Repost: Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[557] To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.

The article "Pastors and Censorship of the Movies" by the Rev. Edward F. Garesché, S.J., appearing in the March issue of the Review is in my opinion very timely and deserves the undivided attention of all pastors of souls. It is true beyond any controversy, that many moving pictures are indecent and [558] atrocious and have a bad effect upon the morals of our Catholic people. I happen to be intimately connected with moving pictures, as I show them at least once a week in the parish hall. I also witness the weekly pre-release showing of pictures for the purpose of selecting films which I deem fit to be shown in my church hall and I assure you that it is often very difficult to select even one picture a week, from the company I am dealing with, that may be called wholesome and excellent entertainment for the general public. However, those that I consider good enough to be shown are not always relished. Indeed I have often heard it said, even by people of my own congregation, that they prefer stories that show the human side of life, that have more "pep" to them. It goes to show how depraved even now is the mind of the "movie fan". They can tell you all the stars in the pictures, and their expression of their predilection for Pauline Frederick, or Theda Bara, or of so many others who star in pictures that never get beyond the "Pink Permit" class of the censor, shows conclusively the state of their mind.

Here in Chicago any one who wishes to study moving pictures can readily observe that those theatres [sic] which have the sign "For adults only" over the ticket office, are best patronized.

It is true that boards of censorship exist in some states and in some cities, but those boards are very often lax in the performance of their duties. We have for instance at the present time "Mickey," a "movie" play advertised for nearly two years. We find in it a place where Mabel Normand appears entirely nude. Then, toward the end of the same film, during the attack that is made upon her, we see flashed upon the background of the room a picture suggestive of the act the villain wishes to perform. Still the Chicago censor has passed this film.

No matter how good and excellent a picture may be as a whole, one passage that arouses the sensual nature of man as above described, one flash that leaves an indelible mark for evil upon the mind of the onlooker, is sufficient to rob the whole picture of the right to be called good and wholesome. It will do untold harm to the souls of Catholic people and especially to the souls of our children.

[559] It is a sacred duty of pastors of souls to call the attention of their flock to the pernicious effect which 75 per cent of the pictures produced during the last year exercise upon the minds of the "movie fans". I admit with Fr. Garesché that it is very difficult for the priest to learn the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to do so for more than one reason. However it is their sacred duty as pastors of souls to raise their voices in solemn warning of the very grave dangers to which those are exposed who habitually attend these places.

Another proof that it is the intention of the producers to appeal to the sensual nature of man may be found in the titles given to newly produced pictures.[1] For example, "For Husbands only," "Old Wives for New," "Wild Youth," "The Eternal Temptress," "The White Man's Law," "The Make-Believe Wife," "The Mortgaged Wife," "The Marriage Price," "Modern Love."

The sole aim of the producer in giving to pictures these names is to attract the public, to make them believe that they will see something that is interesting and that appeals to their sensual nature.

I happen to read this morning in one of our daily papers that certain film companies had a meeting in New York to protest against state censorship, and had engaged a Mr. Hess as their lawyer to fight the attempt of any censor to make cuts in pictures they had produced. This same Mr. Hess immediately wrote to the governors of some states, Oklahoma, Kansas, and some others, that if censorship was not abolished or if the movement now on foot to introduce censorship was not stopped, his clients, the picture producers, would refuse to ship films into these states, and warned them that any suits that might be started by "movie" houses on account of not receiving service, would be brought against them as representing their respective states.

The film producer is using his immense wealth and his great power to defeat censorship. He has been fighting censorship ever since it was organized. Especially the trade papers contain [560] articles, letters, etc., to bring to the attention of the managers of theatres their duty to stand behind the producer in their attempt to abolish censorship.

As a sample of the film producer's idea on film censorship I quote a few passages of an article on this matter just now appearing in the March issue of a trade paper.

An official censor, empowered to say what the people shall see on the screen and what they shall not see, is an obstacle in the way of moral and intellectual progress, as well as a czar whose existence is a denial of democracy. Official censorship is bad in theory and worse in practice. 

The very idea upon which it is based denies the fundamental truth that real growth and development must be free, and experience gives abundant testimony to the fact that censorship is almost invariably characterized by stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry, and sometimes selfish interest.

