Silly question.. is this a sin?

[Greg_N]

You’ve got him going to confession over something that was objectively not a mortal sin, and IMO not a sin at all. He, being a Good Catholic, when you accused him, agreed to go to confession. Because even though nobody else on this thread considered it a mortal sin, he wants to err on the side of Placating the Most Offended, which is apparently you. The OP may correct me if I’m wrong about that.

In your opinion, it was not a sin at all, in my opinion it was an (immature) slip up which may be venial… oh, did I tread on someone’s toes? Sorry about taking the consecration with the utmost seriousness, I guess laughing at the passing of gas takes precedence over such a pivotal moment in the mass. (I also didn’t realize I was in the midst of such patsies), please, forgive me.

You hurt my feelings, so I’m telling you. :crying:

Please take this gif as a token of my admission of guilt:

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/15400000/Cat-gif-cats-15443758-242-183.gif lol

So **you would have stayed there **and risked laughing or giggling or smiling during the consecration? That’s pretty dumb advice if you ask me. Oh, that’s right; we should all be as mature and perfect as you because not a cell in your body could ever conspire to effect an inappropriate affectation.

The problem is with the initial reaction of ‘laughing’ over something as trivial as a fart during a moment so central to the mass, (not withholding the fact). The reaction itself is disrespectful, and you know it (otherwise, why the need to contain laughter in the first place?) Why would not getting up to move be considered risky? Is there something wrong with laughing? Wow Alan, I didn’t realize you were such a party pooper…

I didn’t know the Church taught that if somebody farts during the consecration you had to stay in place, suck it up, and suppress any reaction that might come across to others nearby as amusement.

Hypothetically, (if what you’re saying is true), if an incident occurred in front of the entire congregation of a Church during the Consecration, (which just begged to be laughed at), it would be completely permissible for everyone to be sidetracked with insurmountable amusement, to the point where they all feel the need to walk out of the pews just to contain their laughter. You don’t find that such a spectacle would be at all disrespectful? You see absolutely nothing wrong with that picture at all?

You truly are a beacon of objectivity and truth, Alan from Wichita.

Oh yes. The Pharisees. The ones Jesus said to listen to what they say but not do as they do? Such as accuse a person of sin for not acting the perfect little robot?

Our Lord and Savior misspoke then?

**Matthew 5:20 **For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Oh that, no, He didn’t mean that, He meant the other thing, you know, that thing about “robots and tolerance”… Of course, Alan, I know what you’re getting at, it’s clearly outlined on page 192 of the ‘Summa Robotica’.

Actually no I didn’t see where you had backpedaled before I posted, but now I see where you are claiming you did. But it really didn’t change your accusations; sounded to me like bit condescending. “Oh yes I have those challenges too – except of course I don’t sin when I have them like you did.”

Of course I didn’t change my accusations, I never intended to. I just assumed you would find my tone of the second response a little easier to take in, (the sensitive soul you are).

Oh wait that’s not what you wrote. The OP didn’t sin because he obviously doesn’t understand how important the consecration is. That’s the part that I found most condescending. If he really didn’t understand the seriousness of the situation, he wouldn’t have exited. Duhh.

As I said previously, it’s the reaction itself which garners my criticism.

Now, I realize you’re treating this entire discourse with the idea that my attitude has been “holier than thou”, when in reality that could not be further from the truth (I’m probably a far worse individual than TemplarKnight, [as you can probably tell], and I acknowledge that). The “Holier than thou” thing is a conventional straw man, but I’m not really phased; it adds some flavor to the conversation.

That being said, in a futile attempt to vindicate my argument, I would like to quote the venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen, (I realize the quote in its entirety is overkill for the issue at hand, but I’m sure an intelligent person such as yourself will get the gist):

Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

At what could be considered (I think objectively) the highest and most sacred point of our reality here on Earth; (The Consecration and Transubstantiation), the point at which someone’s attention is drawn away to something as insignificant as a fart, and then to consciously remove themselves from the mass to withhold laughter… to me, that’s morally ugly, and at least disprespectful.

Maybe he should have just loudly demanded, “DO YOU MIND??” That would show that he took the situation very seriously, as well. Like a Pharisee would.

If the fart was intended, such a response would be warranted.

I know you feel me on this one!

Love you bro

• Greg

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In your opinion, it was not a sin at all, in my opinion it was an (immature) slip up which may be venial… oh, did I tread on someone’s toes? Sorry about taking the consecration with the utmost seriousness, I guess laughing at the passing of gas takes precedence over such a pivotal moment in the mass. (I also didn’t realize I was in the midst of such patsies), please, forgive me.

OK. So the OP heard the fart and thought, “wow, that fart was so much more entertaining than the consecration that I think I’ll devote all of my attention to being amused at it. The consecration doesn’t mean anything to me.”

