselves, you know, seeing as how we are taught not to talk about things like sexuality I’m sure the children would’nt pipe up at the dinner table to their parents about it and all.

Why not concern yourself with the happenings of your own back yard? According to the statistics there sure seems to be enough child abuse happening withen the Church itself, heck, who needs to see “HoundDog” you have Alter Boys? Or are you some how trying to shift the blame onto some bigger, bad-er “Hollywood” boogeyman?

Hollywood’s doomed children are hardly any of our concern.

Let their parents deal with it.

Let their fat, movie pay checks (paid for by us, the consumer) pay for their future therapy,

and how about we come together, as a world community, to tackle the real issue;
of adults abusing their authority over children to fulfill their sick, deprived needs.

Then, maybe we can worry about Dakota F*ing Fanning.

FATHER JOE:

The issue of what is sexually tempting is somewhat subjective. Nudity in itself is not absolutely banned in art and I suppose, by extension, to other media. Feigning the sex act or any variation of it is much more problematical. The Church would have serious concerns about the latter even regarding adults. The matter of a child play-acting being raped by a man is a much more difficult proposition. I find such things very hard to stomach and could not watch it. Just as with sex education, I am also concerned about the loss of innocence by our children. I think we steal something very important from them.

If films were perfect portrayals of real life, you would need as many hours of film as you would have of real life with all its various perspectives. By definition, film is an edited or censored depiction of a story. Two hours condenses storylines and gives the dramatic high lights of events and biographies. Given the powerful nature of the sex drive, even a few seconds on the screen can readily give a distorted perspective to a larger story. Further, such scenes have an immediate effect on the human voyeurs, eliciting an arousal that by rights should be frustrated but which could result in either sexual congress or self-pollution. As for rape, a depiction which should be utterly offensive, a film depiction might desensitize a person to such acts of violence. If such events must be told, the use of camera tricks and symbolic language might be the best way to go. Older films were rather good at this. For instance, we do not need a graphic rape scene of Tess of the d’Ubervilles. It is sufficient that we rely upon Thomas Hardy’s peculiar fog scene.

As for the Catholic Church hushing up the matter of rape, it certainly has not been my experience. The Church teaches quite clearly that rape is wrong. Further, the victim need not feel guilty give that they were under compulsion due to fear and force.

You contend that you are not condoning the sexual exploitation of children, but so far you seem more an apologist for such efforts than for those that would respect purity and innocence. You say that you are okay with “pretending” to rape a child, but really, is the child okay by such a pretense? Fanning might be an actress, but she is also a child and that takes precedence. It is not necessary to film such things to discuss the seriousness of such crimes. All we are doing is pandering to perverts and abusers.

When the hormones kick in and she begins to mature as a young woman, there will certainly be new challenges and yes, temptations, too. But Catholicism does not consider natural maturation and sexual development as a bad happenstance. There is nothing sinful in being sexual beings. The Church’s concern is that sexual congress remains in the context of marriage.

Your anti-Catholic bigotry comes fully to light when you write: “I’m sure no member of the Catholic community would come rushing to her defense if she was ACTUALLY raped in her later teen/adult years, as she probably would have ‘had it coming’ from all those ‘sexual, sexy’ roles she partook in to make money.” No sane person from the Catholic community would ever suggest such a terrible business. You are the one who seems to have an unhealthy preoccupation with this subject. Have you ever counseled physically and verbally abused women? Many of us in Catholic ministries, men and women, have done so and have places for such women to go in need. What have you done for them? We know that every woman or girl who is raped or assaulted could have been our mother, sister or daughter. No one is disposable and violence (sexual or not) is never okay against women. You need to apologize to all those Catholics who try to make a difference in the lives of women and children. Women are not merely the so-called “weaker sex” but full and complete human beings with sacred dignity and God-given rights. They are no one’s toys for exploitation— either on the screen or in real life.

The Church has taken serious steps to protect her children. Your bigotry would silence me and other priests from taking important moral stances given that a few rogue priests abused children and violated their sacred trust. I would be more worried about people (priests included) who seemed unconcerned about a little girl being abused, even if by feigned cinematic sex scenes. You are the advocate here for depravity and for what possible benefit; I would be hard-pressed to know.

