Leo Sees and Hears No Evil from Those Allied Directly with the Devil Himself

The mind just boggles at the sheer blindness of men such as Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XVI who live in an entirely unreal world where illegal immigrants never commit violent crimes, where the fraud of global climate change that is said to “threaten creation” is said to be an issue of morality equivalent to that of willful murder, where sodomites and mutants have their ears tickled by a two successive pretenders to the papacy, where the Wuhan Virus vaccines have never harmed a single person, and where the doctrinal, moral, pastoral, and liturgical revolutions of conciliarism are said to have produced a veritable “springtime of the Church.”

The unreal world inhabited by a septuagenarian from the suburbs south of Chicago, Illinois, is such that Hollywood is not in the grip of the devil himself and almost all of the films its various studios and independent producers produce contain nothing offensive to God and poses no threat to the sanctification and salvation of souls.

As we know, the exact opposite is true as the following random reports from various sources attest to what any believing Catholic has known to be the case for well over six decades now:

Yesterday, Miramax Films purchased the rights to “The Magdalene Sisters.”  Three weeks ago, Samuel Goldwyn Films picked up “The Crime of Father Amaro.”  Both movies attack Catholicism.  Catholic League president William Donohue commented on this today:

“Harvey Weinstein of Miramax is known for such anti-Catholic movies as ‘Priest,’ ‘Butcher Boy,’ ‘Dogma,’ and ‘40 Days and 40 Nights.’  Now he has added the Venice Golden Lion winner ‘The Magdalene Sisters.’

“This film is based on the allegedly cruel behavior of Irish nuns who maintained homes for wayward young girls and their babies in the 19th and 20th centuries.  To be sure, conditions were harsh by today’s standards but they were not uncommon in their day: historians have recounted how Protestant-run institutions were similar.  Moreover, in the absence of government agencies to address this problem, those girls who were left to fend for themselves were consigned to failure.  But such verities are of no interest to director Peter Mullan.

“Listen to Mullan’s vintage anti-Catholicism: ‘There is not much difference between the Catholic Church and the Taliban’;  ‘The film encapsulates everything that is bad about the Catholic Church’; ‘The worst thing about the Catholic Church is that it imprisons your soul, your mind and your d—.’  No wonder a leading European arts critic compared Mullan’s work to that of Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favorite director.  Yet none of this fazes Weinstein—the same man who postponed the opening of ‘Gangs of New York’ from a year ago because of his ‘sensitivity’ to New Yorkers (it features violence and was scheduled to open after 9-11).

“Meyer Gottlieb and Daniel Birman Ripstein have bought ‘The Crime of Father Amaro’ for Samuel Goldwyn Films.  It is a fictional account about a priest who impregnates a 16-year-old and features an old woman who feeds the Holy Eucharist to her cat.  Gottlieb can say all he wants how the movie ‘deals with issues that are topical’: it would be just as topical to portray Muslims as thugs, yet no one in Hollywood would dare do so.  Catholics should take note: this is Hollywood’s 9-11 gift to us.” (HOLLYWOOD WARS ON CATHOLICISM AGAIN.)

Hollywood’s portrayal of the Catholic Church has long been a point of contention for faithful Catholics, who often see their beliefs and institutions unfairly caricatured on the silver screen.

From sensationalized conspiracies to depictions of clergy as corrupt or hypocritical, a pattern of anti-Catholic bias has been seen in numerous films, raising questions about artistic intent, cultural trends, and the responsibility of storytellers to portray faith accurately.

While some argue these portrayals are mere fiction meant to entertain, the consistent negative framing of Catholicism risks perpetuating stereotypes and undermining the Church’s mission in a world that has some skepticism of organized religion.

As Catholics, we are called to respond with charity and clarity, advocating for fairer representations while engaging constructively with the culture around us.

To that end, CatholicVote has taken up the mantle to defend the faith from the slings and arrows coming from Hollywood. In its latest campaign, CatholicVote has launched an email project in response to the latest assault on Catholicism.

In the Apple TV+ series “Your Friends & Neighbors,” a man and woman break into what appears to be a Catholic church. Once inside, they open the tabernacle, remove a ciborium filled with consecrated Eucharistic hosts, and begin snacking on the hosts like crackers, further desecrating the Blessed Sacrament by dipping the hosts in jam.

The email campaign,which has been active for less than a week, has generated over 423,000 interactions:

According to Joshua Mercer, vice president of CatholicVote, “We are not policing every transgression against Catholics, but this crosses the line with no artistic value. … It’s blasphemy.”

The growing evidence of Hollywood’s bias is striking when one examines recent films.

“Conclave,” released last year, drew ire for its portrayal of a scandal-ridden papal election, with critics like podcaster Megyn Kelly calling it “disgusting” for mocking the Church’s sanctity. The inclusion of an intersex cardinal being selected as pope has been particularly contentious and seen as undermining Church teachings on the all-male priesthood.

Other unhonorable mentions of popular Hollywood scripts include “The Da Vinci Code” and “The Godfather Part III.” When Hollywood consistently portrays it as oppressive or hypocritical, it risks shaping public perception, particularly among those unfamiliar with the faith.

In 2023, a Pew Research study found only 43% of Americans viewed the Catholic Church favorably, a decline partly attributed to media portrayals.

Such depictions can alienate Catholics, especially young people, who may internalize these stereotypes as reflective of their faith. Moreover, they contribute to a broader cultural narrative that dismisses religion as outdated or harmful, undermining the Church’s ability to evangelize in a secular world.

Catholics, for the most part, as a group, have not taken action to defend the faith. Hollywood has never had to deal with boycotts or demonstrations due to their negative portrayals of Catholicism. Perhaps CatholicVote can provide a unifying platform for Catholics to find the tools and methods for combating negative portrayals of Catholics. (Combating Hollywood’s Anti-Catholic.)

[Actor James] Woods shared his thoughts when a Twitter user asked, “James, serious question. As someone who has enormous respect for your talent as an actor, I’m curious – how evil is Hollywood?”

Woods responded, “Multiply your worst fears by 100.”

Woods comments are not out of the ordinary. The Chosen actor Jonathan Roumie spoke in Washington D.C. during the annual March for Life in January declared, “For some time now, we have been witnesses to a mounting polarity between light and dark. We’ve seen it manifest itself in many facets of culture.”

He continued, “But I would like to address as I see it as an artist in the entertainment industry. In the last several years there’s been a sharp and disturbing increase in the darkness of the imagery being used in film, television, and music. The landscape has become increasingly sinister.”

“And in some cases, even demonic in tone,” he added. “More so than in previous years. Sometimes subliminal. Oftentimes overt. Storylines involving the occult, witchcraft, demons, and even Satanic elements are commonplace in mainstream programming. Many feature spiritually and psychologically disturbing content.”

He made it clear he wasn’t referencing Harry Potter, “And before you jump on me, no, I’m not referencing a specifically bespectacled wizard. Though a few folks might disagree.”

Roumie then clarified, “I’m referring to the media which is more ominous. And I don’t need to name names. You know it when you see it.”

The actor then stated, “The youngest of us and the most vulnerable as well as those who are not grounded in a solid faith in God are susceptible to the influences of these images. Media has become a portal to behavior and attitudes kids want to emulate that reject God, reject the light, and reject, ultimately, all those aspects of community which give life.”

