By Bishop Robert J. Carlson, Auxiliary bishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis
September 1994 – “Of the 614 movies rated by the Motion Picture Association of America in 1991, only 14 were rated G. Another 87 received a PG. That means the MPAA found only 15% of American movies suitable for children under age 13. In contrast 375 movies – about 60% – received either an R or X, or its replacement, NC-17,” Phil Berardeli noted in a March 26, 1993, article he wrote for the Washington Post. He went on to say that “a large chunk of R rated movies are low-budget productions intended for video distribution.”
It is interesting to watch, over the years, how television producers first proposed some desired change either by interviewing some obscure dissident group on the street or by providing a movie to depict the possibilities of some controversial new way of life.
Following the collapse of the Legion of Decency, these producers were left to police themselves – sort of like leaving the fox in the henhouse. For example, television producers introduced in 1978 James at 15, later changed to James at 16. Here, the made-for-television program used major child stars from previous family programs to promote premarital sex. This was the beginning, the first of a series of calculated moves. Within 10 years, almost every major show or movie had some form of the bedroom scene, with the only inhibiting concern whether to have sex on the first date or not.
Before his death, it was rumored that Bing Crosby questioned the producers on what they were doing to our youths, as they led their push to promote this type of immoral behavior. He was told that they were simply showing life as it could be. He is said to have replied, “No, you are showing life as it will be.”
If we had to put our finger on a single force that has caused so much change resulting in today’s lack of morals and values, it is indeed television and the silence of the Church to oppose the media – many of whose producers have either fallen away from their Jewish or Christian beliefs or have chosen to ignore them in their quest for profit.
We saw “choice morality” first introduced on television in the late 1970s and were silent. Each new season, television took another step, more daring than the past. When one network producer quit his executive position, he confided to a colleague his objection to a 10-year plan to introduce more and more sex. The main concerns were how much sex and how fast it should be advanced each year, depending on the resistance by the churches and the public.
The media have been quite successful. Unopposed, they have created a new religion with their new morality for the masses. As more and more technology becomes available, $300 billion will be spent over the next 20 years to develop sophisticated fiber-based communication networks to every home and business, thereby offering high definition, high resolution television with “virtual reality” capabilities, enabling the media to have an even more powerful medium. As technology escalates, so does the power and impact of the producers of the programs for this new medium. In reflecting on the impact of the Church on television vs. the impact of television on the Church, we cannot help but note that over the years the one-eyed monster –television – has been very willing to take on a silent 2,000-year-old Church and bring it to the point of crisis. We have become too complacent, too silent – relying on a 20-minute Sunday homily and an occasional letter from the local bishop to address this situation.
It is time to recognize the impact that these few television producers are having on the United States and the world. It is interesting to note how silent we sat, as the media chided the then-vice- president for showing concern about the values fostered in some of today’s television melodramas. It was the April issue of Atlantic Monthly not the Church, that declared, “Dan Quayle Was Right.” 
