1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control
2. "Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty
March 10, 2008
7 new sins.
Via the Pope:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
I agree, especially with the first one. Women who use any type of birth control are whores.
Excessive wealth? This coming from the Vatican? Wow.
Goodness, could this be drawn more from the Marxist playbook?
If it wasn't for those nitpicking issues like abortion and homosexuality, we Catholics would be brimming with liberals.
Where does buggering altar boys fit in this scheme?
Sheesh, as if being Catholic wasn't tough enough already with all those pedophilic priests and a Church that was complicit in their crimes.
How does one define "polluting the environment?" or "creating poverty" or "excessive wealth?"
Does my driving an SUV condemn my immortal soul?
Does the fact that the Church has billions which do not go to the poor, but instead allows the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops to live in comfort and luxury condemn their's?
Shouldn't 5, 6, and 7 be rolled into one for brevity's sake? He isn't God and this isn't the Ten Commandments.
These are things we need to know.
And my wife wonders why I only make Mass on Christmas and Easter.
Oh, how I miss John Paul II.
WTF is the difference between 5 and 7?
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
7. Creating poverty
Maybe if they let their Catholic women use birth control, they wouldn't have as many children and become strapped for cash. Wait, can people who are poor be considered in violation of number 5 because they got themselves poor?! The more poor they get, the more they widen the divide!
Excessive wealth is a sin?
I will be lining up at my parish church for the refunds that are sure to come.
I had a feisty old aunt - a former flapper, from the old family photos - who used to tell the Catholic Charities to "go get a jewel out of the Pope's hat."
I see blowing the alterboys didn't make this year's list.
Ah well, as Mets fans say, there's always next year!
Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti is a Franciscan, and these are quite fitting for someone who follows the model of St. Francis.
If the Church actually followed these it would be a great reformation, and a monumental shift from the dark days of the Church, when it actually had power.
Though, it is interesting given the recent history and global realities that there's not one of these that touch on lust.
Mostly these are subsets of vainglory, greed, and gluttony.
Whither expressions of anger? Or pride? Or sloth?
Or maybe sloth is included in 'creating poverty'?
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?
Poor women don't have lots of kids because they aren't allowed to use birth control. They have them because it is a cultural value to have children. The indigenous women I knew in Chile could have gotten BCP with no RX for only $5/month, but they wanted to have kids. The more children you had, the higher your status. Men would leave infertile women. The first question I was asked when meeting someone new was "How many children do you have?" When I would answer "none," they would fall silent in sympathy and embarrassment for me.
Maybe if they let their Catholic women use birth control, they wouldn't have as many children and become strapped for cash.
Fear not ZPS. Actually those Catholics are using birth control with much vigor as evidenced by Spain and Italy's depressing birthrates. The rest of Europe as a whole is in the crapper in terms of having more kids as well. Give it another 20 years or so and there's gonna be a whole lot less Catholics to contribute to the ever widening gulf of impoverished folk.
The Vatican is not the Pope. It is inaccurate to say "via the Pope" here. You are implying that this is an ex cathedra (infallible) pronouncement, when the linked article does not support it.
I like these except the first one. There, I agree with ZPS.
There used to be penalties among Cahtolics for charging more than 5% interest, or for trying to sell something at an unjust price.
Those were the days. Now they're called the Dark Ages.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?
Among the sadder popular teachings has been using this passage not against rich folks who were abusing the poor, but against poor folks who were thinking that being abused is bad. Poverty was taught as being a way into the kingdom, so people were told not to fight the social conditions and accept their state in life, as it would lead to spiritual blessings in the next life.
Meanwhile, such teachings cemented the power structures and wealth of those who wanted their kingdom now.
They had a list of sins for one group and a different list for another group.
Government is by far the greatest perpetrator of No. 7, first and foremost by robbing big chunks of working people's and small business people's labor (what Adam Smith called the most "absurd" and "destructive" of taxes). Who else has the power to "create poverty"?
People like to rag on the Church for undeniable abuses, but historically the Church only requested a 10% tithe, while doing far more good and far less harm than government.
The Church has seemed to get by pretty well on voluntary contributions out of the goodness of people's hearts (or gullibillity, take your pick). Why not the government?
Ann Althouse said...
And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?