This may be how you feel about it, but in reality I conjecture it was an involuntary reaction, because it triggered the OP in a way he’s never been triggered before. The first time somebody stand to your right and behind you, and reaches around and taps your left shoulder, normally you would look to the left and be surprised not to find the tapper there. If it happens more than once, it would not be a surprise and chances are it would no longer be as funny. Unless it was some sort of a running joke. My point is when confronted with a new stimulus that suddenly occurs, it “crashes” the MOS (Mind Operating System) and behaves erratically – in this case triggering a humor response. Therefore I contend that being amused was not an act of the OP’s will.

Please take this gif as a token of my admission of guilt:

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/15400000/Cat-gif-cats-15443758-242-183.gif lol

Oh that is adorable! I hope you get to confess a lot more!

The problem is with the initial reaction of ‘laughing’ over something as trivial as a fart during a moment so central to the mass, (not withholding the fact). The reaction itself is disrespectful, and you know it (otherwise, why the need to contain laughter in the first place?) Why would not getting up to move be considered risky? Is there something wrong with laughing? Wow Alan, I didn’t realize you were such a party pooper…

I say the reaction you have a problem with was involuntary. Like a doctor who taps a knee and then complains because the patient kicks by reflex. Reflexes are not processed by the brain the way consciously willed activities are. Next time you see your doctor, ask him to test your reflexes and try not to kick; I’d be interested to hear how that goes.

Hypothetically, (if what you’re saying is true), if an incident occurred in front of the entire congregation of a Church during the Consecration, (which just begged to be laughed at), it would be completely permissible for everyone to be sidetracked with insurmountable amusement, to the point where they all feel the need to walk out of the pews just to contain their laughter. You don’t find that such a spectacle would be at all disrespectful? You see absolutely nothing wrong with that picture at all?

The biggest problem with the picture is it’s highly unlikely that any human source would be able to create significant audio power distributed around a church filled with people, unless the acoustics of the particular church were quite unusual. The more people, the more risk, but the more they muffle the sound as it travels across the room. At least in a church with more than a hundred people, unless it was during a totally silent part of the Mass, it would have to be quite a skilled fartier to get that done. Unless of course there were a mike strategically placed in the near vicinity of the audio emission location. So either very careless mic placement, or premeditated.

You truly are a beacon of objectivity and truth, Alan from Wichita.

Aww you are too kind. :bowdown2:

Our Lord and Savior misspoke then?

I should hope not, but I wasn’t there so I take the Bible’s word for it. (btw what were we talking about?)

(continued in next post)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued from last post)

"Oh that, no, He didn’t mean that, He meant the other thing, you know, that thing about “robots and tolerance”… Of course, Alan, I know what you’re getting at, it’s clearly outlined on page 192 of the ‘Summa Robotica’.

Yes, it is humanly impossible, according to scripture Protestants like to throw around, to actually perfectly follow all the laws. Therefore, a single slip up and you’re condemned. Well the Good News is that Jesus has sealed a New Covenant, under which we can be forgiven. Rom 7-8 are among my favorites. Once you are born of the spirit, by dying to the self, (remember you must: 1. deny yourself, 2. take up your cross, and 3. follow Him) which is the false self, or ego – as opposed to the True Self which is the essential part of us that is made in the image of God – then you become free from the law of sin and death, but instead are under the law of spirit and life.

Paul gives the example of a woman who divorces. If she marries another before the first husband dies, then she sins. If the first one dies, she is released from her bond to him and may remarry. Likewise, we must die to sin so that we make take on a new nature, one the Holy Spirit prepares just for us. Healing, renewing. Serenity. Ohh, gosh I feel embarrassed to even try to describe how happy I am for what the Lord has done for me, and grateful that the kingdom took me in. Must have been of pity rather than admiration. I hope I’m not repeating too often, but being broken (in my case in mentally emotionally, spiritually, and socially in tumultuous 12 year purgation process) and then repaired by the Divine Therapist aka the Holy Spirit, is So Much Better than never having been broken in the firsts place, that “So Much Better” is a miserable understatement.

Of course I didn’t change my accusations, I never intended to. I just assumed you would find my tone of the second response a little easier to take in, (the sensitive soul you are).

Yes, I’m sensitive enough I try not to laugh at my own or others’ farts during consecration. Especially after this I’ll be on the lookout for such troubling activity.

As I said previously, it’s the reaction itself which garners my criticism.

I don’t like to compromise, so let me offer a bridge.

I don’t like the laugh reaction. It is immature. But I like to consider best case, worst case. Worst case, “immature” here means “irreverent,” and I think that’s the part you have a problem with. And understandably so especially if the disrespect is conscious. But in the “best case” in terms of defending the OP’s honor, “immature” could mean, “never had that experience before” so the subconscious acted in reflex before the OP could process it enough to ponder the reverence of the situation. When the rising random response got stronger, combined with the pressure of the reverence issue, there was basically a hull breach. It’s like when you slam a car door on your hand, chances are you will speak something before you give it a whole lot of thought.

