FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. (/showthread.php?tid=86809)

Pages: 1 2


I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - FultonFan - 05-13-2020

I think I’m overall less scrupulous, but I’m concerned about something from today.

I took the day off, and my son is home with me.
He really likes the end scene from the movie “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, namely because the lonely homeless man becomes great friends with the other man (Steve Martin).
There’s a little montage towards the end when Steve Martin is reflecting on the last couple days, and a few scenes are revisited.
One of them is when him and John Candy are in bed sleeping and hugging, apparently dreaming of their spouses.
My son asked why they were doing that, I said it was silly, and that they were dreaming “of their wife” or “of the mommy”, then to clarify that it was a silly scene I just showed him the original scene.

In the original scene the two of them jump out of bed alarmed once they realize something rather crude, viz. John Candy apparently has his had wedged in between “two pillows”, however, Steve Martin responds with “those aren’t pillows” (that is, John Candy has his hand wedged into, ya know...).

Anyways I showed him the original scene to show him that it was just silliness.

However, the ends don’t justify the means.

Does this sound like a grave sin against my duties as a father? Sounds to me like I’m far too careless.
I really hope I haven’t damaged his innocence.


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Adventus - 05-13-2020

I would have turned it off.

If no other reason but to note that it is best to have a child have an aversion to such things. 

Although explaining things is good, children take just about any explanation from adults...even if it's a bad explanation.

One could have the wrong adult trying to explain things, which is what typically occurs in cases of abuse.

I should have asked how old? Typically I start to feed my older kids nuggets of information to hit the point home for more delicate topics like this.


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - FultonFan - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 10:08 AM)Adventus Wrote: I would have turned it off.

If no other reason but to note that it is best to have a child have an aversion to such things. 

Although explaining things is good, children take just about any explanation from adults...even if it's a bad explanation.

One could have the wrong adult trying to explain things, which is what typically occurs in cases of abuse.

I should have asked how old? Typically I start to feed my older kids nuggets of information to hit the point home for more delicate topics like this.
Five...
Yes, definitely should have turned it off.
I really need to be far more diligent in this.
But hopefully without “full knowledge/consent” I can rest that this wasn’t mortal.
Not that venial sin is in any way acceptable. Offending God and scandalizing anyone for any reason is repulsive.


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Adventus - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 10:12 AM)FultonFan Wrote:
(05-13-2020, 10:08 AM)Adventus Wrote: I would have turned it off.

If no other reason but to note that it is best to have a child have an aversion to such things. 

Although explaining things is good, children take just about any explanation from adults...even if it's a bad explanation.

One could have the wrong adult trying to explain things, which is what typically occurs in cases of abuse.

I should have asked how old? Typically I start to feed my older kids nuggets of information to hit the point home for more delicate topics like this.
Five...
Yes, definitely should have turned it off.
I really need to be far more diligent in this.
But hopefully without “full knowledge/consent” I can rest that this wasn’t mortal.
Not that venial sin is in any way acceptable. Offending God and scandalizing anyone for any reason is repulsive.

You are seeking out to other brothers in the faith and more importantly to align yourself to the only One that is good. Not like you had a prepared response because you knew it was coming. You attempted to remedy it and you can learn from it. Just keep up the faith, pray, seek guidance, etc. and of course share with a good priest when you can.


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - FultonFan - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 10:22 AM)Adventus Wrote:
(05-13-2020, 10:12 AM)FultonFan Wrote:
(05-13-2020, 10:08 AM)Adventus Wrote: I would have turned it off.

If no other reason but to note that it is best to have a child have an aversion to such things. 

Although explaining things is good, children take just about any explanation from adults...even if it's a bad explanation.

One could have the wrong adult trying to explain things, which is what typically occurs in cases of abuse.

I should have asked how old? Typically I start to feed my older kids nuggets of information to hit the point home for more delicate topics like this.
Five...
Yes, definitely should have turned it off.
I really need to be far more diligent in this.
But hopefully without “full knowledge/consent” I can rest that this wasn’t mortal.
Not that venial sin is in any way acceptable. Offending God and scandalizing anyone for any reason is repulsive.

You are seeking out to other brothers in the faith and more importantly to align yourself to the only One that is good. Not like you had a prepared response because you knew it was coming. You attempted to remedy it and you can learn from it. Just keep up the faith, pray, seek guidance, etc. and of course share with a good priest when you can.

Thanks, friend.


I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Augustinian - 05-13-2020

Perhaps we should make a thread solely dedicated to scrupulous questions?


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Justin Tertius - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 02:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Perhaps we should make a thread solely dedicated to scrupulous questions?

Scruples should be starved. Giving the scrupulous a place to vent their scruples only exacerbates the problem. 

We should just be prudent. If you have moral questions it is best to bring them up in confession (which nowadays may be harder than normal). If the priest is well formed, I would abide by his teaching. 