“I have observed God subtly, but radically being removed from public popular culture over the last couple of decades. Replaced with some of the most corruptive images and ideologies for young hearts and minds,” he said.

“And any of us who profess any kind of faith are branded as fundamental or condemned for their beliefs with the assertions of the religiosity of a Pharisee,” he declared. “This is completely contrary to what it means to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and follow his teachings.”

“If only the rest of the world actually took the time to explore what it means to follow Jesus’ heart,” Roumie said. “Yes, there are always individual exceptions, unfortunately. But for the majority of believers God is love and true love gives way to life not death.” (James Woods Declares Hollywood Is 100 Times More Evil Than Your Worst Fears.)

Mind you, these reports provide just some of the evil that has been and continues to be done in Hollywood and other centers of motion picture and television production centers around the work. Adultery, fornication, sodomy, divorce, contraception, surgical abortion, immodesty, indecency and outright blasphemy against the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and direct mockery of religion in general and Catholicism in particular have become commonplace in motion pictures. Such productions continue to be made because they are profitable as even many Catholics partake of them, something that was not the case when the Legion of Decency was at its peak of influence in the 1940s and early-1950s when Catholics obeyed their bishops and priests and boycotted films that were offensive to God and injurious to their own sanctification and salvation.

What does any of this matter to Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV?

Nothing, of course, as he lamented the fact that there has been a decline in moviegoing when speaking before and praising motion picture producers, directors, writers, and actors on Saturday, November 15, 2025, the Feast of Saint Albert the Great and the Commemoration of Our Lady of Divine Providence:

Although cinema is now over a century old, it is still a young, dreamlike and somewhat restless art form. It will soon celebrate its 130th anniversary, counting from the first public screening by the Lumière brothers in Paris on 28 December 1895. From the outset, cinema was as a play of light and shadow, designed to amuse and impress. However, these visual effects soon succeeded in conveying much deeper realities, eventually becoming an expression of the desire to contemplate and understand life, to recount its greatness and fragility and to portray the longing for infinity. (Encounter with the World of Cinema, 15 November 2025.)

Lengthy Interjection Number One:

Longing for infinity.

Well, I am going to call upon a line from a motion picture to deal with Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s belief that motion pictures help us to “contemplate and understand life, to recount its greatness and fragility and to portray the longing for infinity.

This reminds me of what the fictional William “Hopalong” Cassidy (William Boyd) said to his sidekick, California Jack Carlson (Andy Clyde), in Leather Burners (1943) when overhearing a madman named Sam Bucktoe (George Givot), the mastermind of a cattle rustling operation while living in a cave, boast to his front man, Dan Slack (Victor Jory), that he was going to be “Governor Sam Bucktoe, Senator Sam Bucktoe, President Sam Bucktoe,” at which Hoppy said to California, “That man is insane.”

It is insanity to claim that motion pictures portray a longing for infinity, especially since many silent films and early sound motion pictures were direct assaults on Holy Purity. Hollywood has cared nothing about a “longing for infinity” as the overriding concern of moviemakers from the very beginning in the first and second decades of the Twentieth Century was to make profits, and the cheapest way to make profits was to promote impurity, indecency, immodesty, suggestiveness, things that were done with ready abandon before the Hays Code was instituted in 1934.

The motion picture industry, which has been controlled by secular Jews from its very beginning, was committed to the exploitation of man’s lower appetites and passions, and the only reason that Hollywood had to watch itself between 1934 and the 1950s was because of the  aforementioned Hays Code, which was honored more in the breach than in actual point of fact, came into existence because of the unrelenting efforts of Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen, especially Archbishop Joseph McNicholas of Cincinnati, Ohio, Father Daniel Lord, S.J., and laymen Joseph Breen and Martin Quigley. What resulted was termed by a Jewish commentator was a world where Jewish producers sold Catholic theology to Protestant America.

Even during the era of the Hays Code, various producers, most notably Otto Preminger, a Jew who hated efforts on the part of Catholics to convert his father, Markus Preminger, and Alfred Hitchcock, who was a Catholic, found ways to flaunt the code, and the successor of their efforts and others commercially led to the erosion and the elimination of the code by 1968, by which time the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “opening to the world” had commenced, resulting in an relaxation of vigilance by ordinary Catholics, who were already succumbing to the temptations not to maintain custody of their eyes and ears.

Motion picture producers popularized and, in all too many cases, were innovators in promoting indecent and immodest fashions.

Indeed, the fashion industry, working frequently hand-in-hand with Hollywood and the advertisers of Madison Avenue began to produce and market “gradual” changes in feminine attire to reveal rather than to conceal.

Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., Cap., S.T.D., explained how changes in women’s fashions were introduced after World War I that had caught of and been condemned by Pope Benedict XV in 1921:

The avowed enemies of God are rejoicing--temporarily--at having brought about an almost total collapse of the virtue of modesty among once virtuous Christian womanhood, while those commissioned by God to teach and uphold this angelic virtue insist on cowardly silence and indifference about it and on gutless permissiveness in manner of dress everywhere.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of supposedly "good" people remain as if without a conscience, being morally blind and insensitive as to what has really happened to a God-given virtue that was once a distinctive trademark of theirs. This type of blindness seems to go hand in hand with a brazen contempt and a sassy resentfulness towards any attempt to revive and restore the missing sense of modesty.

The fact stands out clearly that the immodest fashions of this unchaste generation still offend Our Lord "very much," as Our Lady foretold it through the angelic little Jacinta.

Anyone who still cares about God's virtue of modesty, which He has made shine with such heavenly beauty in the Immaculate Virgin Mary, cannot forget how Our Lord suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane when He foresaw so many sinners, including the immodest and the impure, remaining unrepentant. And the sight of so many immodest creatures displaying crude flesh, like animals, brings vividly before our mind's eye the frightful vision of Our Divine Savior being mercilessly scourged at the pillar. We need not strain ourselves in trying to picture this scene, for we can plainly see the immodest, with their unchaste displays of flesh and figure, continually scourging Our Lord. And we can see them crowning Him with thorns and nailing Him to the Cross all over again.

And look what sorrow the immodest and the impure are causing their Sorrowful and Immaculate Mother, whom God has presented to them as the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity!

But it has not all happened by accident. Satan planned it this way. As he has done with such evil movements as Communism and Socialism and Freemasonry, so also has he planned out a program of gradual, not sudden, destruction of the sense of modesty and purity. A mere look at the past 50 years or more shows us very plainly how gradually it was all done, first by apparently innocent abbreviations of garments and by slight revelations of bare flesh and by subtle little displays of the figure, and then, as protests died down, by more and more abbreviations and displays--until the crude immodesty of our day became a shocking reality.

Many living today have seen it all happen before their very eyes. They have lived through it and, if they have managed to retain their God-given moral sense, they find the barbarian immodesty of the this day intolerable and they look upon it as a sin crying to Heaven for the vengeance that must inevitably come if sinners continue to refuse to amend their ways.

Perhaps some 50 years ago or more, a publication known as The Frenchwoman presented the following satanic program for the destruction of the virtue of modesty: "Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus, the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated: first, feet and legs naked, then upturned sleeves; afterwards, the upper part of the chest; then, the back... n summer, they will go around almost naked."

Even if such a daring statement of the powers of darkness had never come to light--though "enlightened" liberals have tried to keep it in the dark--we would still know that it had to be planned that way and could not have happened by accident. And we would also know that such a program for immodesty could not have originated anywhere but in the dungeons of hell and in the mind of Satan.