So the problem becomes not will power, because will power doesn’t apply to reflexes. Reflexes are part of our MOS, so we have to actually find a way to mortify ourselves to these stimuli. One way is to subject oneself to the repeated stimulus. Like watch the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles. If you can make it through that with a straight face, without either laughter or disgust or both, then you could be what I call an emo-ninja and you will be prepared to behave in the most reverent of fashion even in the presence of Significantly Disturbing Audio Stimuli. Maybe I’ll use SDAS as code word for “fart” and it would be more clinical… would you consider that an upgrade?

Now, I realize you’re treating this entire discourse with the idea that my attitude has been “holier than thou”, when in reality that could not be further from the truth (I’m probably a far worse individual than TemplarKnight, [as you can probably tell], and I acknowledge that). The “Holier than thou” thing is a conventional straw man, but I’m not really phased; it adds some flavor to the conversation.

I believe you, because if you weren’t sincere it would be hard for you to have worded it the way you did. Thank you for using the term “flavor” because it is descriptive but non-judgmental.

If the fart was intended, such a response would be warranted.

I know you feel me on this one!

Love you bro

• Greg

Warranted perhaps, but it may not be prudent to take on that responsibility. kpeople:

Maybe you could communicate a similar message with silent hand signals:

http://primephysique.com/Portals/46981/images/disgusted-pink-slime-in-san-jose1.jpg

Peace, love, joy,
Alan

 

[Jennifoo]

You should be glad that it wasn’t one of those silent sneaky ones - you know the one that are so stinky that they peel wall paper - the ones that you can’t identify where they came from!

Yup. That’s why I would have stepped out-for fresh air!

 

[TemplarKnight1]

That was an interesting read. Thank you, sir Alan!

Peace, love, joy to all, indeed

(continued from last post)

Yes, it is humanly impossible, according to scripture Protestants like to throw around, to actually perfectly follow all the laws. Therefore, a single slip up and you’re condemned. Well the Good News is that Jesus has sealed a New Covenant, under which we can be forgiven. Rom 7-8 are among my favorites. Once you are born of the spirit, by dying to the self, (remember you must: 1. deny yourself, 2. take up your cross, and 3. follow Him) which is the false self, or ego – as opposed to the True Self which is the essential part of us that is made in the image of God – then you become free from the law of sin and death, but instead are under the law of spirit and life.

Paul gives the example of a woman who divorces. If she marries another before the first husband dies, then she sins. If the first one dies, she is released from her bond to him and may remarry. Likewise, we must die to sin so that we make take on a new nature, one the Holy Spirit prepares just for us. Healing, renewing. Serenity. Ohh, gosh I feel embarrassed to even try to describe how happy I am for what the Lord has done for me, and grateful that the kingdom took me in. Must have been of pity rather than admiration. I hope I’m not repeating too often, but being broken (in my case in mentally emotionally, spiritually, and socially in tumultuous 12 year purgation process) and then repaired by the Divine Therapist aka the Holy Spirit, is So Much Better than never having been broken in the firsts place, that “So Much Better” is a miserable understatement.

Yes, I’m sensitive enough I try not to laugh at my own or others’ farts during consecration. Especially after this I’ll be on the lookout for such troubling activity.

I don’t like to compromise, so let me offer a bridge.

I don’t like the laugh reaction. It is immature. But I like to consider best case, worst case. Worst case, “immature” here means “irreverent,” and I think that’s the part you have a problem with. And understandably so especially if the disrespect is conscious. But in the “best case” in terms of defending the OP’s honor, “immature” could mean, “never had that experience before” so the subconscious acted in reflex before the OP could process it enough to ponder the reverence of the situation. When the rising random response got stronger, combined with the pressure of the reverence issue, there was basically a hull breach. It’s like when you slam a car door on your hand, chances are you will speak something before you give it a whole lot of thought.

So the problem becomes not will power, because will power doesn’t apply to reflexes. Reflexes are part of our MOS, so we have to actually find a way to mortify ourselves to these stimuli. One way is to subject oneself to the repeated stimulus. Like watch the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles. If you can make it through that with a straight face, without either laughter or disgust or both, then you could be what I call an emo-ninja and you will be prepared to behave in the most reverent of fashion even in the presence of Significantly Disturbing Audio Stimuli. Maybe I’ll use SDAS as code word for “fart” and it would be more clinical… would you consider that an upgrade?

I believe you, because if you weren’t sincere it would be hard for you to have worded it the way you did. Thank you for using the term “flavor” because it is descriptive but non-judgmental.

Warranted perhaps, but it may not be prudent to take on that responsibility. kpeople:

Maybe you could communicate a similar message with silent hand signals:

http://primephysique.com/Portals/46981/images/disgusted-pink-slime-in-san-jose1.jpg

Peace, love, joy,
Alan