Vatican comes up with a new list of Seven Sins
In the sixth century, Pope Gregory handed down a list of "seven cardinal vices." Now the Vatican has issued an additional seven "social sins."
You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife, but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," said [Bishop Gianfranco] Girotti, who is responsible for the body that oversees confessions.BB pal Vann Hall, who alerted us to this, says: "I suggest a BoingBoing contest for the best Bosch-ian depiction of the New and Improved! Deadly Sins." LinkThe seven social sins are:
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
The original deadly sins:
1. Pride
2. Envy
3. Gluttony
4. Lust
5. Anger
6. Greed
7. Sloth
Some hits. Some misses. Four out of seven isn't bad for the Vatican.
Excessive wealth is frowned on by the Catholic Church?? Wow, membership really must be declining!
They should add 'Being Relevant in the 21st Century;' that's one thing we can be sure they'll never do.
I'm creating poverty by spending all my money on stupid things. And now I have Hell to look forward to. Oh life, you just keep getting better.
Whoa, the President manages to nail 3-7.
At the "expense" of 1 and 2, oddly enough.
I smell a sequel to a certain Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman film...
So breeding dogs/sheep/cattle or trying to develop a new plant cultivar - all of which is DNA experiments - is wrong now?
Will dead catholics, like Jesus, be grandfathered in to this new sinning regime? Does anyone know if the cross was made of reclaimed wood? Or did Peter use gill nets? Wasting potable water by turning into wine anyone?
So did God just not see these problems coming when He came up with the original sin list?
Oh wait, it's all made up by celibate weirdos in strange costumes. I almost forgot for a second.
The Vatican claim that excessive wealth is a sin? Um... have they seen St Peter's and the Cistine Chapel? Maybe they mean excessive compared to themselves - which would create maybe four new sinners.
G. Park-
Oh wait, it's all made up by celibate weirdos in strange costumes. I almost forgot for a second.
You mean gamers? Gamers came up with this?
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
@ 2
If they were as irrelevant as they should be, the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't even bother making the obvious jokes about this list. Sadly, they still have a great deal of wealth and influence which doesn't look to be going away soon enough.
@Anselm-
Not all cosplayers are gamers and not all gamers are cosplayers!
Will the prejudice ever end?
That's nothing more than getting the popular votes by mixing some general views that most agree (like not polluting the environment, creating poverty) and inserting some conservative views (stem cell research).
I don't know what God thinks about the Vatican adding these laws by themselves. Did God ever appoint them as His spokesperson in the first place? That was why the Protestants took place, right?
G Park,
Who says that Anselm is referring to cosplay in response to weird costumes? At least my tunic and hip boots fit.
@10: SCAdians
That's nothing more than getting the popular votes by mixing some general views that most agree (like not polluting the environment, creating poverty) and inserting some conservative views (stem cell research).
That would be how the Catholic Church works in Latin America. Liberation theology been effective for decades, and yet, evangelicals are making more converts by selling the social repression without the fiscal activism. Go figure. At least the Vatican made drunk driving a sin a few years back.
God's a fool for making all those pharmaceutical plants.
@13-
I don't know what God thinks about the Vatican adding these laws by themselves. Did God ever appoint them as His spokesperson in the first place?
Jesus (who both is, and is not God for some reason) appointed Peter as His spokesman in Matthew 16:18-9, and allowed Peter to make laws on Earth that would be binding in Heaven. Therefore, G-d is behind this nonsense 100%.
Apparently Peter's push-to-talk line with JHVH got passed from Peter all the way down to this Ratzinger chap who calls the shots these days.
I'd like to see the church go through with cleansing themselves of sin #6.
"excessive wealth"???
so Bill Gates who is generally thought of as the worlds richest individual and who donates MASSIVE amounts to many many good causes is guilty of sin? My brother who had several vertebrae removed, was pumped full of morphine for far longer than was necessary and became of hardcore opiate addict as a result, is a sinner?
I won't even get into stem cell research and birth control....
Religion is truly for the backwards.