The program of gradualism intended to lead eventually to the crude immodesty that we know so painfully well today was evidently drawn up, or at least made known, some time during the Fatima years, possibly a little before or after the 1917 Apparitions of Our Lady. (Maybe some well-informed person can provide a precise date.) Bearing this in mind, we can easily conclude that it was no accident that Our Lady insisted so strongly on modesty in her Fatima Message. She knew well of the evil program that would endanger so many immortal souls, and she came to Fatima to warn souls and to save them from the evil awaiting them.

As Sister Lucy has said, one of the things that Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. And still better known, though disregarded, is Jacinta's prophecy: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much"--that little liked prophecy that leaves immodestly dressed "pious" women and girls callous and insensitive and cold.

Just as Our Lady was commissioned by God to oppose the rise of Russian Communism and all the other evils named in the Fatima Message, with God's own program of sanctification and salvation, so was part of her mission to warn souls of the dangers of immodesty and impurity that were to increase the unbelievable proportions in the years to come, and to turn them to modesty and purity and amendment of life.

In connection with the timeliness of Our Lady's message of modesty in 1917, just when Satan's program of gradual nakedness was being put into effect, we must also mention the timeliness of the message of modesty of Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). It is fairly well known how dynamic were his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, in promoting modesty of dress, but it is not as well known that Pope Benedict XV was before them a strenuous defender and promoter of modesty at a time when we might imagine it was not so much of a problem.

We cannot believe that the statements of Our Lady of Fatima and those of Pope Benedict XV on modesty were disconnected or were merely a matter of coincidence. We can only believe that both Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy Father of that time were inspired and guided by God Himself to speak out on modesty in dress, so as to counteract the wicked program of gradual nudism that was being inspired and guided by hell's father of iniquity.

Let us quote an important statement of Pope Benedict XV--by no means his only one--so that we may see how immodesty in dress had already begun to cause moral ruin among women and girls of his day. In an Encyclical Letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921) commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order, Pope Benedict wrote as follows:

"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."

If we did not know that a Pope wrote this in 1921, we would surely think it was written, or should have been written by someone, in 1972!

After thus deploring the immodesty of his day, the Holy Father exhorted women with these words: 

"In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals." 

Whose message, do you suppose, have women and girls accepted: the message of modesty of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Holy Father or, the message of immodesty of Lucifer?

Who has recommended to them short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift--the sense of modesty--so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God's gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

And, mind you, these have been "good" and "pious" women who have done this to their children! They have been the "Lord, Lord" type who have duly said their prayers, which all are obliged to do, but who have not done "the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven" (Mt. 7. 21) by obeying His law of modesty. (Emphases added.) (Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., The Remnant, 1972.)

Powerful words, although each of us knows fellow Catholics who scoff at them as being too “severe” or “old-fashioned. Truth never has an expiration date, and that is something that Pope Pius XII himself noted in 1957:

This second virtue, modesty - the very word “modesty” comes from modus, a measure or limit - probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity [...] Yet no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin. [...] An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. [...] It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957; as found in Norms for Modesty, which is on the website of the National Coalition for Clergy and the Laity, which also includes links to Rome's Decrees on Modesty in Dress and Cardinal Siri’s Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women. Pope Pius XII's entire address may be purchased for fifty cents at MIQ Center Catholic Books: Papal Decrees, Encyclicals.) 

One of the worst aspects of the false religion of conciliarism is how the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical  travesty has resulted in the gradual acceptance of gross indecency of dress as thoroughly acceptable in the context of putative offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Some of the attire that is worn—or not worn, as the case might be in many instances—in the Novus Ordo world make some of the pagans of yore blush with shame. Offense is given to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in churches where He was once housed sacramentally and scandal is given to the little ones whose purity and innocence is so precious to Him.

This Novus Ordo spirit has infected many Catholics, perhaps even some of your own family members or friends, who are immersed in the make-believe world wrought by the conciliar revolution, which made its “reconciliation” with the “world” in Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965.

The false spirit of conciliarism is such that the compromises that are necessary to accept having "the Mass" offered in "communion with the 'pope'" lead to compromises in the lives of many of the Catholics who go to Motu Masses (or simulations of the Mass in those instances where presbyters are the officiants). "Relax." "Don't be too strict." "Just go along with the times." "Things change, you know." Really?

A longing for infinity, Leo?

You are—and I mean this with all due respect—insane.

I return to Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s November 15, 2025, address:

Dear friends, I am happy to greet and welcome you. I also express my gratitude for what cinema represents: a popular art in the noblest sense, intended for and accessible to all. It is wonderful to see that when the magic light of cinema illuminates the darkness, it simultaneously ignites the eyes of the soul.  Indeed, cinema combines what appears to be mere entertainment with the narrative of the human person’s spiritual adventure.  One of cinema’s most valuable contributions is helping audiences consider their own lives, look at the complexity of their experiences with new eyes and examine the world as if for the first time.  In doing so, they rediscover a portion of the hope that is essential for humanity to live to the fullest.  I find comfort in the thought that cinema is not just moving pictures; it sets hope in motion!

Entering a cinema is like crossing a threshold. In the darkness and silence, vision becomes sharper, the heart opens up and the mind becomes receptive to things not yet imagined.  In reality, you know that your art form requires concentration. Through your productions, you connect with people who are looking for entertainment, as well as those who carry within their hearts a sense of restlessness and are looking for meaning, justice and beauty. We live in an age where digital screens are always on. There is a constant flow of information. However, cinema is much more than just a screen; it is an intersection of desires, memories and questions. It is a sensory journey in which light pierces the darkness and words meet silence. As the plot unfolds, our mind is educated, our imagination broadens and even pain can find new meaning. (Encounter with the World of Cinema, 15 November 2025.)

Lengthy Interjection Number Two:

Pope Pius XI himself understood the artistic value of motion pictures and the good that could be accomplished by them if they were written, directed, and produced according to the teachings of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for the edification of souls and not for their damnation.
Unlike Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s uncritical praise of motion pictures, however, Pope Pius XI took note of their inherent danger in lulling the unsuspecting into a life of sin and debauchery, something that he explained in Vigilanti Cura, June 29, 1936:

As often as the occasion has presented itself, We have considered it the duty of Our high Office to direct to this condition the attention not only of the Episcopate and the Clergy but also of all men who are right-minded and solicitous for the public weal.

In the Encyclical “Divini illius Magistri”, 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”. ¹

The Influence of the Motion Picture

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. And We concluded amidst the manifest approval of that elect body — the memory is still dear to Us — by recommending to them the necessity of making the motion picture “moral, an influence for good morals, an educator”.

And even recently, in April of this year, when We had the happiness of receiving in audience a group of delegates to the International Congress of the Motion Picture Press, held at Rome, We again drew attention to the gravity of the problem and We warmly exhorted all men of goodwill, in the name not only of religion but also of the true moral and civil welfare of the people, to use every means in their power, such as the Press, to make of the cinema a valuable auxiliary of instruction and education rather than of destruction and ruin of souls.

The Needs of the Entire Catholic World

The subject, however, is of such paramount importance in itself and because of the present condition of society that We deem it necessary to return to it again, not alone for the purpose of making particular recommendations as on past occasions but rather with a universal outlook which, while embracing the needs of your own dioceses, Venerable Brethren, takes into consideration those of the entire Catholic world.

