I had that same question, CuriousInIL. Perhaps the OP has mentioned scruples in other threads that these people know about? In that case, I apologize…according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, those with scruples:
are to guard against the reading of ascetical books of a rigorist trend
But if the OP has not mentioned scruples in another thread, I defend my advice.
If we automatically conclude that someone has scruples just because they are inclined towards ascetic spirituality…and then say that they should not practice ascetic spirituality because they have scruples…it is clearly a logical circle that will prevent the Church from ever having any more mystics or ascetics.
abstaining from these things out of fear that they are sinful or lead to sin is quite another
Yes, but Magicsilence admits that the movies they are talking about are those “That do not cause you to sin.”
Magicsilence knows that they are not sinful per se, they just “feel wrong after watching any film now because i feel like i should be waiting for Christ at all moments.”
It doesn’t say Magicsilence feels “guilty,” just “wrong”…without explaining what “wrong” means. It is not necessarily a fear that it was sinful…perhaps just an inclination towards asceticism, a calling towards mysticism, an unsatisfaction with the things of this world, a pull towards a contemplative life waiting for Christ at all moments, a feeling that the secular life is wrong for Magicsilence and that they are called somewhere else.
Furthermore, Magicsilence has come here to ask the question “is it ever morally ok to watch a film just to enjoy it?” They have not made a conclusion yet, they are ignorant of whether it is ever morally okay, and have come here to have that question answered. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
If the source of their scruples be ignorance – for example, with regard to the obligation of some commandment – they are to be instructed, discretion being used in the imparting of the necessary information.
Sometimes, thus, the scruples are temporary and are only caused by a lack of knowledge as to what is sin and what is not. And now that Magicsilence knows that it is not a sin, perhaps they will be consoled and can go on and make a further discernment about what their feelings mean to their spirituality.
I would be cautious to jump to conclusions of scrupulosity, we are not the confessor. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
It is of great importance to be able to make a correct diagnosis of this disease. Hence especially guides of consciences should be familiar with the symptoms that betray its presence as well as with the causes which commonly give rise to it. For one thing, the confessor should not confound a delicate with a scrupulous conscience, neither should he interpret the reasonable solicitude sometimes discernible in those who are trying to emerge from a life of sin as a sign of scrupulosity. Then, too, ordinarily he ought not to hastily reach this conclusion on the very first experience of his penitent. It is true there are cases of scruples which may be recognized from the start, but this is not the rule. Some special indications that persons are really scrupulous, generally adopted by theologians are those enumerated by Lacroix. Among these is a certain rooted attachment to their own opinion which makes them unwilling to abide by the judgment of those whom they consult, even though these latter have every title to deference.
If Magicsilence is willing to abide by our counsel that it is not sinful, and accepts it, and it satisfies them, then it was merely a matter of ignorance as to what is and is not sinful being cleared up…that should not be judged as scruples, especially not on the first experience.
But if Magicsilence has indicated scruples on other threads, I would urge them to contact a spiritual director.