Another trade paper for February has the following to say, regarding a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Associated Motion Picture Exhibitors of Brooklyn and Long Island, who met to protest against a bill introduced by Assemblyman William F. Brush of Orange County, New York, designed to create a State Motion Picture Censorship.

A resolution was unanimously adopted against the enactment of this bill into law and a committee of five was appointed for the purpose of opposing the proposed legislation. 

It was the consensus of opinion among the speakers present that this bill is the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever aimed at the motion picture industry since its inception.

The unscrupulous means which the film industry employs and the enormous amount of money spent by them to accomplish their task of defeating censorship are proof sufficient that censorship is necessary.

Another and more potent reason why censorship is absolutely necessary is found in the influence for evil which the moving pictures exercise upon children. Bad and immoral pictures imprint an indelible mark upon the minds of children, pervert their reasoning power, and serve them as guides in their own actions. Only last week a very interesting article appeared in one of Chicago's daily papers, which explains this statement fully. It proves at the same time without a shadow of [561] doubt how pernicious most of the moving pictures are, if they produce the effects mentioned in the statement I am going to quote. This article appeared under the heading: "Movies replace church as guide to children," and reads as follows:

The church has taken a back seat for the movies. Instead of it being the secondary influence on the welfare of children it has been relegated to the fourth class. The three important influences to-day are the home, the school, and the movies. 

This is the opinion of Professor Ernest W. Burgess, teacher of sociology at the University of Chicago, who yesterday reported to the Council Censorship Commission the results of observation made by 237 teachers of the fourth, sixth, eighth, and high-school grades of the effect movies have on children. 

He said of the 100,000 children tested, over 50 per cent were vitally affected by the motion picture. 

"Parents of to-day are confronted with a different child-welfare problem from that faced by our forefathers," said Professor Burgess. 

"The average child is more influenced by the movie than by the church and it is the parents' duty to see that children are kept from seeing harmful pictures." 

Twenty-three teachers reported that movies create irresponsible and selfish views among children. Other teachers found these effects: 

Belief that life is for excitement . . . . . . 14
False and distorted views . . . . . . 82
Unfits child for future duties . . . . . . 38
Adult and blasé views . . . . . . 13
Non-acquired views . . . . . . 11
Broadened views . . . . . . 10
Assists judgment . . . . . . 8
Belief in luck . . . . . . 8
Dissatisfaction . . . . . . 5
Prepares for future duties . . . . . . 2
Other bad effects . . . . . . 5
No reports . . . . . . 51

On the question of whether the movies cause a lack of respect for authority:

Yes . . . . . . 84
No . . . . . . 62
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 55
Non-committal . . . . . . 14
No reports . . . . . . 18

Do the movies make the child precocious about sex life?

Yes . . . . . . 112
No . . . . . . 27
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 39
Non-committal . . . . . . 35
No reports . . . . . . 20

[562]

Dr. Fred Z. Zapffee, reputed neurologist, advised that children be permitted to go to movies only once a week and that the show be not longer than one hour and a half. He said modern pictures cause children to become irritable, nervous, excitable, and that of the 500,000 who visit the movies weekly over 40 per cent visit the theatres at least three times a week. 

Chairman Timothy D. Hurley and the other members of the commission expressed surprise at the revelation. The commission is conducting an investigation into the censorship situation.

How can censorship be made strong, effective, and at the same time universal? One used to see an official stamp at the end of all pictures, saying, "Approved by the National Board of Censorship". If this organization could be composed of men who were imbued with a true sense of their great responsibility, with the knowledge of the seriousness of this all-important position, and with moral courage to exercise the power entrusted to them, then and only then could it bring results that are demanded for the sound morality of the general public. In the past this national censorship has apparently had neither the courage nor the vision to realize their great responsibility to eliminate passages, pictures, and subtitles that are destructive of the morality of men. "By their works you shall know them."

In my opinion an effective national board of censorship is the only means of successfully counteracting the evil of bad and immoral pictures, and of cutting out those passages that are apt to rouse the movie fan unto sin. It seems to me that no priest as an individual could make any successful effort to combat this great evil.

Only by the concerted action of persons in authority, only by the full and hearty coöperation [sic] of Archbishops and Bishops who would sign their names to a resolution empowering a committee of three or four to approach the right tribunal to demand safeguards for the morality of men, women, and children, can adequate censorship be obtained, a censorship that would be universal and vested with authority extending over all the pictures produced.