The backyard to the Catholic priest and to the Church is the whole world. Who are you to say that I as a priest have no right to offer my opinions? I would not shift the blame from crimes to anyone except those who are guilty. We have removed the problematic priests from ministry. We have arranged for therapy in regards to victims and restitution is being made. Wrongs committed by clergy do not make wrongs committed by others in society, even in Hollywood, any less wrong. Your comment here is really one of misdirection. Let us be honest, you do not believe in censorship, even of the vilest acts (particularly sexual ones). You are blunt in saying that “Hollywood’s doomed children are hardly any of our concern. Let their parents deal with it.” You conveniently forget that most child abuse happens in the family, not with churchmen. Look at the “doomed children” of Hollywood and their drug addictions and alcohol use, their teenage pregnancies, their street-walker clothing styles, and their crime convictions and early deaths. Parents grow rich and spouses fight over celebrity children. It is a mess and your response is that we should not care. You make them cattle for the slaughter.

You are the sick and depraved person. You prove it by how you refer to the little girl in question. No one would call her “Dakota F*ing Fanning,” unless the person’s mind was already in the gutter. I beg you to get counseling and help before it is too late.
on August 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm Lady Godless

Ah, yes: “we’re filming a yet another fictional child rape only to call desperately needed attention to this very important issue, blahblahblaaaahhh…”

The nifty thing about moralism is that one can repeatedly go spelunking deep into the most heinous kink imaginable, and still emerge with ones conscience all snowy pristine. You’ve just got to be careful to express all the right sentiments (outrage, concern, etc), and pitch the near-pornographic rape scene (or whatever) as meant only to illustrate the Bad Thing we must all do Something about and to motivate us to act to that end.

Thing is, far from being an ignored topic, there are actually a LOT of portrayals of child sex abuse and child rape in popular movies and television. For whatever reason, it’s evidently something that many people want to watch (in loving detail!). For some, it’s for sexual stimulation, and for others it’s to indulge a morbid fascination with other people’s deviance.

But if you asked those who pay to see such movies, I suspect that nearly all would recast their interest in moral/political terms (to the extent that they’d acknowledge choosing the movie for its subject matter at all). Because that saves face.

Honestly? I, for one, do have a morbid fascination with human depravity. Sure, I also have all the usual (and proper, I think) moral sentiments on criminal deviance, but those aren’t really what would make me want to see a particular film.

~M
on August 25, 2008 at 6:57 pm visitor

You, what? Have a ‘morbid fascination with human depravity,’ yet possess all the ‘proper moral sentiments’ on criminal deviance.

Why not just admit you’re a depraved deviant?
on August 25, 2008 at 7:11 pm Lady Godless

Oh, well, I’m just vicariously depraved. That’s like, okay and stuff.

~M
on November 9, 2008 at 11:13 pm Sam

I’m not a person who like being nude in the street because I was raised to be ashamed of myself if I go out nude o.O

But it is kind of funny how mankind restrict themselves through so many ways. You have to pay fines for being nude?? Putting your hands on the table is considered impolite? etc etc.
Funny, yet really really sad if you think about it.

We cannot control our life freely but obey this weird rules until we die.
on December 28, 2008 at 11:21 am Shirley2

It is rather hypocritical for a priest to write on this subject. How many priests have raped children, after all!

Does the Church point the finger at others so that less attention will be paid to them and their misdeeds?

I find that the holier than thou types are usually the ones who are dangerous and need watching. If I recall correctly, Jesus had problems with certain religious leaders of his day and their self-righteousness.

This actress play-acted a rape scene. That is all that happened. She was in a skin suit, not really naked. But even if she was, so what? Why are you so ashamed of the human body and what it can do? You make too much of this business.

If I had my way, I would depict even toilet activities on the screen. It is a basic human function that brings both relief and distress. However, most media treat the human being as if the characters never take a leak or a bowel movement.

Movies and television should seek to portray real life. Get with it, sex is part of real life. Those of you who foresake it, or pretend to do so, are the odd ones out. If you had charge of television programming, babies would still be depicted as delivered by the stork.