Yeah, send those Jews to hell.
I'm doing pretty well, myself. Haven't done much stem cell research, but six out of seven ain't bad. Think I'll go out and kick some puppies now.
I was worried there for a moment. I thought the Pope might decree that St. Patrick's Day is a hoax, perpetrated by the brewing cabal in America. But he didn't, so we've got that going for us.
As for the rest of it, I really do wish a Pope, and Pope would just say "hey, don't be a putz" and leave it at that.
I don't think adding more sins to the list is necessary. In fact there doesn't need to be many for the entire human race above about a few months old, to be sinners in need of salvation. And salvation is one simple task.
What isneeded is more religious figures, Catholic and otherwise, whose lives made salvation more attractive. Took a while for me to get past that.
WTF is the difference between 5 and 7?
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
7. Creating poverty
The difference is that you can reduce both poverty and human suffering and still wind up committing sin #5.
For example, if your actions help half the poor move out of poverty into the middle class, but also allow the currently rich to get even richer, you have committed, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, a sin -- you've widened the gap between rich and poor. Nevermind that you also pulled numerous people out of poverty; you failed to screw the rich while doing so, and that makes you a bad person.
This is an excellent example of why the Catholic Church has reliably been an enemy of human freedom and well-being over the years -- they only care about intentions, not results. The Church's view of poverty is warm-hearted, altruistic -- and completely wrong. It is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect an poor uneducated carpenter to have come up with two thousand years ago, before people really had an understanding of how wealth is created and how economies work.
The great irony, as others have noted, is that the Pope is rich and lives in luxury. Why anyone views those dolts as admirable spiritual leaders is beyond me.
Althouse says...
And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?
While I appreciate the bite of this rhetorical question, I don't think that the "explicit statement[]" gets you as far as you want. Surely the statement doesn't imply, logically or otherwise, that wealth is itself sinful.
For example, it may just be that wealth (even "excessive wealth"!)is not a sin (or is even a virtue) but gives rise to temptations that make it ferociously difficult to lead the sort of life that merits heaven. That's how I've always taken it.
There is apparently only one unpardonable sin: not believing in God's mercy.
All the others are forgivable.
I wrote about this in length at my blog today if anybody's interested in details. Otherwise I won't bore you with details.
Excessive wealth? This coming from the Vatican? Wow.
Yes -- that calls for a link to this classic from the Onion:
"Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican, Reports Disappointed Pope"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30972
What a bunch of hypocrites that Vatican is.
Excessive Wealth? Hello, the new Pope wears Prada. Have any of you been to the Vatican? It is so shamelessly filthy rich it is sickening. Also, they whole thing is really gay. The outfits, the silverware etc.
And what about homosexuality-that should be number one on the list.
Chocolate is not on the list.
They've realized the benefit of sound bites too. Hardly anyone wants to read the more thorough teachings.
From Clement of Alexandria's "Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?"
"Those who bestow laudatory addresses on the rich appear to me to be rightly judged not only flatterers and base, in vehemently pretending that things which are disagreeable give them pleasure, but also godless and treacherous; godless, because neglecting to praise and glorify God, who is alone perfect and good, "of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and for whom are all things," they invest with divine honours men wallowing in an execrable and abominable life, and, what is the principal thing, liable on this account to the judgment of God; and treacherous, because, although wealth is of itself sufficient to puff up and corrupt the souls of its possessors, and to turn them from the path by which salvation is to be attained, they stupefy them still more, by inflating the minds of the rich with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth, on account of which they are admired; bringing, as the saying is, fire to fire, pouring pride on pride, and adding conceit to wealth, a heavier burden to that which by nature is a weight, from which somewhat ought rather to be removed and taken away as being a dangerous and deadly disease.
For to him who exalts and magnifies himself, the change and downfall to a low condition succeeds in turn, as the divine word teaches.
For it appears to me to be far kinder, than basely to flatter the rich and praise them for what is bad, to aid them in working out their salvation in every possible way; asking this of God, who surely and sweetly bestows such things on His own children; and thus by the grace of the Saviour healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth; and whosoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life. Now prayer that runs its course till the last day of life needs a strong and tranquil soul; and the conduct of life needs a good and righteous disposition, reaching out towards all the commandments of the Saviour."