It is, in fact, urgently necessary to make provision that in this field also the progress of the arts, of the sciences, and of human technique and industry, since they are all true gifts of God, may be ordained to His glory and to the salvation of souls and may be made to serve in a practical way to promote the extension of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Thus, as the Church bids us pray, we may all profit by them but in such a manner as not to lose the goods eternal: “sic transeamus per bona temporalia ut non admittamus aeterna”. ²

Now then, it is a certainty which can readily be verified that the more marvellous 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.

The directors of the industry in the United States recognised this fact themselves when they confessed that the responsibility before the people and the world was their very own. In an agreement entered into by common accord in March, 1930, and solemnly sealed, signed, and published in the Press, they formally pledged themselves to safeguard for the future the moral welfare of the patrons of the cinema.

It is promised in this agreement that no film which lowers the moral standard of the spectators, which casts discredit upon natural or human law or arouses sympathy for their violation, will be produced.

Promises not carried out

Nevertheless, in spite of this wise and spontaneously taken decision, those responsible showed themselves incapable of carrying it into effect and it appeared that the producers and the operators were not disposed to stand by the principles to which they had bound themselves. Since, therefore, the above-mentioned undertaking proved to have but slight effect and since the parade of vice and crime continued on the screen, the road seemed almost closed to those who sought honest diversion in the motion picture.

In this crisis, you, Venerable Brethren, were among the first to study the means of safeguarding the souls entrusted to your care, and you launched the “Legion of Decency” as a crusade for public morality designed to revitalize the ideals of natural and Christian rectitude. Far from you was the thought of doing damage to the motion picture industry: rather indeed did you arm it beforehand against the ruin which menaces every form of recreation which, in the guise of art, degenerates into corruption.

The “Legion of Decency” Pledge

Your leadership called forth the prompt and devoted loyalty of your faithful people, and millions of American Catholics signed the pledge of the “Legion of Decency” binding themselves not to attend any motion picture which was offensive to Catholic moral principles or proper standards of living. We are thus able to proclaim joyfully that few problems of these latter times have so closely united Bishops and people as the one resolved by cooperation in this holy crusade. Not only Catholics but also high-minded Protestants, Jews, and many others accepted your lead and joined their efforts with yours in restoring wise standards, both artistic and moral, to the cinema.

It is an exceedingly great comfort to Us to note the outstanding success of the crusade. Because of your vigilance and because of the pressure which has been brought to bear by public opinion, the motion picture has shown an improvement from the moral standpoint: crime and vice are portrayed less frequently; sin is no longer so openly approved and acclaimed; false ideals of life are no longer presented in so flagrant a manner to the impressionable minds of youth.

A Useful Impetus

Although in certain quarters it was predicted that the artistic values of the motion picture would be seriously impaired by the reform insisted upon by the “Legion of Decency,” it appears that quite the contrary has happened and that the “Legion of Decency” has given no little impetus to the efforts to advance the cinema on the road to noble artistic significance by directing it towards the production of classic masterpieces as well as of original creations of uncommon worth.

Nor have the financial investments of the industry suffered, as was gratuitously foretold, for many of those who stayed away from the motion picture theatre because it outraged morality are patronizing it now that they are able to enjoy clean films which are not offensive to good morals or dangerous to Christian virtue.

When you started your crusade, it was said that your efforts would be of short duration and that the effects would not be lasting because, as the vigilance of Bishops and faithful gradually diminished, the producers would be free to return again to their former methods. It is not difficult to understand why certain of these might be desirous of going back to the sinister themes which pander to base desires and which you had proscribed. While the representation of subjects of real artistic value and the portrayal of the vicissitudes of human virtue require intellectual effort, toil, ability, and at times considerable outlay of money, it is often relatively easy to attract a certain type of person and certain classes of people to a theatre which presents picture plays calculated to inflame the passions and to arouse the lower instincts latent in the human heart.

An unceasing and universal vigilance must, on the contrary, convince the producers that the “Legion of Decency” has not been started as a crusade of short duration, soon to be neglected and forgotten, but that the Bishops of the United States are determined, at all times and at all costs, to safeguard the recreation of the people whatever form that recreation may take. (Pope Pius XI, Vigilanti Cura, June 29, 1936.)

Pope Pius XI was a very wise chief shepherd of his flock and thus understood the need for men to engage in legitimate forms of recreation and of their leisure time. The technology of filmmaking is neither moral or immoral, good or evil, but the use of such technology can transform something that is morally neutral of its nature to inherently immoral and thus a peril to the sanctification and salvation of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Chri shed every single drop of His Most Precioularus Blood to redeem during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

As Pope Pius XI noted, the Legion of Decency did have some influence on the making of motion pictures, especially since as the impetus to appeal to Catholic audiences, whom producers realized would obey their shepherds if they forbade them to patronize a particular motion picture.

Archbishop John T. McNicholas, who was the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, from August 12, 1925, to the time of his death on April 22, 1950, led the formation of the Legion of Decency to combat the promotion of immorality in motion pictures. Catholics took their pledges to the Legion of Decency seriously, which is why Hollywood producers, many of them Jews who were concerned about losing money from Catholic moviegoers, had to agree to have produce films that conformed to moral standards.

The Legion of Decency was started in 1934 at a time when Catholics were, by and large, obedient to their bishops and cared about the sanctification and salvation of their immortal souls. Believe it or not, Catholics at that time were capable of being scandalized, and they recognized sin when they saw it.

Unlike the conciliar officials, who permit indecently attired women and men to serve as “lectors” and “Eucharistic ministers” and who celebrate “rock” music and men such as Archbishop John T. McNicholas were concerned about the sanctification of souls and desired to keep Catholics from that which was injurious to their salvation.

Fathers Gerald Kelly, S.J., and John C. Ford provided a history of the Legion of Decency that included both the long and short versions of the Legion’s Pledge:

I wish to join the Legion of Decency, which condemns vile and unwholesome moving pictures. I unite with all who protest against them as a grave menace to youth, to home life, to country and to religion.

I condemn absolutely those salacious motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land.

I shall do all that I can to arouse public opinion against the portrayal of vice as a normal condition of affairs, and against depicting criminals of any class as heroes and heroines, presenting their filthy philosophy of life as something acceptable to decent men and women.

I unite with all who condemn the display of suggestive advertisements on billboards, at theatre entrances, and the favorable notices given to immoral motion pictures.

Considering these evils, I hereby promise to remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality. I promise further to secure as many members as possible for the Legion of Decency.

I make this protest in a spirit of self-respect and with the cdfiviction that the American public does not demand filthy pictures, but clean entertainment and educational features.

A shorter formula, which is in general use even at the present time, was adopted at the bishops' meeting in November, 1934. The text is as follows:

I condemn indecent and immoral pictures, and those which glorify crime and criminals.

I promise to do all that I can to strengthen public opinion against the production of indecent and immoral films, and to unite with all who protest them. I acknowledge my obligation to form a right conscience about pictures that are dangerous to my moral life.

As a member of the Legion of Decency, I pledge myself to remain away from them. I promise, further, to stay away altogether from places of amusement which show them as a matter of policy.