Sanctimonious bastards. They've got the last three of the list pretty much sewn up on their own in some parts of the world ... largely through enforcing the first. Sh1th34ds*.
*IMHO, of course. Other opinions are available ... including ones that don't foreclose on your free will and ability to have a life untainted by guilt.
@13-
I don't know what God thinks about the Vatican adding these laws by themselves. Did God ever appoint them as His spokesperson in the first place?
Jesus (who both is, and is not God for some reason) appointed Peter as His spokesman in Matthew 16:18-9, and allowed Peter to make laws on Earth that would be binding in Heaven. Therefore, G-d is behind this nonsense 100%.
Apparently Peter's push-to-talk line with JHVH got passed from Peter all the way down to this Ratzinger chap who calls the shots these days.
I'm glad the Vatican is warning people of the dangers of accumulating excessive wealth.
Being a good example for others apparently just missed making the list.
AH those crazy kids at the world's largest real estate operation! How about the child raping huh? Or the targeting of the poor for recruits and the increasing of the ranks of the poor by opposing family planning? All those vatican art treasures gathering dust when they could be sold for food for the hungry. Aboriginal people everywhere still badly wounded from having the native beat out of them. All those nuns,monks and priests with blighted lives from having their natural sexuality crushed in the name of subjugation to church power. Gay people everywhere, murdered by church sanction and still being made to fight for basic human rights. Cultural treasures lost to the bonfires of the church in South America, The Inquisition, the retarding of science, the wilfull delay of medical advances, the overweening hypocrisy , the brutality, the greed, the ignorance......
How dare they show their faces much less preach about "sin"?
These comments are really interesting in what they reveal about Boing Boing readership. Or at least the small percentage that bother to comment.
I could have guessed that people would take issue with #1 and #2. I am genuinely surprised at the comments regarding 3-7. In line with that percentage, I think religion on the whole is a positive force in the world. The Catholic church is to be applauded for making the attempt to update their list.
Yet one more revelation to add to the bunch.
Jim
I hear David Fincher and Brad Pitt are already signed up to do "Se7en 2." Can't wait.
Sometimes you can create poverty by not using birth control.
they know how to show a girl a good time though
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/santiago/ladytort.gif
@21 -
ITA.
If you force people to have more children than they can afford, and strong-arm them into tithing even when they can barely scrape by, then lo-and-behold you:
5. Contribute to widening divide between rich and poor (through)
6. Your own excessive wealth (and)
7. Creating poverty
It seems as if the only Catholics able to have sex without consequences are the (supposedly celibate) priests.
I'm consistently shocked that there are still roughly 76 million people in the US alone who subscribe to this deadly nonsense. Three times as many as the next largest cult, Baptists. They accuse me of being in a cult because I wear black clothes, and yet they worship this bloody corpse hanging from an instrument of torture and death. Yeah, I'm the one that's morbid.
And you're right, Kid, they just threw those obvious ones in so they could get away with calling drug addicts and scientists sinners. The reason they are against abortion is because they want catholics to make more catholics who will give them more money. None of them are intelligent enough to actually think through the issue.
Oh, btw, I went to catholic school, was an alter boy, the whole nine.
As a recovering Catholic, I can only give a resounding "Hell Yeah!" to Takuan for #24.
Amen, brother. Testify.
The 21st century is going to require frequent New Sin updates.
Remember that BB story about "people" in Second Life having virtual sex with unicorns in order to give birth to virtual pet unicorns? That's gotta be a sin to these guys. (Maybe not as bad a sin as actual sex with a unicorn, which won't be happening without some serious advances in genetic engineering.)
I'm all for FAITH, but organized religion always smacks of bigotry and hatred, regardless of who it's from--hell, every religion in the world sans modern pagan reimaginings are rife with bigotry. How can a good person be happily religious but also be socially liberal?
You just can't have that kind of doublethink--either you believe that the Bible is dead wrong about slavery, gays, women's lib, et al. or it's absolutely right. This "interpretation" stuff is all right and good, but the people who are vehemently Evangelical ARE the ones who are the most accurate--most religions are just hateful from my perspective.