Camels can go through an eye of a needle, it's just something of a trial. The needle referred to is a gate to a city wall. Bringing a camel inside the city walls required coaxing the camel to squat on its knees and scoot through. It involved lots of pushing and tugging and camels aren't always that cooperative.
More sins. Bleh. Have enough trouble keeping up with the old ones haven't they anything better to do than think up new ones? For Christ's sake! Get off my back already.
Creating poverty? Piss off.
Joan: "The Vatican is not the Pope. It is inaccurate to say "via the Pope" here. You are implying that this is an ex cathedra (infallible) pronouncement, when the linked article does not support it."
I was going by the headline. Doesn't the Pope say some things that he doesn't claim infallibility for? I haven't studied this and am not Catholic.
smilin' jack said..."Ann Althouse said... 'And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?' Yeah, send those Jews to hell."
I don't think Jews commit this sin — they have no motivation to look for ways to circumvent the quotes — but I take it you mean that Christians would be forced to believe that Jews will go to hell. They'd also be plucking out their eyes all the time. Gruesome! Since you never see anyone with self-emptied eye sockets, there are no truly hardcore Christians.
Jean Shepherd long ago had a ``Imagine you're the first person to invent a new sin'' segment.
Possibly something that legislators had not predicted.
Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti is not the Pope, so the headline is bad.
The media is always conflating anything a church official says with the Pope or the Catholic Church as a whole.
Jesus didn't say it was impossible for a rich man to get to heaven, merely extremely difficult.
I am tempted to say, if it ain't in the 10 Commandments it ain't a sin, but I would take a suggestion from Jesus to be pretty persuasive.
Ann Althouse said...
And how about identifying a separate sin that consists of willfully blinding oneself to explicit statements made by Jesus?...I don't think Jews commit this sin — they have no motivation to look for ways to circumvent the quotes...
Well, of course you don't need to circumvent something you've blinded yourself to. In your formulation it's the blinding that's the sin. Jews don't "circumvent" stuff like "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me," they just willfully reject it. (It's worth noting, though, that Jews are past masters at circumventing the Word of God when they feel like it--that's why they do shit like hiring goyim to turn on their lights and drive their cars on the Sabbath.)
...but I take it you mean that Christians would be forced to believe that Jews will go to hell.
Well, I think Jesus (as in the above quote) was pretty explicit about that.
Since you never see anyone with self-emptied eye sockets, there are no truly hardcore Christians.
Truly hardcore Christians can't pluck out their eyes, since they've already cut off their hands. One of God's little gotcha!s
This is the real Pope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4
I personally plead guilty to numbers 1, 3 (you think coffee gets a pass?), 4 (starting with diapers), and 5 (I went to college).
I'm only guilty by proxy of #2, since I went to the wrong college, I'll call #6 beyond my control and I'm completely clear of #7. I don't think the Vatican can say the same.
How lame. Blatantly leftist--only WE IN AUTHORITY can have money and power, not you common folk--AND prudish. "Polluting the environment," indeed. This one is especially egregious considering the children polluted by catholic priests and their enabling leadership.
On second thought, I don't feel so bad about missing out on #2. "Morally dubious"--what the hell does that even mean? Come on, Pope, you're the Infallible One, so don't give us this "dubious" crap--is it a sin or isn't it? Stem cell research isn't one of those easy-as-falling-off-a-log sins like lust or gluttony.People have to put a lot of time, effort, and money into it. They deserve the acknowledgement that they're committing a genuine, official, Vatican-condemned sin.
Typical American responses so far. Yep, being against Abortion and Gays is OK, but being against greed - well thats just crazy talk.
After all, why help your fellow man when you can have that $4,300 sex session or that $200 cigar.
And if Gates devotes his life to making more money when he has billions, thats not sick, that admirable in some weird way.
Never get between an American and a dollar.
Gates is spending his billions to fight AIDS in Africa, when he should be hiring some competent programmers to fix the thousands of bugs in Windows. For that, he will definitely go to hell.
Never get between an American and a dollar.
The parable in Luke [or allegory?] Lazarus and the Rich Man about the bridge, the chasm, and the bosom comes to mind.
The parable of the bosom? Was I sick that day?
Never get between an American and a dollar.
The Vatican makes Americans look like pikers on this account.