There are are, as we shall see later, obligations deriving from natural law itself concerning attendance at indecent motion pictures. But it seems appropriate even at this point to ask whether the taking of the pledge of the Legion adds any new obligation. We have seen private explanations to the effect that the pledge itself is a promise binding in conscience—in fact that it is a promise made to God and, in effect, a vow. This can hardly be squared with interpretations given by bishops when the Legion was inaugurated. For instance, Archbishop John Gregory Murray stated: "Everything contained in the pledge is a duty of conscience independently of the pledge and independently of membership in the Legion of Decency., ' And Archbishop Francis J. L. Beckman was even more explicit. "In the matter of the obligatory force of the pledge," he said, "it may be stated in the instruction and to those who make inquiries, that it.. . does not itself bind in conscience."

It seems, therefore, that the pledge does not per se add any new obligation on those who take it. We say "per se" because, obviously, an individual who wishes to bind himself under pain of sin may do so. But this added obligation is not to be presumed.  (Kelly-Ford Study on The Legion of Decency.)

By the time of the middle-1960s, however, the spirit of accommodation and non-confrontation had entered into the hearts of the men who were true bishops but part of the revolutionary vanguard of conciliarism's embrace of the world, an embrace that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV extended anew on November 15, 2025:

Cultural facilities, such as cinemas and theaters, are the beating hearts of our communities because they contribute to making them more human. If a city is alive, it is thanks in part to its cultural spaces. We must inhabit these spaces and build relationships within them, day after day. Nonetheless, cinemas are experiencing a troubling decline, with many being removed from cities and neighborhoods. More than a few people are saying that the art of cinema and the cinematic experience are in danger. I urge institutions not to give up, but to cooperate in affirming the social and cultural value of this activity.

The logic of algorithms tends to repeat what “works,” but art opens up what is possible. Not everything has to be immediate or predictable.  Defend slowness when it serves a purpose, silence when it speaks and difference when evocative. Beauty is not just a means of escape; it is above all an invocation. When cinema is authentic, it does not merely console, but challenges. It articulates the questions that dwell within us, and sometimes, even provokes tears that we did not know we needed to express. (Encounter with the World of Cinema, 15 November 2025.)

Lengthy Interjection Number Three:

How can any sober and sane baptized Catholic lament the decline in moviegoing when most movies (and/or the trailers promoting “coming attractions”) feature language and images that pollute the eyes and the eyes, which are the portals to our immortal souls?

Does Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV think that Our Lord Himself would pay money to sit in a theatre to pollute His Holy Eyes and Ears by watching a motion picture that features blasphemies against Him, His Holy Name, His Most Blessed Mother, His Holy Catholic Church and that makes of sin and/or promotes, glorifies and serves as an incentive to the commission of sins against Faith, Hope, and Charity?

If Our Lord would not subject Himself to such rot, then why should those of us who are members of His Mystical Body that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Now, a few qualifications are in order.

Are there some older movies worth watching?

Sure, and some of those that are worth watching, such as the The Detective motion picture starring Alec Guinness as Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s fiction Father Brown, were responsible for the conversion of an actor or two, although Song of Bernadette, which is a fictionized account of Saint Bernadette Soubirous and the apparitions of Our Lady in the grotto of Massabielle near Lourdes, France, did nothing to change the life of its baptized Catholic star, Jennifer Jones, and the magnificent Joan of Arc starring Ingrid Bergman did not result in her conversion. These movies, among others, such as Quo Vadis, based on the novel written by Henryk Sienkiewicz, can be enjoyed for their own sake absent the conversion of their stars and are about as Catholic as Hollywood was ever capable of portraying the Faith, noting also the admirable portrayal of famous Catholics and priests in Knute Rockne, All American, Angels with Dirty Faces, and The Fighting 69^th, each of starred an exemplary Catholic, Pat O’Brien (Knute Rockne, the fictional priest Father Jerry Connolly, and the courageous Father Francis Duffy of World War I fame, and Boys Town, starring a not-so-exemplary Catholic, Spencer Tracy (who died cohabiting with Katherine Hepburn), as Father Edward Flanagan.

There are many others, including faithful Catholic Frank Capra’s You Can’t Take It With You or It’s a Wonderful Life, taught nondenominational lessons in morality, especially concerning the worthlessness of money and material possessions, and there are countless other Westerns, historical dramatization such as The Miracle of the White Stallions mysteries, and dramas that, though entirely naturalistic and Pelagian in spirit, were inoffensive in the amusement and entertainment they provided, and to this can be added the highly fictionalized account of the story of Maria von Trapp in The Sound of Music (the Von Trapps did not leave Salzburg by walking over the Alps as they left on a train without any pursued by the Nazis).

All this having been noted, however, it is never a moral imperative to watch even any of the relatively good or, at the least, inoffensive motion pictures of the past but it is indeed a moral imperative of the first order today to stay away from motion picture theatres today, noting The Passion of The Christ and For Greater Glory: The True Story of Cristiada, were exceptions that do not make the general rule about avoiding most motion pictures because they are morally offensive and the viewing of which constitutes a Mortal Sin. (Please note: I did not mention the movie Therese: The Story of Saint Therese of Lisiuex as it was not an authentic depiction of the life and the virtues of The Little Flower. Producer Leonardo Defilippis wanted to appeal to an ecumenical audience and, by so doing, failed to portray Saint Therese of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face as a true daughter of the Catholic Church or as one who was devoted to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Eucharistic Adoration.)

To the final part of Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s November 15, 2025, address:                                                         

In this Jubilee Year, the Church invites us to journey towards hope, your presence here from so many different countries, and your artistic work in particular, is a shining example. Like so many others who come to Rome from all over the world, you too are on a journey as pilgrims of the imagination, seekers of meaning, narrators of hope and heralds of humanity. Your journey is not measured in kilometers but in images, words, emotions, shared memories and collective desires. You navigate this pilgrimage into the mystery of human experience with a penetrating gaze that is capable of recognizing beauty even in the depths of pain, and of discerning hope in the tragedy of violence and war.

The Church esteems you for your work with light and time, with faces and landscapes, with words and silence. Pope Saint Paul VI once spoke to artists saying: “If you are friends of genuine art, you are our friends,” recalling that “this world in which we live needs beauty in order not to sink into despair” (Address of Pope Paul VI to Artists, 8 December 1965). I wish to renew this friendship because cinema is a workshop of hope, a place where people can once again find themselves and their purpose.

Perhaps we could bear in mind the words of David W. Griffith, one of the great pioneers of the seventh art. He once said: “What the modern movie lacks is beauty, the beauty of the moving wind in the trees.” His reference to the wind cannot but remind us of a passage from John’s Gospel. “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (3:8). In this regard, dear seasoned and novice filmmakers, I invite you to make cinema an art of the Spirit.

In the present era, there is a need for witnesses of hope, beauty and truth. You can fulfill this role through your artistic work. Good cinema and those who create and star in it have the power to recover the authenticity of imagery in order to safeguard and promote human dignity. Do not be afraid to confront the world’s wounds. Violence, poverty, exile, loneliness, addiction and forgotten wars are issues that need to be acknowledged and narrated. Good cinema does not exploit pain; it recognizes and explores it.  This is what all the great directors have done.  Giving voice to the complex, contradictory and sometimes dark feelings that dwell in the human heart is an act of love. Art must not shy away from the mystery of frailty; it must engage with it and know how to remain before it. Without being didactic, authentically artistic forms of cinema possess the capacity to educate the audience’s gaze.