A national censorship of from six to twelve persons, representatives of all denominations and classes who have the moral welfare of the community at heart, and who would be clothed [563] with absolute power to reject any objectionable film, or objectionable features in a film, would in my mind be the happy solution of this vexed problem.

Priests, ministers, and professional men working together on this board to eliminate or at least to minimize the danger of corruption of morals of old and young, would be the ideal way. There would then be no necessity for a state or city censorship.

I admit with Father Garesché that the subject is an extremely disagreeable one. But I am also convinced that silence is no longer golden, and that something must be done soon to check the evil influences of the film industries. Surely someone could start the ball rolling.

I have made a suggestion. Someone else may probably make a better one, until we come to the modus agendi that would seem certain of success.

Chicagiensis.

Footnotes:

1. These titles are taken at random from pictures produced during the last three months.

---

Source: Chicagiensis, "Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (May 1919): 557–563.

Repost: Pastors and the Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[256] Not long ago, in one of our large cities, the Secretary of one of the Boards of Censors of Moving Pictures gave an address on the atrocious evils of this business and the great need of censorship to keep the movies from corrupting the public, and especially ruining the imaginations and the minds of children. There were present a number of the clergy, and when the lecturer illustrated his remarks by sections taken from some of the condemned films, one of the witnesses avers that divers of the clergy were heard to groan audibly in their [257] horror at the realization of the lengths to which unscrupulous manufacturers of moving pictures were going in presenting the vulgar and the impure. Those groans, one thinks, are very significant. They show how little some of our zealous pastors realize the wholesale corruption which is going on in their very parishes, and they witness too that the appreciation of the evil would move our zealous pastors to try more energetically to remedy it.

So very atrocious and indecent are some of the moving pictures of to-day that one can scarcely write frankly of them for general publication. Even to describe vaguely the excesses of the screen would make unfit reading for the general public. Indeed it is a subject on which one had rather be silent altogether. But fancy what the reality must be if the account itself is so distressing. And these vile pictures are being offered for the daily delectation of that public, including our own people and the innocent children, day after day on 17,000 screens.

The subject is a particularly urgent one just at this present time, and requires all the vigilance and zeal of the clergy to prevent permanent injury to the souls intrusted [sic] to our care. The only secure remedy for the abuses of the moving pictures is censorship. A movement is on foot to establish this censorship. It is important that pastors' intimately concerned to know the gravity of the situation, be prepared, when the time comes in their locality, either themselves to initiate agitation for censorship, or to support such a movement when it is set afoot by others.

Effective boards of censorship exist at the present time in Pennsylvania, Ohio, the city of Chicago, and perhaps in a few other places. Altogether, about eleven per cent of the population of the United States is protected in this way. All the rest of the country depends for its protection either upon the activities of local organizations or on the sometimes precarious diligence of the police.

Where competent boards of censors exist, their activities seem both successful and satisfactory. So far as they go, they are really an answer to the problem of repressing the more obviously objectionable excesses of the movies. Their standards are sensible and competent, and their decisions given with [258] a great deal of moral courage when one considers the potent interests arrayed against them. The better element among the manufacturers of moving pictures are themselves in favor of the control of moving pictures, since they realize that the production and exhibition of bad films react unfavorably on their legitimate profits, and they are only anxious that the movement for censorship may take a turn that will give them as little trouble as possible, while at the same time it suppresses the unscrupulous. So that if public opinion can be generally aroused to the need, there seems to be no good reason why censorship may not be made so universal and so effective that the public may be protected from the more glaring abuses of the movies. As for the constructive side, the building-up of a movement for the use of the movies in all their varied possibilities of instruction, inspiration, and the propaganda of sound principles and sentiments, this is a problem by itself and one even more important than the subject of this present paper.