Although you belong to a church that makes having babies into some kind of sacrament, the reality of propagation is a lot steamier and messy.

Men and women get naked and they explore each others’ bodies. They get intimate and the mechanics of it are essentially the same as with all animals in heat. Men want women and women want men. Babies aside, this is a fact.

Young girls quickly become women. At one time girls as young as fourteen could and did get married. They almost always married older men, like the widowed farmer next door. While fewer women get married at 16 these days, once they reach 18 they are legal. But the number is somewhat arbitrary. So when is it okay to be attracted? When is a girl a woman?

I am no filosopher. But I find no problem with sex, real or pretend. It is reality. Yours is the lie. Sorry to burst your bubble but most everyone in your congregation who has passed puberty thinks about getting nasty. All your adults are doing it and then go to your services. The old men and old women do it. The teenagers do it. Your mom and dad are doing it, too. Think about that one! You were created in a bed of passionate desire!

What is wrong with portraying such things on the big or little screen?

If movies and shows are to be more real, we have to stop walking lightly around the issue of sex. Your brand of censorship leads to fiction and deception.

FATHER JOE: I don’t need to see toilet scenes to know that human beings go to the bathroom. I don’t need to see pornography to appreciate human sexuality. Even simulated sex only serves to satisfy prurient tastes.
on December 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm Dan

Shirley2 sounds like she has a “holier than thou” attitude. She accuses priests of raping children, and not only has no problem with the rape of a child being depicted on the screen, but also goes on to argue that it was once perfectly normal for young girls to marry older men. It’s enough to make me want to visit the toilet….. to vomit, I mean…..
on March 11, 2009 at 9:52 am don

I think it is a mistake to call a rape scene “simulated sex”, much less pornography.

Rape is a brutal attack and is not sexual.

The torture scenes in The Passion served to make more real the experience that to most of us were somewhat abstract. I have not seen Hounddog, but it would seem that depicting a vicious assault on a young girl, as described, in the dark, served to drive the story in the same way as the torture scenes in The Passion.

The child actress is acting. She is not naked, she is not really being assaulted, or sexually attacked. Scenes take many many hours of preparation and practice and shooting and editing, and all in all the actors do not “experience” the scene as shown in the film.

In any case the scene is not “sexual”, it is violent. We might do better to speak about violence and abuse in society in general than to castigate a film for doing so.

I think too much is being made of this.
on March 11, 2009 at 10:02 am don

And to clarify, I didn’t mean to suggest that a rape scene can’t be pornography. Pornographic films use simulated rape and violence in addition to actual sex to titillate their viewers.

But Hounddog’s rape scene is not pornography, in any sense, and the scene should also not be described as “sexual”.
on September 24, 2009 at 7:51 pm Anonymous

There is one issue the catholic church does not think of. Regardless of which generation. There is always a rebellion of sorts against any religeon. People ignore their rules and follow what they feel is right and not what several MEN wrote hundreds of years ago and the movies of this century are just another step in detachings oneself from the restrictions of a bias religion.

FATHER JOE: I would not be so quick to dismiss divine revelation and natural law. Hollywood and a secular society can also be very bias.

Yes Dakota is innocent and this film changes nothing.

FATHER JOE: Neither you nor I can know this for sure… did you have a part in making the film? Do you know the young lady? It has been my observation that most films are more about “profit” than to function as “prophet”.

This is simply a film made to attack peadophilea and bring it to public debate. Why complain that it defiles children when in fact it may save many children from facing these problems.

FATHER JOE: Is this the case, or is it another form of exploitation? Even the allusion or apparent violation of an innocent gets the wolves excited. The creators win accolades from other secular humanists while movie rights and DVD sales are lucrative for the owners of the property. Might it be a kind of virtual prostitution?

If Christianity is so grand perhaps you could try to justify the deaths of so many innocents over the years since the VERY begining of the religeon

FATHER JOE: Suffering and death enter the world through human rebellion or sin. Christianity is all about forgiveness and redemption. You evidently do not understand much about it.