In conclusion, filmmaking is a communal effort, a collective endeavor in which no one is self-sufficient. While everyone recognizes the skill of the director and the genius of the actors, a film would be impossible without the quiet dedication of hundreds of other professionals, including assistants, runners, prop masters, electricians, sound engineers, equipment technicians, makeup artists, hairstylists, costume designers, location managers, casting directors, directors of photography, music directors, screenwriters, editors, special effects technicians and producers… I hope I have not left anyone out, but there are so many!  Every voice, every gesture and every skill contributes to a work that can only exist as a whole.

In an age of exaggerated and confrontational personalities, you demonstrate that creating a quality film requires dedication and talent. Thanks to the gifts and qualities of those whom you work alongside, everyone can make their unique charisma shine in a collaborative and fraternal atmosphere. May your cinema always be a meeting place and a home for those seeking meaning and a language of peace. May it never lose its capacity to amaze and even continue to offer us a glimpse, however small, of the mystery of God.

May the Lord bless you, your work and your loved ones. And may he always accompany you on your creative journey and help you to be artisans of hope. Thank you. (Encounter with the World of Cinema, 15 November 2025.)

Not one word about Holy Purity.

Not one word about the honor and glory of God nor the reverence that is due to Him and His Holy Name.

Not one word about the promotion of abortion and sodomy.

Not one word of warning about the “artists” Prevost/Leo addressed of losing their immortal souls.

For a putative Successor of Saint Peter to go so far as to praise contemporary motion picture producers, writers, directors, and stars for the examining “social problems” without a word of admonition about these very same people have contributed to social problems and to the loss of souls is to sacrifice any pretense of moral authority in order to tickle the itching ears of the rich and famous according to the prophecy given by Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

Pope Pius XI, doing his duty as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, did not tickle any ears when he wrote the following in Vigilanti Cura:

It is unfortunate that, in the present state of affairs, this influence is frequently exerted for evil. So much so that when one thinks of the havoc wrought in the souls of youth and of childhood, of the loss of innocence so often suffered in the motion picture theatres, there comes to mind the terrible condemnation pronounced by Our Lord upon the corrupters of little ones: “whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones who believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea”.

It must not be a School of Corruption

It is therefore one of the supreme necessities, of our times to watch and to labour 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.

And here We record with pleasure that certain Governments, in their anxiety for the influence exercised by the cinema in the moral and educational fields, have, with the aid of upright and honest persons, especially fathers and mothers of families, set up reviewing commissions and have constituted other agencies which have to do with motion picture production in an effort to direct the cinema for inspiration to the national works of great poets and writers.

It was most fitting and desirable that you, Venerable Brethren, should have exercised a special watchfulness over the motion picture industry which in your country is so highly developed and which has great influence in other quarters of the globe. It is equally the duty of the Bishops of the entire Catholic world to unite in vigilance over this universal and potent form of entertainment and instruction, to the end that they may be able to place a ban on bad motion pictures because they are an offence to the moral and religious sentiments and because they are in opposition to the Christian spirit and to its ethical principles. There must be no weariness in combating whatever contributes to the lessening of the people’s sense of decency and of honour.

This is an obligation which binds not only the Bishops but also the faithful and all decent men who are solicitous for the decorum amd moral health of the family, of the nation, and of human society in general. In what, then, must this vigilance consist ?

III. A WORK FOR CATHOLIC ACTION

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. For this purpose, they must make full use of the technical ability of experts and not permit the waste of effort and of money by the employment of amateurs.

But since We know how difficult it is to organize such an industry, especially because of considerations of a financial nature, and since on the other hand it is necessary to influence the production of all films so that they may contain nothing harmful from a religious, moral, or social viewpoint, Pastors of souls must exercise their vigilance over films wherever they may be produced and offered to Christian peoples.

To the Bishops of all Countries

As to the motion picture industry itself, We exhort the Bishops of all countries, but in particular you, Venerable Brethren, to address an appeal to those Catholics who hold important positions in this industry. Let them take serious thought of their duties and of the responsibility which they have as children of the Church to use their influence and authority for the promotion of principles of sound morality in the films which they produce or aid in producing. There are surely many Catholics among the executives, directors, authors, and actors who take part in this business, and it is unfortunate that their influence has not always been in accordance with their Faith and with their ideals. You will do well, Venerable Brethren, to pledge them to bring their profession into harmony with their conscience as respectable men and followers of Jesus Christ.

In this as in every other field of the apostolate, Pastors of souls will surely find their best fellow workers in those who fight in the ranks of Catholic Action, and in this letter We cannot refrain from addressing to them a warm appeal that they give to this cause their full contribution and their unwearying and unfailing activity.

From time to time, the Bishops will do well to recall to the motion picture industry that, amid the cares of their pastoral ministry, they are under obligation to interest themselves in every form of decent and healthy recreation because they are responsible before God for the moral welfare of their people even during their time of leisure.

The Moral Fibre of a Nation

Their sacred calling constrains them to proclaim clearly and openly that unhealthy and impure entertainment destroys the moral fibre 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.

In particular, you, Venerable Brethren of the United States, will be able to insist with justice that the industry of your country has recognized and accepted its responsibility before society.

The Bishops of the whole world will take care to make clear to the leaders of the motion picture industry that a force of such power and universality as the cinema can be directed, with great utility, to the highest ends of individual and social improvement. 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.

And now, in view of the gravity of the subject, We consider it timely to come down to certain practical indications.

A Yearly Promise from the Faithful

Above all, all Pastors of souls will undertake to obtain each year from their people a pledge similar to the one already alluded to which is given by their American brothers and in which they promise to stay away from motion picture plays which are offensive to truth and to Christian morality.

The most efficacious manner of obtaining these pledges or promises is through the parish church or school and by enlisting the earnest cooperation of all fathers and mothers of families who are conscious of their grave responsibilities.

The Bishops will also be able to avail themselves of the Catholic Press for the purpose of bringing home to the people the moral beauty and the effectiveness of this promise.

The fulfilment of this pledge supposes that the people be told plainly which films are permitted to all, which are permitted with reservations, and which are harmful or positively bad. This requires the prompt, regular, and frequent publication of classified lists of motion picture plays so as to make the information readily accessible to all. Special bulletins or other timely publications, such as the daily Catholic Press, may be used for this purpose.

Were it possible, it would in itself be desirable to establish a single list for the entire world because all live under the same moral law. Since, however, there is here question of pictures which interest all classes of society, the great and the humble, the learned and the unlettered, the judgment passed upon a film cannot be the same in each case and in all respects. Indeed circumstances, usages, and forms vary from country to country so that it does not seem practical to have a single list for all the world. If, however, films were classified in each country in the manner indicated above, the resultant list would offer in principle the guidance needed.

A National Reviewing Office

Therefore, it will be necessary that in each country the Bishops set up a permanent national reviewing office in order to be able to promote good motion pictures, classify the others, and bring this judgment to the knowledge of priests and faithful. It will be very proper to entrust this agency to the central organization of Catholic Action which is dependent on the Bishops. At all events, it must be clearly laid down that this service of information, in order to function organically and with efficiency, must be on a national basis and that it must be carried on by a single centre of responsibility. Should grave reasons really require it, the Bishops, in their own dioceses and through their diocesan reviewing committees, will be able to apply to the national list — which must use standards adaptable to the whole nation — such severer criterions as may be demanded by the character of the region, and they may even censor films which were admitted to the general list. (Pope Pius XI, Vigilanti Cura, June 29, 1936.)