Censorship has then been sufficiently tried for one to be able to assert that it is a success and offers a solution of the negative part of the problem of the movies, the suppression of the worst films. As to the need of censorship, the reports and experiences of the censors themselves afford a wealth of authentic evidence. To begin with, let us quote briefly from the remarks of the Secretary of the Board of Censors of Pennsylvania, as given in a recent issue of The Queen's Work. This official, whose experience with the drama was very extensive before he was appointed to the Board of Censors of the State of Pennsylvania, declares that he was amazed when he began to censor the moving pictures. The flood of crude vulgarity depicted on the screen astonished even more than it disgusted him. He was appalled to see that the influence of the movies is actually toward the destruction of popular taste, the killing of the legitimate stage, and the implanting in the minds of the people a craving for sensationalism, cheapness, and degradation. He sums up in this way the result of three years' careful observation:

Seventy-five per cent of all the films which are now being made and shown have to deal with some topic connected with crime, violence, or villainy of one sort or another. Twenty [259] per cent of the films are what is called slapstick comedy, rough and vulgar burlesque, without any elevating note, and sometimes with very little reasonable entertainment. And five per cent of all the films that have come under observation are educational. Of course, not all the seventy-five per cent which deal with crime and violence are objectionable, because such themes, though sensational in themselves, may be turned to instructive or at least entertaining ends. But a great part of them are absolutely degrading in their influence on the spectators, especially on the immature and children.

The worst of the crime pictures [says the Doctor] is the serial. It is merely the old-time dime novel translated into pictures. It goes on from incident to episode for weeks and months, each installment trying to outdo the last in excitement and sensationalism, and every boy in the neighborhood howls with delight when he sees the announcement that the next episode will be exhibited in the local theatre [sic].

All the objections which were urged against the dime novel, intensified by the vividness of the screen, hold against the serial picture. The ordinary five-reel feature, on the other hand, is the old-time slushy, sentimental novel reduced to pictures, and it does its own harm, giving unreal views of life, fostering cheap sentiment and false ideals, and open to pretty much the same objections that were urged of old against the mushy novel which is its prototype.

But perhaps most deplorable of all is the moral teaching of the movies. Those who have observed the output of the films during the last few years can scarcely find words strong enough to condemn the atrocious license taken by irresponsible directors of moving pictures to portray the most harmful and unspeakable themes. A glance at the weekly report of the Pennsylvania Board, for example, will suffice to convince anyone of the dreadful need for supervision in this regard. This deplorable evil cries for a remedy and it is on the consciences of our pastors, mothers and fathers and of all decent people to see to it that the situation is radically remedied. 

All these details, however, will prove less convincing, in setting before our pastors the true state of the moving picture business, than some literal quotations from the documents of the boards of censors themselves. One must overcome a disgusted reluctance to speak of the vile details of indecency, vulgarity, and crime which enter into this business. But nothing else will give so convincing an object-lesson of the real condition of an amusement which is filling every night of the [260] year 17,000 moving-picture theatres in the United States, entertaining every day some twelve million people, and has got itself into the position of the greatest beyond measure of all organized forms of entertainment, the fifth largest of all commercial enterprises in the country, and in which is invested some five to six hundred million dollars. Quite a lot of material has come our way bearing on this unsavory subject, and we feel it a sort of duty to make it known in this way to priests in general.

To begin with, let us look over the standards which the Pennsylvania Board of Censors have formulated after their experience of four years, after examining perhaps seventy or eighty million feet of film which has come before their censors during the four years ending with April 1918. In 1918 the Board issued the following set of rules, entitled "Standards of the Board." They indicate the principles on which eliminations are made in films that are given permission to be shown in the State, or the standards according to which entire films will be refused such permission. The point to be made in this connexion [sic] is that these standards formulate pretty completely the chief objectionable features actually observed by the censors during their inspection of the current run of films, since if the abuses noted were not common they would not have come up for inclusion in the prohibitions issued by the Board.

Standards of the Board.

1. The Board will condemn pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with "white slavery". The procuration and prostitution in all forms, of girls, and their confinement for immoral purposes may not be shown upon the screen, and will be disapproved. Views of prostitutes and houses of ill-fame will be disapproved. 

2. Pictures, and parts of pictures, which deal with the seduction of women, particularly the betrayal of young girls, and assaults upon women, with immoral intent, will be disapproved. 

3. Pre-natal and childbed scenes, and subtitles describing them, will be disapproved. 

4. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with the drug habit; e. g., the use of opium, morphine, cocaine, etc., will be disapproved. The traffic in habit-forming drugs is forbidden and visualized scenes of their use will be disapproved. 

[261] 5. Scenes showing the modus operandi of criminals which are suggestive and incite to evil action, such as murder, poisoning, house-breaking, safe-robbery, pocket-picking, the lighting and throwing of bombs, the use of ether, chloroform, etc., to render men and women unconscious, binding and gagging, will be disapproved. 

