Nudity in movies: What’s the truth for Catholics?
Is it sinful for Catholics to watch movies with nudity?
I have not yet watched Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” However, #CatholicTwitter has advised me that, prior to my decision, I should take into account the movie’s sexual elements, particularly nudity. What #CatholicTwitter has not provided is a thorough Catholic perspective on the matter of nudity in films in a broader sense.
The uproar started with the assertion that no Catholic, especially clergy members, ought to witness “Oppenheimer” because of the existence of nudity. The reaction to such a simplistic assertion was unsurprisingly intense — and unsurprisingly simplistic. Two main counterarguments emerged. The first was a straightforward reference to the Vatican’s collection of art. The second indicated that the depiction of sexuality in films was akin to the depiction of violence in films. The underlying message, in both instances, was that the individual who posted originally was being hypocritical if he failed to denounce nudity in the Vatican Museum and violence in movies equally.
These are reasonable arguments, yet they are far from conclusive. Nudity at the Vatican Museum suggests that depictions of nudity in art are not inherently and universally inappropriate. It does not specify whether it is advantageous in specific instances. Certainly, significant differences exist between how the nude human body is presented in traditional art versus modern cinema — or even among various contemporary films. Moreover, as supporters of the original post noted, the depiction of violence in films is crucially distinct from that of nudity — the violence is acted out. Nonetheless, while this argument holds merit, it does not provide a conclusive answer either. Just because something is simply acted does not inherently validate its representation in particular situations.
Prudential judgment
Furthermore, whether a particular instance is warranted is a different issue from whether you and I benefit from recognizing it. The latter is what the Church refers to as a matter of prudential judgment. In fact, a majority of our ethical choices are essentially issues of prudent judgment. It is quite uncommon for our daily choices to confront absolute moral prohibitions—actions that are strictly off-limits. What occurs far more frequently are actions that can be defended or are even considered beneficial, as long as specific conditions are fulfilled.
Voting is a quintessential illustration. Each one of us, when casting our votes, chooses between some undesirable options. However, the Church does not instruct us that we should refrain from voting entirely. Instead, it conveys that selecting certain undesirable options can be defensible due to the existence of specific benefits and the presence of additional undesirable options if we were to vote differently or abstain altogether, ensuring that our vote is cast despite the negative aspects and not on account of them. It is important to note that the Church’s doctrine here considers both objective — the undesirable choices available weighed against the benefits offered by those same choices — and subjective — our individual motivations for voting as we do — elements.
The same considerations apply to the topic of nudity in art. There are objective elements involved: Is the nudity exploitative, arousing, or unnecessary? Or does it convey something true, good, and beautiful in a manner that honors the dignity of the human person? Subjectively, what effect is viewing such content likely to have on me? Responsible individuals may choose to avoid content that almost everyone finds morally acceptable. I don’t recall anyone claiming that “Schindler’s List” is something no Catholic should view, yet I know many who wisely determined it would not be beneficial for them, personally, to see it.
The question of art
When analyzing two problems, it is crucial to focus on both their commonalities and their distinctions. Even simulated aggression can be exploitative, provocative, and unnecessary. Furthermore, ethically acceptable representations of violence may be unwise for certain individuals to observe, as they are aware of the potential effects such viewing is expected to produce. The same applies to nudity. However, the inability to simulate nudity does play a role in the reality that some depictions can have a more profound effect on the audience, while also heightening the risk of exploitation.
Next come the remaining items in the mix. Is it possible to appreciate a good, even excellent, piece of art be considered valid even though certain aspects of it — such as the depiction of human sexuality — may not be entirely morally upright? How ethically deficient would they have to be to make it beyond redemption?
And let’s remember, actions do not necessarily need to be unethical in their essence to necessitate careful consideration regarding how they are depicted and perceived. Intimacy between married partners is not only permissible but also beautiful and sacred. However, it can be represented in cinema in a manner that is fundamentally pornographic. Taking a life in self-defense may be justified, yet that does not imply that every representation of such an act in film is acceptable.
If viewing a movie that features nudity were universally and invariably inappropriate, we should anticipate that the Catholic Church would have communicated this clearly. However, it is possible that it is inappropriate in numerous situations, based on both objective and subjective factors. What Catholics require on these matters are (objective) criteria for discernment and (subjective) awareness of their own feelings, rather than rigid moral declarations that exceed the teachings of the Church itself.