Pope Pius XI was concerned about the immoral nature of motion pictures eighty-nine and one-half years ago but Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV sees no evil at a time when motion pictures have graphically portrayed sins of impurity and other evils as a positive good both for individuals and their nations.

Pope Pius XI knew that evil motion pictures corrupted the moral fiber of nations, but Prevost/Leo XIV sees nothing but the “good” that is done for the human spirit by filmmakers who have a contempt for the Catholic Faith and for all that is good, holy, beautiful, pure, modest, decent, and just.

Yet again, you see, we are face to face with Christ and Antichrist.

A true Successor of Saint Peter warned about the evils of motion pictures in 1936.

A false pretender to the Papal Throne extols and praises motion pictures as ignores the existence of even worse evils in 2025.

Face to face with Christ and Antichrist.

I report.

You decide.

Sacrificing legitimate pleasures, especially those in which we have to passively accept the “creep” of cultural degeneration to accelerate with a shrug of the shoulders and a “what can I do about it?” attitude, gives us an opportunity to show God that we really do love Him as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, and that it is really no sacrifice at all to avoid occasions of sin and wastes-of-time in order to do reparation for our sins of indifference to occasions of sin and our having wasted time in the past. It is really no sacrifice at all to show God that we love Him with our whole heart, and our mind, and our whole body, and our whole soul, and our whole strength, is it?

Moreover, to avoid watching a modern motion picture replete with its obscene language and images is, as noted above, a moral imperative.

Some will say that we have to accept the “cockle” with the “wheat.”

True enough when it comes to dealing with our fellow human beings, each of whom shares the combination of “cockle” and “wheat” that we have within our own immortal souls.

True enough when it comes to dealing with the evils that are found in supermarkets and gasoline stations, where horrible “music” is played almost all the time.

Ah, my friends, there is quite a difference.

We must shop for food and for other supplies. We must drive on roadways featuring billboards containing offensive material. There is no obligation whatsoever to engage in a totally discretionary, voluntary activity such as going to a movie theatre or watching one on television or on one’s computer or phone.

There is no no moral obligation in going to a sporting event or watching one on television watching est where horrible “music” is played and horrible images displayed.

One chooses to do such a thing. There is no moral necessity or imperative to do so. One chooses to have sounds and images from Hell to be burnished into his immortal soul. And only a fool thinks that he is strong enough or holy enough or wise enough or good enough to diminish the impact of those images upon his immortal soul as he wastes time watching millionaires playing for billionaires and as multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations that have no allegiance to any particular country, no less to laws of Christ the King or to the honor due Mary our Immaculate Queen, assault him with images and sounds that are designed to entice him to think about and to wallow in sin and the self-indulgence that is sloth.

Moreover, we don’t knowingly invite out-and-out “cockle” into our homes unless we have been so brainwashed by the popular culture as to think that there’s “nothing wrong” with something that contains a “little bit of bad stuff” if “everyone else” is doing the same thing. What sane individual would say, “Come on in, Mr. Devil. Make yourself comfortable right here in my living room.”

“Anything I can get for you now as you try to take me down to Hell with you for all eternity?”

“Have you brought any of your friends over with you?”

“Don’t worry.”

“We’re strong enough to withstand your entreaties.”

“A little ‘bad’ with the ‘fun stuff’ won’t take us down to Hell with you for all eternity, now will it?”

“You can come and go and please in this, Mr. Devil.”

“After all, we pay our cable and/or satellite bills on time, which money goes directly into your pockets.”

“We help your friends at the motion picture studios and at ABC (and ESPN) and FOX and ABC and CBS and CNN and TBS other networks blaspheme Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother.”

“We help to subsidize your other projects at these networks and their subsidiaries.”

“None of that matters, right, Mr. Devil? Hey, we have to ‘enjoy ourselves’.”

Oh, some will protest that this is “extreme,” that it is to be a Jansenist not to see a “movie” just because it has some “bad things” in it.  

It is not to be a “Jansenist” to note that nothing in this life, is worth placing ourselves deliberately in the near occasions of sin and exposing ourselves to sounds and images that from the devil and are designed to lead us to Hell for all eternity, desensitizing us to further and more outrageous assaults upon our senses in the name of enjoying a motion picture or a television program.

It is not to be a “Jansenist” to suggest that none of should have television screens (or sets) in our homes and that we should withdraw from using our discretionary time and money on things that place our immortal souls in jeopardy in a variety of ways and and that enrich the very enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who control the entertainment media and the world of corporate America and multinational corporations.

Remember these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Exeunte Iam Anno, December 25, 1888, that have been quoted twice before in the past seven weeks:

Now the whole essence of a Christian life is to reject the corruption of the world and to oppose constantly any indulgence in it; this is taught in the words and deeds, the laws and institutions, the life and death of Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of faith." Hence, however strongly We are deterred by the evil disposition of nature and character, it is our duty to run to the "fight proposed to Us," fortified and armed with the same desire and the same arms as He who, "having joy set before him, endured the cross." Wherefore let men understand this specially, that it is most contrary to Christian duty to follow, in worldly fashion, pleasures of every kind, to be afraid of the hardships attending a virtuous life, and to deny nothing to self that soothes and delights the senses. "They that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences"-- so that it follows that they who are not accustomed to suffering, and who hold not ease and pleasure in contempt belong not to Christ. By the infinite goodness of God man lived again to the hope of an immortal life, from which he had been cut off, but he cannot attain to it if he strives not to walk in the very footsteps of Christ and conform his mind to Christ's by the meditation of Christ's example. Therefore this is not a counsel but a duty, and it is the duty, not of those only who desire a more perfect life, but clearly of every man "always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus." How otherwise could the natural law, commanding man to live virtuously, be kept? For by holy baptism the sin which we contracted at birth is destroyed, but the evil and tortuous roots of sin, which sin has engrafted, and by no means removed. This part of man which is without reason -- although it cannot beat those who fight manfully by Christ's grace -- nevertheless struggles with reason for supremacy, clouds the whole soul and tyrannically bends the will from virtue with such power that we cannot escape vice or do our duty except by a daily struggle. "This holy synod teaches that in the baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to evil, which, being left to be fought against, cannot hurt those who do not consent to it, and manfully fight against it by the grace of Jesus Christ; for he is not crowned who does not strive lawfully." There is in this struggle a degree of strength to which only a very perfect virtue, belonging to those who, by putting to flight evil passions, has gained so high a place as to seem almost to live a heavenly life on earth. Granted; grant that few attain such excellence; even the philosophy of the ancients taught that every man should restrain his evil desires, and still more and with greater care those who from daily contact with the world have the greater temptations -- unless it be foolishly thought that where the danger is greater watchfulness is less needed, or that they who are more grievously ill need fewer medicines.