6. Gruesome and unduly distressing scenes will be disapproved. These include shooting, stabbing, profuse bleeding, prolonged views of men dying and of corpses, lashing and whipping, and other torture scenes, hangings, lynchings, electrocutions, surgical operations, and views of persons in delirium or insane. 

7. Studio and other scenes, in which the human form is shown in the nude, or the body is unduly exposed, will be disapproved. 

8. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with abortion and malpractice, will be disapproved. These will include themes and incidents having to do with eugenics, "birth control", "race suicide" and similar subjects. 

9. Stories, or scenes holding up to ridicule and reproach races, classes, or other social groups, as well as the irreverent and sacrilegious treatment of religious bodies or other things held to be sacred, will be disapproved. The materialization of the figure of Christ may be disapproved. 

10. Pictures which deal with counterfeiting will be disapproved. 

11. Scenes showing men and women living together without marriage, and in adultery, will be disapproved. Discussion of the question of the consummation of marriage, in pictures, will be disapproved. 

12. The brutal treatment of children and of animals may lead to the disapproval of the theme, or of incidents in film stories. 

13. The use of profane and objectionable language in subtitles will be disapproved. 

14. Objectionable titles, as well as subtitles of pictures, will be disapproved. 

15. Views of incendiarism [sic], burning, wrecking and the destruction of property, which may put like action into the minds of those of evil instincts, or may degrade the morals of the young, will be disapproved. 

16. Gross and offensive drunkenness, especially if women have a part in the scenes, will be disapproved. 

17. Pictures which deal at length with gun play, and the use of knives, and are set in the underworld, will be disapproved. When the whole theme is crime, unrelieved by other scenes, the film will be disapproved. Prolonged fighting scenes will be shortened, and brutal fights will be wholly disapproved. 

[262] 18. Vulgarities of a gross kind, such as often appear in slapstick and other screen comedies, will be disapproved. Comedy which burlesques morgues, funerals, hospitals, insane asylums, the lying-in of women and houses of ill-fame, will be disapproved. 

19. Sensual kissing and love-making scenes, men and women in bed together and indelicate sexual situations, whether in comedies or pictures of other classes, will be disapproved. Bathing scenes which pass the limits of propriety, lewd and immodest dancing, the needless exhibition of women in their night dresses or underclothing, will be disapproved. 

20. Views of women smoking will not be disapproved as such, but when women are shown in suggestive positions or their manner of smoking is suggestive or degrading, such scenes will be disapproved. 

21. Pictures or parts of pictures which deal with venereal disease, of any kind, will be disapproved. 

22. That the theme or story of a picture is adapted from a publication, whether classical or not; or that portions of a picture follow paintings or other illustrations, is not a sufficient reason for the approval of a picture or portions of a picture. 

23. Themes or incidents in picture stories, which are designed to inflame the mind to improper adventures, or to establish false standards of conduct, coming under the foregoing classes, or of other kinds, will be disapproved. Pictures will be judged as a whole, with a view to their final total effect; those portraying evil in any form which may be easily remembered or emulated, will be disapproved. 

24. Banners, posters or other advertising matter, concerning motion pictures, must follow the rules laid down for the pictures themselves. That which may not be used upon the screen, must not be used to announce and direct public attention to the picture, in the lobby, on the street, or in any other form.

These standards present a résumé of the more common and flagrant indecencies and vulgarities of the screen. But it is from the weekly reports of the Board that one obtains the details of the sort of vileness, violence, and crime that is being poured into the imaginations of children and the impressionable at their nightly visits to the movies. Let me take some instances at random from recent reports. The Board of Censors issues every week a report giving the titles of films condemned entirely during the week and of the parts ordered cut out of films that were allowed to be shown after these eliminations had been made. A number of these recent reports lie before me, and from them I shall give some typical instances.

[263] It is very difficult for the priest to learn the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to go to the moving-picture theatres, and besides it would be imprudent to do so for more than one reason. On the other hand, the general remarks about the dangers and abuses of moving pictures that one hears are not convincing enough to stir one to action. But in the reports of the authorized censors one finds convincing details. The reliability of these reports may be judged from two considerations. One is that their findings, as given below, have been complied with by the manufacturers of the films and the exhibitors, who would have legal recourse if they were not accurate, and who have eliminated the objectionable features or have acquiesced with the order forbidden the exhibition of whole films anywhere in the State of Pennsylvania. The second is that this board maintains itself and enforces its findings in spite of the natural resistance and opposition that it meets from interested persons and corporations. Here then is material that is authentic and definite.[1]

Now for some of the detailed cut-outs ordered by the Board. I clip them at haphazard from the weekly sheets. The board takes cognizance of posters and sheets as well as of films. Here is a case in point:

"The Kaiser's Finish." A. Warner.