As much as I like this place, web fora are not the best place to bring every moral question. It gives occasion to confirm one's scruples and one can receive less than sound advice.


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - SeekerofChrist - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 09:51 AM)FultonFan Wrote: I think I’m overall less scrupulous, but I’m concerned about something from today.

I took the day off, and my son is home with me.
He really likes the end scene from the movie “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, namely because the lonely homeless man becomes great friends with the other man (Steve Martin).
There’s a little montage towards the end when Steve Martin is reflecting on the last couple days, and a few scenes are revisited.
One of them is when him and John Candy are in bed sleeping and hugging, apparently dreaming of their spouses.
My son asked why they were doing that, I said it was silly, and that they were dreaming “of their wife” or “of the mommy”, then to clarify that it was a silly scene I just showed him the original scene.

In the original scene the two of them jump out of bed alarmed once they realize something rather crude, viz. John Candy apparently has his had wedged in between “two pillows”, however, Steve Martin responds with “those aren’t pillows” (that is, John Candy has his hand wedged into, ya know...).

Anyways I showed him the original scene to show him that it was just silliness.

However, the ends don’t justify the means.

Does this sound like a grave sin against my duties as a father? Sounds to me like I’m far too careless.
I really hope I haven’t damaged his innocence.

True, the end doesn't justify the means.  I fail to see, though, how this admittedly crude but otherwise rather mild scene is a grave sin against your duties as a father.  Your son can't live in a bubble and this scene is hardly so profoundly immoral that no one should ever see it.  I recommend reading the addendum to this article: https://www.fisheaters.com/domesticchurch.html


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - Fionnchu - 05-13-2020

(05-13-2020, 02:53 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:
(05-13-2020, 09:51 AM)FultonFan Wrote: I think I’m overall less scrupulous, but I’m concerned about something from today.

Your son can't live in a bubble and this scene is hardly so profoundly immoral that no one should ever see it. 
There's a legacy of literature produced by Catholics, yes, in the past and present that has considerable raunchy humor as sight gags, double entendres, and the great set-ups in a couple of tales of Chaucer (before he wrapped up C. Tales with the earnest sermon few recall from the Parson himself). I reckon some who shy away towards prudery, however well intentioned, take far too seriously the bodily functions and sexual humor that's long been associated with culture as to the stories we tell ourselves for entertainment. I mean, you could find people probably all bent out of shape by some stories from the scriptures that bring in sinners and messy fluids. Don't forget, most of our ancestors lived cheek by cheek with copulating animals, farting spouses, children in the same bed, and fleas in the once-yearly changed linen. The "facts of life" and the confusion and laughter at naked bodies were at close observation. Unless you're an anchorite back then, you'd have little guarantee of privacy, even at the public latrine. So I'd lighten up these scruples.

For I inherited quite a few despite the post-V2 era; the trouble that caused me persists into "late middle age" today.

The mystery plays of the Middle Ages, the silly carvings in churches way above on pillars or hidden beneath choir stalls, songs strummed by troubadours, exampla preached, art painted reveal human frailty and human humor. You'd have to censor riddles in Old English, surely penned by monks, and Early French bawdy fabliaux and goliard songs.

The backlash against so much of this vivid creation, remember, we have the Protestant "reformers" and their Catholic counterparts to thank, who wanted to diverge from the depictions judged too frank for consumption. And who tried to put an end to Carnival and Mardi Gras and all those raucous feasts that took up too much of the laborers' time off.

Ireland, for instance, was a far more unfettered realm in terms of such fleshly pursuits before the post-famine Jansenists. A lot of what traditional Catholics assume (similar it comes to mind of the Hasidim and their fashions taken on from Polish nobility in the 17th c as if "traditional") as the everyday devotion to a "faith of our fathers" was less elevated than some later apologists and scolding prelates assume. I'd lighten up about this; I read Mad Magazine as a kid in less tawdry times, but also watched "Love American Style" with no idea of what its sordid humor "really" meant!


RE: I’m sorry folks, but I have a “was this sinful?” question. - SeekerofChrist - 05-14-2020

All very good points, Fionnchu.  I remember reading the plays of Shakespeare in 8th grade English class.  We, the students, were surprised at the sexual humor present in the plays.  Yet, Shakespeare is nearly universally acknowledged as a great writer, not a smut peddler.  As Catholics, we don't need to act like Puritans.  The human body, including sexuality, can be a legitimate subject of art, literature, humor, etc.  I recall watching "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" when I was a kid.  My late father loved John Candy and so I think I've seen every film he was in.  From what I can recall, the movie isn't morally objectionable and I certainly didn't walk away from it understanding any of the sexual humor that might have been present in it.  In fact, I'd have to watch the movie again in order to note any of that.  Children don't pick up on the real "punchline" in subtle humor like that, at least not in my experience.