But the toil which is borne in this conflict is compensated by great blessings, beyond and above heavenly and eternal rewards, particularly in this way, that by calming the passions nature is largely restored to its pristine dignity. For man has been born under this law, that the mind should rule the body, that the appetites should be restrained by sound sense and reason; and hence it follows that putting a curb upon our masterful passions is the noblest and greatest freedom. Moreover, in the present state of society it is difficult to see what man could be expected to do without such a disposition. Will he be inclined to do well who has been accustomed to guide his actions by self-love alone? No man can be high-souled, kind, merciful, or restrained, who has not learnt selfconquest and a contempt for this world when opposed to virtue. And yet it must be said that it seems to have been pre-determined by the counsel of God that there should be no salvation to men without strife and pain. Truly, though God has given to man pardon for sin, He gave it under the condition that His only begotten Son should pay the due penalty; and although Jesus Christ might have satisfied divine justice in other ways, nevertheless He preferred to satisfy by the utmost suffering and the sacrifice of His life. Thus he has imposed upon His followers this law, signed in His blood, that their life should be an endless strife with the vices of the age. What made the apostles invincible in their mission of teaching truth to the world; what strengthened the martyrs innumerable in their bloody testimony to the Christian faith, but the readiness of their soul to obey fearlessly His laws? And all who have taken heed to live a Christian life and seek virtue have trodden the same path; therefore We must walk in this way if We desire either Our own salvation or that of others. Thus it becomes necessary for every one to guard manfully against the allurements of luxury, and since on every side there is so much ostentation in the enjoyment of wealth, the soul must be fortified against the dangerous snares of riches lest straining after what are called the good things of life, which cannot satisfy and soon fade away, the soul should lose "the treasure in heaven which faileth not." Finally, this is matter of deep grief, that free-thought and evil example have so evil an influence in enervating the soul, that many are now almost ashamed of the name of Christian -- a shame which is the sign either of abandoned wickedness or the extreme of cowardice; each detestable and each of the highest injury to man. For what salvation remains for such men, or on what hope can they rely, if they cease to glory in the name of Jesus Christ, if they openly and constantly refuse to mold their lives on the precepts of the gospel? It is the common complaint that the age is barren of brave men. Bring back a Christian code of life, and thereby the minds of men will regain their firmness and constancy. But man's power by itself is not equal to the responsibility of so many duties. As We must ask God for daily bread for the sustenance of the body, so must We pray to Him for strength of soul for its nourishment in virtue. Hence that universal condition and law of life, which We have said is a perpetual battle, brings with it the necessity of prayer to God. For, as is well and wisely said by St. Augustine, pious prayer flies over the world's barriers and calls down the mercy of God from heaven. In order to conquer the emotions of lust, and the snares of the devil, lest we should be led into evil, we are commanded to seek the divine help in the words, "pray that ye enter not into temptation."[ How much more is this necessary, if we wish to labor for the salvation of others? Christ our Lord, the only begotten Son of God, the source of all grace and virtue, first showed by example what he taught in word: "He passed the whole night in the prayer of God,"and when nigh to the sacrifice of his life, "He prayed the longer." (Pope Leo XIII, Exeunte Iam Anno, December 25, 1888.)

Consider also these words, written by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, about the warfare on the virtue of purity in what passes for “entertainment” media:

Just as the smallest part of the body feels the effect of an illness which is ravaging the whole body or one of its vital organs, so the evils now besetting society and the family afflict even individuals. In particular, We cannot but lament the morbid restlessness which has spread among people of every age and condition in life, the general spirit of insubordination and the refusal to live up to one's obligations which has become so widespread as almost to appear the customary mode of living. We lament, too, the destruction of purity among women and young girls as is evidenced by the increasing immodesty of their dress and conversation and by their participation in shameful dances, which sins are made the more heinous by the vaunting in the faces of people less fortunate than themselves their luxurious mode of life. Finally, We cannot but grieve over the great increase in the number of what might be called social misfits who almost inevitably end by joining the ranks of those malcontents who continually agitate against all order, be it public or private.

It is surprising, then, that we should no longer possess that security of life in which we can place our trust and that there remains only the most terrible uncertainty, and from hour to hour added fears for the future? Instead of regular daily work there is idleness and unemployment. That blessed tranquillity which is the effect of an orderly existence and in which the essence of peace is to be found no longer exists, and, in its place, the restless spirit of revolt reigns. As a consequence industry suffers, commerce is crippled, the cultivation of literature and the arts becomes more and more difficult, and what is worse than all, Christian civilization itself is irreparably damaged thereby. In the face of our much praised progress, we behold with sorrow society lapsing back slowly but surely into a state of barbarism.

We wish to record, in addition to the evils already mentioned, other evils which beset society and which occupy a place of prime importance but whose very existence escapes the ordinary observer, the sensual man -- he who, as the Apostle says, does not perceive "the things that are of the Spirit of God" (I Cor. ii, 14), yet which cannot but be judged the greatest and most destructive scourges of the social order of today. We refer specifically to those evils which transcend the material or natural sphere and lie within the supernatural and religious order properly so-called; in other words, those evils which affect the spiritual life of souls. These evils are all the more to be deplored since they injure souls whose value is infinitely greater than that of any merely material object.. . .

Again, legislation was passed which did not recognize that either God or Jesus Christ had any rights over marriage -- an erroneous view which debased matrimony to the level of a mere civil contract, despite the fact that Jesus Himself had called it a "great sacrament" (Ephesians v, 32) and had made it the holy and sanctifying symbol of that indissoluble union which binds Him to His Church. The high ideals and pure sentiments with which the Church has always surrounded the idea of the family, the germ of all social life, these were lowered, were unappreciated, or became confused in the minds of many. As a consequence, the correct ideals of family government, and with them those of family peace, were destroyed; the stability and unity of the family itself were menaced and undermined, and, worst of all, the very sanctuary of the home was more and more frequently profaned by acts of sinful lust and soul-destroying egotism -- all of which could not but result in poisoning and drying up the very sources of domestic and social life.

Added to all this, God and Jesus Christ, as well as His doctrines, were banished from the school. As a sad but inevitable consequence, the school became not only secular and non-religious but openly atheistical and anti-religious. In such circumstances it was easy to persuade poor ignorant children that neither God nor religion are of any importance as far as their daily lives are concerned. God's name, moreover, was scarcely ever mentioned in such schools unless it were perchance to blaspheme Him or to ridicule His Church. Thus, the school forcibly deprived of the right to teach anything about God or His law could not but fail in its efforts to really educate, that is, to lead children to the practice of virtue, for the school lacked the fundamental principles which underlie the possession of a knowledge of God and the means necessary to strengthen the will in its efforts toward good and in its avoidance of sin. Gone, too, was all possibility of ever laying a solid groundwork for peace, order, and prosperity, either in the family or in social relations. Thus the principles based on the spiritualistic philosophy of Christianity having been obscured or destroyed in the minds of many, a triumphant materialism served to prepare mankind for the propaganda of anarchy and of social hatred which was let loose on such a great scale.

Is it to be wondered at then that, with the widespread refusal to accept the principles of true Christian wisdom, the seeds of discord sown everywhere should find a kindly soil in which to grow and should come to fruit in that most tremendous struggle, the Great War, which unfortunately did not serve to lessen but increased, by its acts of violence and of bloodshed, the international and social animosities which already existed? (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

What can we do with our time?

How about praying more Rosaries?

Why not read more books about the lives of the saints?

Why not take our families to shrines of Our Lady to pray her Most Holy Rosary on Sundays

Why not put First Things first in light of Last Things each and every moment of our lives?

Saint Paul explained the joys that await us are indescribable:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (1 Cor. 2: 6-15.)

May Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, help us to eschew the things of this passing world as we seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and make use of our good Catholic time give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity in all things as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Marya as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.