Sheet:—Condemned.

2—six sheet of the Crown Prince and other German officers and partly nude women in very vulgar attitudes of seduction. One of these women is lying upside down across a man's lap with her foot and bare limb extended high in air, while man drinks from her slipper. Caption underneath reads, "Underground Kultur—Professional Women from Berlin entertain German officers, whilst men die in the Trenches".
1—8x10 reproduction of condemned six sheets.
1—28x22 colored photographic reproduction of condemned six sheet.

[264]

Here are some of the eliminations ordered in this film—among many others.

R 6 A Elim. subtitle, "I train the women to amuse my officers by mixing them with the professionals. While the revelry is progressing I do my work. It is inspiring."
B Elim. subtitle reading in part, "For the women of Belgium we have a special purpose."
C Elim. subtitle reading in part, "We don't kill Belgium women. We keep them to entertain the officers", etc. 

R 7 A Elim. subtitle, "The first step to barbarity and degeneracy. The Dungeon of Lust", etc.
B Elim. all lewd and lustful scenes in dugout, including vulgar dancing and contortion and sensual kissing.
N Elim. all views and subtitles connected with the visit of the monarch to the home of the peasant woman, his assaulting her, arranging his dress, the incident of her father striking him and being killed. The idea is to remove all incidents connected with physician's story explaining Richard's birth.

Yet this film is marked (Reconstructed), which means that it was worse before, but has now been made over.

I merely cite the following as specimens of the reports of last year:

Inspiration. Mutual.

A. Throughout each and every eel eliminate each scene where models pose in the nude. This includes views of the models in the nude, whether posing or not, either full figure or only a portion of person exposed.
B. Elim. all subtitles relating to models posing in the nude.
C. The view of model posing for the caste is allowed, etc.

The Donkey Did It. L-Ko. State No. 31810.

R I A. Elim. view of woman pulling trousers off a preacher, while he is caught in the fork of tree.
B. Elim. view of woman holding up preacher's trousers.
C. Elim. all views of preacher running about without trousers.
D. Elim. . . . .
E. Elim. views of girls dancing around preacher in undergarments.
F. Elim. subtitle, "Where is your pants?"

[265]

The Struggle Everlasting. State No. 32765.
High Arts prod.—6 reels.

Condemned in accordance with Section 6 of act and nos. 1, 6, and 19 of the Rules and Standards. This picture deals with immorality, in that it portrays, etc.

Lost and Found. A-Kay Co.—1 reel. State No. 32811.

Condemned in accordance with section 6 of the Act. This story is irreverent, sacrilegious, and holds up to ridicule things that are sacred.

The Girl of To-day. Vitagraph.

R. I. A. Elim. memory of vision of girl after being ravished.

The list of censored films that is given in detail presents the most vulgar, indecent and sacrilegious collection of pictures that can be imagined.

It is to be remembered that all this disgusting vileness occurs as interludes in films, the remainder of which was allowed to be exhibited.

This is the sort of thing that is being shown without hindrance, save from local and occasional protests, throughout nearly nine-tenths of the land. It is exceedingly distasteful to read such degrading vileness. But the pastors of souls, reflecting that their own people and particularly the children of their congregations, are exposed to see such episodes vividly presented to their impressionable eyes and imaginations in the intense and absorbing interest of the moving-picture theatres almost any night that they go to the movies, will wish and work for the day when a sensible and universal censorship may keep at least these flagrant abuses from being inflicted on the general public.

All the indecencies and vilenesses [sic] here described were at least eliminated from the 1500 moving-picture houses of Pennsylvania by the effective vigilance of the Board of Censors there. The same result may be brought about in other places through similar laws similarly enforced. True, the subject is an extremely disagreeable one and it would be much pleasanter to remain silent concerning things so repulsive and disgraceful. But this evil closely concerns the souls of the people and especially of children. It is necessary for our pastors to be informed, and such an object-lesson as the above, disagreeable [266] though it e both to give and to take, is the most direct and efficacious means of bringing home to us all the acuteness of the situation. Once informed, one cannot doubt that the priests of the entire country will prepare to take effective action.

