See #98.
The fact is that there are people here who consider the entire Dutch Baroque era and Michelangelo's David to be "pornography" and there are (probably) a few here that believe that Penthouse, Hustler, etc. are not immoral.
Don't get me wrong--I'm opposed to smut. What I'm saying is that we need to define what it is, and that's half the battle.
Why?
"Pornography" is largely subjective and taken by the individual. For example, I personally don't find naked paintings from the 17th century to be obscene, but I do find most nudie media as being obscene. It's entirely possible you might have a completely different idea as to what's acceptable.
Of course, this isn't to say that there is some guidance (IMHO, Scripture and Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body are excellent). Those can, and I believe will prove invaluable in trying to define "pornography."
Porn is defined as #2354 in the Catechism. It is made all the more offensive and heinous when it includes minors, for example.
Actually I think you and I are in agreement on this.
There are some who are not familiar with the Holy Bible who would consider portions of the Song of Solomon pornographic if read out of context.