Episode 26: The Culture War: A Conversation with Steve Wood

Michael Matt interviews Family Life Center International's Steve Wood and chats about the one thing nobody wants to talk about--the mainstreaming of pornography.

[SensusFidelium]

Great job, Mr Matt!  Can't wait for the audio to come up on the argument of the month club.  I have a few sermons from traditional priests on my page if you want to share just fyi

[CJP]

Spot on. Everything said. Saint Michael, Joseph, Our Lady and angels protect us.

[Jimjg]

Pray the Rosary every-day. Lucia, One of the Fatima visionaries said "there is no problem the Rosary cannot solve"

[mytruepower]

First thing's first.  I agree with you here (at least on the topic of porn being a big problem in society.  I disagree with several minor things said in the video, but as they're not directly related to porn, there's no point in arguing about them here.)  My problem is exclusively with the tactics that I see being used in this and other attempts to address the subject.  As I've said before, I just don't think this is going to work.

This is almost exactly what I was afraid would happen.  Dialogue between people, and *to* people, which is as basic as just saying "porn is bad" over and over, but with not a single definition of "pornography" in sight.  Without that, you might as well be saying freelingbreelings are bad.  It's just white noise.

Yes, I agree that there are things other than porn, which are also problematic, but...

1. You've got to define each of those if you want the discussion about *them* to be meaningful.
2. Bringing up the topic in the same breath as actual pornography seriously muddies the already-murky waters; like saying "freelingbreelings are bad, and so are lots of other things that aren't freelingbreelings."  Remember, the goal is to be *clear* about what we mean, leaving little room for "creative interpretation" or error.
3. We've got to have better reasoning behind our points than just "things are disgusting."  I certainly agree, but obviously, some people don't, and if that's the substance of our argument, it's just not strong enough.
4. If you want to talk about pornography, let's talk about pornography.  If not, let's not.

You seem to acknowledge that there is a real, objective definition of pornography.  I agree, but it's not in wide use, and not widely understood or recognized, and you don't elaborate in this interview.  Maybe I should hear what the actual argument was, but honestly, *this* is why people don't discuss this issue.  It's not that we *can't* or *shouldn't.*  It's that when push comes to shove, people just don't say anything helpful or substantive on this subject, even when it *is* raised.  I say again; you've got to *define your terms* if you want the message to be understood.