Edward F. Garesché, S.J.
St. Louis, Missouri.

Footnotes:

1. The editor should be moved to apologize for presenting any of these details in a respectable magazine, if it were not for the fact that they indicate what sort of scenes, with all their horrid vulgarities, are attracting young people everywhere—and children whose parents exercise no supervision.

---

Source: Edward F. Garesché, SJ, "Pastors and the Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (March 1919): 256–266.

Pius XI, Vigilanti Cura, "On the Motion Picture": Notes and Quotations

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura.html

Vigilanti Cura was published on June 29, 1936, on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. Consider the date, the nature of films, and its evolution to the present day. With that in mind, let us look at the Holy Father's words on this important matter.

Pius XI describes motion pictures as "a matter which touches intimately the moral and religious life of the entire Christian people."

He recalls the warning he gave in his previous encyclical on Christian education:

In the Encyclical "Divini illius Magistri" [n. 90], We had already deplored that "potent instrumentalities of publicity (such as the cinema) which might be of great advantage to learning and to education were they properly directed by healthy principles, often unfortunately serve as an incentive to evil passions and are subordinated to sordid gain".

He continues to insist that film is not a trifle, morally neutral matter but one of great importance, to be guided above all by the essential purpose of art from a Catholic point of view, namely, the formation of good morals:

In August 1934, addressing Ourselves to a delegation of the International Federation of the Motion Picture Press, We pointed out the very great importance which the motion picture has acquired in our days and its vast influence alike in the promotion of good and in the insinuation of evil, and We called to mind that it is necessary to apply to the cinema the supreme rule which must direct and regulate the great gift of art in order that it may not find itself in continual conflict with Christian morality or even with simple human morality based upon the natural law. The essential purpose of art, its raison d'être, is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral.

The Holy Father speaks especially of the urgency in these times (i.e. the 1930s!) to establish clear norms so that modern arts and sciences may help establish the kingdom of God.

In the next section, Pius XI begins with this correlation:

[...] it is a certainty which can readily be verified that the more marvelous the progress of the motion picture art and industry, the more pernicious and deadly has it shown itself to morality and to religion and even to the very decencies of human society.

He draws attention to the fact that the producers of film have a global and even a political influence. Films affect morals and the very fabric of society.

He then discusses the history of the "Legion of Decency" and its pledge that many American Catholics took, promising to avoid films that went against Catholic morals and human decency. It's interesting to note that the Holy Father called this movement a "holy crusade" and that even non-Catholics participated in it. He discusses the noticeable positive changes in the production of films after this movement gained traction: sin and false ideals were not depicted as much as they previously were.

Today, isn't it true to say sadly that Catholic money is as good as the filth it wallows in? Imagine if every Catholic refused to pay for movies that contained blasphemy! But now our moral authority is as good as the next heathen.

The Holy Father begins the second section "The Power of the Cinema" by noting that the harsh conditions of the Industrial Age have caused an increased need for recreation, and recreation since it is a moral action must itself support good morals. Youth are especially endangered by the proliferation of immoral recreation. Hence films are especially important for our consideration today.

He draws attention to the fact that motion pictures are now easily the most popular form of entertainment, yet such a form of media is quite apt for educational and moral purposes because of its very nature.

He then comes to the essential nature and effects of film:

The power of the motion picture consists in this, that it speaks by means of vivid and concrete imagery which the mind takes in with enjoyment and without fatigue. Even the crudest and most primitive minds which have neither the capacity nor the desire to make the efforts necessary for abstraction or deductive reasoning are captivated by the cinema. In place of the effort which reading or listening demands, there is the continued pleasure of a succession of concrete and, so to speak, living pictures. 

This power is still greater in the talking picture for the reason that interpretation becomes even easier and the charm of music is added to the action of the drama. Dances and variety acts which are sometimes introduced between the films serve to increase the stimulation of the passions.

This recalls St. Thomas Aquinas's summary of the principal effect of music: "For such like musical instruments move the soul to pleasure rather than create a good disposition within it" (Summa Th., 2a2ae.91.2 ad 4).