Typical American responses so far.
Careful, envy's one of the original seven!
Henry
The chasm is the vast gulf between the Rich Man who sees Lazarus the Beggar in Abraham's bosom. I'm sure we've all thought about it at least once. On fire, and it's too late! Shit!
Yep, being against Abortion and Gays is OK, but being against greed - well thats just crazy talk.
Capitalism -- or "greed" as you prefer to call it -- has lived a couple of billion people out of poverty. Kind thoughts and altruism have accomplished jack shit.
So save your whining for *after* you've accomplished something worthwhile with your life.
7 New Sins (Updated)
Channel-surfing
Blogging
Widening Gap between Mac and IBM
Ipodultery
Massage
Micro-brews
Adjustable Mortgages
Still nothing about face and neck tattoos?
Thank you revenant, and please start posting more often! Where are all the reliable commenters lately? simon? reader? *sob*
As a non-denominational evangelical, I do not get the Pope thing, or that Mary stuff. But I am blessed to know wonderful Catholic brothers and sisters who have prayed for and with me and who are wonderful Christians.
But these "new" sins strike me as right up there with Ted Turner's
10. Rank silliness.
As for creating poverty, we know what creates poverty! It has been established and failure to acknowledge that is either crippling ignorance or worse.
Ben Franklin has a WONDERFUL position on poverty that would be labled as hate speech if written today. "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavors to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent."
Wow.
Words to live by.
Trey
what the pope says only affects catholics b/c they are the only ones who should believe he has any merit ... i don't see why anyone else is worried about it ...
Time for a re-design of Afterlife.
what about catholic priests raping boys? That should be number 1
Brad, Amen.
Trey
Are you fucking kidding me? This is RIDICULOUS! Taking birth control is a sin?! I though that was already instated anyways, I mean Catholics have so many damn kids... but anyways, FUCK THIS. So every rich person is going to hell? Sooo Donald Trump, Bill Gates, every president & congress member is going to hell? Who the fuck do you people think you are stating who gets to goes to hell & who goes to heaven? And the Catholic Church & the Vatican are saying excessive wealth is a sin? WOW hypocritical much? & FUCK titusinfirstposition for saying everyone who takes birth control is a whore. How many times have you gotten knocked up stupid fucking bitch? I mean, I'm a 16 year old girl & even I realize all this is bullshit. It saddens me to see people get sucked into & follow something that is so idiotic. I don't mean to offend (except for that thing about titusinfirstposition <3) but this bullshit enrages me & I had to express it...
But that's all for now :)
Why does taking birth control make a women a whore. Wouldn't it be better for them to take birth control then to have illegitimate children?
I bet they wouldn't feel the same if they were attracted to girls instead of little boys.
Maybe if more people used birth control there wouldn't be as much poverty in the world and I don't think there is anyway the Vatican can be against wealth.. seriously.. surely the pope is the biggest mass murderer in the world with the current aids epidemic.
Also I don't see rule against sleeping with young boys..
We are living in the 21st centry now, isn't it time people opened their eyes and realised religion is a load of crap!
you all are really stupid. commiting these sins will not put you in hell. if you know the catholic faith at all these capital sins are subjects of sins that every single sin can be placed into. they added 7 new ones to stress the importance of them and to get more people to go to confession. priests are not perfect. does every priest rape little boys? no! you are all so stupid. they make a mistake and they are punished for it. it is a sin for them to do it and the church does NOT put up with it! and yes taking birth control shoul be a sin because in the catholic church there is no reason for sex unless you want to have kids. if you take pleasure in it it is a sin. so for all you idiots out there get your facts straight before you say all this. and the vatican donates so much of its money! they have the wealth because they need it. you do realize priests make just enough money to live? you all are idiots
Titus, I use birth control and I do not consider myself a whore. I have been in a committed relationship for 8 years (dating for 3,married for 5). I was a virgin until my wedding night (old school..yes i know) and my husband has been the only man I have ever had sex with. However, we are fairly young (25) and do not feel we are financially stable enough to have children, we have both graduated from college and are developing our careers. Does wanting to be financially secure to ensure a more fulfilled life for my children make me whore? i hope not. so maybe you should think about people in different situations before you make stupid comments like the one you did.
Post a Comment