Decency, thy name is Legion

It is amazing how, when one is doing an Internet search, one may come across quite unexpected information - indeed, often wondering how one arrived there in the process. One of my (unrelated) searches led me to some history of the old US "Legion of Decency," a Catholic effort to restrain Hollywood during the days of the studio system. It would be enough to make anyone with a love for literature, theatre, and the arts in general (..strike three!) indignant, even if one cannot help but laugh.

One of the films which the Legion condemned in its heyday was "Miracle on Thirty-Fourth Street." I have seen the film, and I could well understand one's criticising its message, much as the action is totally harmless. The premise, which is a basically disagraceful commentary on capitalism is that the spirit of Christmas boils down to making sure the children get whatever they want - that Santa Claus can remedy just about any situation. He could even make two department store heads reconcile - and the wonderful version of true charity comes down to that one sends parents to other stores to find the promised gift, even if it means losing a sale (gaining others in the process, of course, for this great kindness.) There is no religious element whatever - nothing much but 'believing' (not in Christ, but in a Kris Kringle who bears no relation to the honourable Saint Nicholas in any of his legends) and greed.

So, though I would hardly disagree with the pleasant little fantasy's being condemned (actually, I am not one for censorship in any case), had the Legion criticised this highly false picture of a holiday which should celebrate the Incarnation, I suppose I could understand. But no - the reason the film was condemned was that it featured a woman who was divorced, and who, in the standard happy ending, marries again.

When it comes to blasphemy, obscenity, pornography and the like, I have no taste for it whatever - I therefore do not watch films in with those elements. Then again, I suppose that some of the more 'decent' sorts would think that my having enjoyed "Priest," "Vera Drake," and Monty Python's "Life of Brian" - which does not spoof the gospels but is a marvellous take-off on scriptural epics - is an abomination.

This is where my vision had to be widened, because the sort of 'decency' of which I am writing here did not occur to me at once. I would certainly agree, for example, that pornography is degrading - I find it repulsive, and can fill my mind with far better images. Were those always harping on protecting "our children" speaking of child pornography, I'd heartily agree that the children who are in such productions are horrifyingly abused. I even believe that, since it is best not to start what one cannot finish, those with no legitimate outlet for sexual activity would need to exercise caution in watching or reading sexually explicit material, since ignition points can vary greatly by individual.

Yet that is not what the 'decent' were saying. The idea was that 'role models' must be presented - that no one living in a manner of which someone avidly religious would disapprove should be admitted to have existed. So, I suppose my great love for Shakespeare, Chaucer, opera and the like - not to mention my wide taste in art - would place me beyond the pale. (Apparently, films could never hint at adultery - though murderers and 'public enemies' could be depicted provided the film ended with their being killed, preferably at the state's hand.)

This entry is not solely in support of artistic expression - though all good art (and, I hasten to add, the scriptures themselves!) reflects reality, and 'life' often is not sweet and pretty. The sanitised version, supposedly to protect the 'mystic innocence' of children (some 'children' are a foot taller than I, and I feel much as Augustine did about even the little ones - if they are less sinful than adults, it is more from weakness of limb than purity of heart), must preserve the image that everyone on earth is doing nothing but bible reading (actually, some of those doing that frighten me a good deal). And the young must be preserved from any knowledge of sex - if they know about it, they'll do it. (That the urge to merge inevitably accompanies puberty - and though I believe that even my old 'friend' Freud's 'latency period' was smashed by later research - seems to be ignored. I once remember some very old men reminiscing about a game of their early childhood - 'church on fire.' Someone would shout that sentence, and all the boys would piss in the street to 'put out the fire.' Today, I suppose, the cast of 'church on fire' would be in therapy if not gaol.)

This nonsense still exists (and I do not mean what I put in the parentheses - that's just normal.) I have seen mothers aghast that their children were allowed to feel the kicks of a baby in his mother's womb. ("As soon as the greeting sounded in my ears..." Oh, Elizabeth, you dirty person saying that to innocent Mary.) On a forum on which I participate online, the father of a child of 7 does not want her to know that death exists, indeed is holding back the information that someone known to her has died, lest she be 'confused' in her faith - after all, they know people who do not believe in an afterlife. (I assume, from his other posts, that his daughter has accepted Christ as Saviour... I'm wondering how she heard about the cross, considering she cannot know that people die. Crucifixion is not such a pretty story, is it?)

Once normal parts of life, which would not be upsetting if they were just treated as such, become unmentionable, those who are not troubled or embarrassed, I dare say, are uneasy because they wonder why they are not. (Of course, by my age an innocent like myself knows that those who are uneasy often have had less than innocent lives - innocence is mistaken for artifice.)

Yes, I know I've made generalisations here - but this is a blog, not a work of scholarship. I'm not always a martyr to the analytical. (I just spent a day studying Ignatius of Antioch, so I'm hardly in a mood to be a martyr to anything.) Yet here is a vote for realism, openness, honesty, and artistic expression. Children pretending to mystic innocence are doing it for their parents' sake. :)