The Holy Father continues with the application of this essential nature of film to its moral implications:

Since then the cinema is in reality a sort of object lesson which, for good or for evil, teaches the majority of men more effectively than abstract reasoning, it must be elevated to conformity with the aims of a Christian conscience and saved from depraving and demoralizing effects.

He summarizes some of the evil and beneficial effects of film:

Everyone knows what damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. They are occasions of sin; they seduce young people along the ways of evil by glorifying the passions; they show life under a false light; they cloud ideals; they destroy pure love, respect for marriage, affection for the family. They are capable also of creating prejudices among individuals and misunderstandings among nations, among social classes, among entire races. 

On the other hand, good motion pictures are capable of exercising a profoundly moral influence upon those who see them. In addition to affording recreation, they are able to arouse noble ideals of life, to communicate valuable conceptions, to impart a better knowledge of the history and the beauties of the Fatherland and of other countries, to present truth and virtue under attractive forms, to create, or at least to favor understanding among nations, social classes, and races, to champion the cause of justice, to give new life to the claims of virtue, and to contribute positively to the genesis of a just social order in the world.

He then reminds us of an important essential aspect to film: its viewership is the multitudes, of all ages. The young, who are still being formed in their notions of upright morals and justice, are especially under the influence of the messages and values that films communicate:

These considerations take on greater seriousness from the fact that the cinema speaks not to individuals but to multitudes, and that it does so in circumstances of time and place and surroundings which are most apt to arouse unusual enthusiasm for the good as well as for the bad and to conduce to that collective exaltation which, as experience teaches us, may assume the most morbid forms.

He expands on this line of reasoning a few paragraphs later when he writes:

Their [i.e. the bishops] sacred calling constrains them to proclaim clearly and openly that unhealthy and impure entertainment destroys the moral fibre [sic] of a nation. They will likewise remind the motion picture industry that the demands which they make regard not only the Catholics but all who patronize the cinema.

The Holy Father concludes this philosophical-theological reflection by explicitly linking the production of cinema of whatever sort to moral purposes, to the contemplation of the truly good and elevated, for education. He says it is an obligation incumbent upon both clergy and laity:

It is therefore one of the supreme necessities, of our times to watch and to labour [sic] to the end that the motion picture be no longer a school of corruption but that it be transformed into an effectual instrument for the education and the elevation of mankind. [...]

This is an obligation which binds not only the Bishops but also the faithful and all decent men who are solicitous for the decorum and moral health of the family, of the nation, and of human society in general.

The problem of the production of moral films would be solved radically if it were possible for us to have production wholly inspired by the principles of Christian morality. We can never sufficiently praise all those who have dedicated themselves or who are to dedicate themselves to the noble cause of raising the standard of the motion picture to meet the needs of education and the requirements of the Christian conscience. 

Pius XI therefore exhorts the bishops of the world to be careful and vigilant of the films being produced in the lands they govern and to place those films on ban that go against Christian principles.

In his final section "A Work for Catholic Action," the Pope laments that the problem of motion pictures would be instantly solved if all films produced were able to be conformed to Catholic principles, yet the best films must be both morally sound and artistically beautiful. It's not enough to produce a moral film that is amateur.

Therefore the Holy Father tells the bishops to exhort those Catholics who hold positions of power in the film industry to begin shifting the content of production towards good morals. It is a matter of Catholic duty in fact. Further, this field provides ample opportunity for those in Catholic Action who possess the talents and means to become involved in order to steer film production in the right direction.

The Holy Father summarizes his discussion:

Why indeed should there be question merely of avoiding what is evil? The motion picture should not be simply a means of diversion, a light relaxation to occupy an idle hour; with its magnificent power, it can and must be a bearer of light and a positive guide to what is good.

In other words, film is not a neutral matter, and leisure activities must be directed according to reason enlightened by supernatural faith. Leisure is a moral activity and is therefore always to be guided by objective principles and directed to the betterment of participants.

The Holy Father recommends the use of a yearly pledge for Catholics to stay away from bad films. He exhorts pastors to encourage the faithful to take these pledges, especially for the youth in schools. The Holy Father then demands that lists classifying the moral content of films be created to guide the faithful. But the Pope notes that a single, global list would be impossible because there is room for flexibility in some aspects of the moral judgment of a film due to its wide audience with different cultural and intellectual backgrounds.

Therefore, it is up to the bishops of nations to create organizations to publish lists that classify the morality of films based on their regions and cultural norms.