By Marie Mulvenna

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent and controversial decision on pornography, a local Jesuit priest has labeled the ruling as one that deprives people of their freedom of choice. In a homily delivered at Immaculate Heart of Mary parish on July 8, Father Peter E. Fink, S.J. termed the ruling a moral decision and stated “It may well be that the decision to make the atmosphere more moral may in fact be the most immoral decision of all."

Father Fink, a graduate student at Emory University and weekend assistant at IHM parish, said “The elimination of what is offensive even to the majority is in fact harmful for the whole community because it deprives all of their freedom of choice.” He told parishioners at IHM that “it would seem the Christian thing to speak out against pornography, or at least against any kind of depiction of human sexuality that makes it less than human, devoid of love, tenderness, affection. In the present context, however, I have the sense that a deeper issue is really involved, the issue of freedom of choice.”

Father Fink cited the movie “Clockwork Orange” as a dramatization of the greater evil which is done when this freedom is taken away. “Moral decisions are usually very complicated,” he stated, “but unless there is freedom to choose, one can no longer speak of morality at all. It has been said that the price God paid to create us free was to allow us the possibility of turning away from him. Often the price we must pay for our own freedom is to allow others the right to differ from us, even where we find that difference highly offensive.”

The Jesuit priest warned of possible extremist actions by opponents of pornography who, “while no one is looking will move in on less offensive materials, even on works of art.” He cited the “dirty” book scare evoked several years ago when such book as Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” were being taught in high schools. At that time a professor wrote a careful article in “America,” Father Fink noted, explaining the difference between sleazy paperback and works of art, which happen to be earthy. One reply to the editor came from a priest in the Midwest who stated: “I don’t care what you say, a dirty book is a dirty book.” Father Fink then concluded: “The question is, ultimately, who is to decide.”

While stating clearly that he did not suggest that the Church speak out in favor of pornography, he did make it clear he suggested “the Church speak out, as in the past, against any kind of repression that robs us of freedom of choice, whether it is based on fear, illusion or false reasoning.” Because the Supreme Court has “left it to local communities to decide what they will call pornography and what they will reject, it is the Church on the local level that must add a responsible voice in this decision,” Father Fink said.

On the matter of pornography, Father Fink sated it “may be in poor taste, but I am not convinced that the majority of young people, who we are allegedly trying to protect, are even interested, much less vulnerable to corruption.”