Hmmm . . .
7 Deadly Sins, now 14, to 4 Cardinal virtues, still 4.
How depressing does Catholicism get?
How am I supposed to keep up with all these new sins? I've only just gotten through the first seven... I'm only human!
'Bioethical', 'morally dubious' 'contributing to widening...' Is it me, or are these new ones a bit subjective?
The old ones neatly encompassed human nature and motivations, these ones, well they're a pathetic attempt to remain relevant.
I used to be able to manage all 7 sins in 30 seconds, I'll have to improve my routine to get the rest in within a decent time-frame each day.
sing along with Joanie!
I was an unmarried girl
I'd just turned twenty-seven
When they sent me to the sisters
For the way men looked at me
Branded as a jezebel
I knew I was not bound for Heaven
I'd be cast in shame
Into the Magdalene laundries
Most girls come here pregnant
Some by their own fathers
Bridget got that belly
By her parish priest
We're trying to get things white as snow
All of us woe-begotten-daughters
In the steaming stains
Of the Magdalene laundries
Prostitutes and destitutes
And temptresses like me--
Fallen women--
Sentenced into dreamless drudgery ...
Why do they call this heartless place
Our Lady of Charity?
Oh charity!
These bloodless brides of Jesus
If they had just once glimpsed their groom
Then they'd know, and they'd drop the stones
Concealed behind their rosaries
They wilt the grass they walk upon
They leech the light out of a room
They'd like to drive us down the drain
At the Magdalene laundries
Peg O'Connell died today
She was a cheeky girl
A flirt
They just stuffed her in a hole!
Surely to God you'd think at least some bells should ring!
One day I'm going to die here too
And they'll plant me in the dirt
Like some lame bulb
That never blooms come any spring
Not any spring
No, not any spring
Not any spring
I see they've forgotten to add "General Stupidity" to the list. If for nothing else, I'd like to hear the confession "Forgive me father, for I am stupid."
I love the way that 2 is "morally debatable experiments" , or "morally dubious" (depending on the source). Now perhaps I have this sinning thing wrong but ... how did anything 'debatable' get on a list of edicts ?
They don't come out and say : "NO heretical tampering with creation", but instead: "possibly best not to tinker with stuff, not sure though"
Takuan, that just gave me chills. Good quote, good call, as always.
Wait, where's rickrolling?
Good Lord, Catholic Church.
I'm totally taking back all those amusing altar kid stories I told about you.
'Morally dubious'...
Wow, a recursive definition of sin!
'Bioethical' violations...
Bio-unethical violations are fine.
So... any takers on a single act that will either simultaneously commit or directly lead to the commission of all new 7 deadly sins?
Seems to me that not using birth control can result in most of them...
LUST is back in fashion! Yippee!
And, as for "bioethical violations", I believe Lea Delaria once said "Life begins when you learn to mind your own f*cking business."
"5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor"
...but its okay to tell them that condoms cause AIDS:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
"So... any takers on a single act that will either simultaneously commit or directly lead to the commission of all new 7 deadly sins?"
Elliot Spitzer FTW.
When I first saw this post, I thought it said, "Vulcan comes up with a new list of Seven Sins."
Ironically, both the planet and the god have more moral authority than the papacy.
@jamesmason:
"I think religion on the whole is a positive force in the world."
I almost vomited when I read this.
Please tell all of the Israelis, Palestinians, Sudanese, Jews, Native Americans, homosexuals, and too many more to list here that religion is a positive force in the world.
You make me sick.
As for the new 7-deadly sins, "morally dubious" scientific research as judged by whom? Don't think the church is quite equipped to deal with scientific matters after that whole Galileo fiasco.
G. Park @18 and 22: Apostolic succession was (arguably) broken sometime in the Middle Ages, which is one of the big justifications for Protestantism. The argument went that if the Pope doesn't have a warrant from the physically risen Christ, then the Catholic Church ought not to have any special role in spiritual life. That the Church carried on claiming such a role made it, in the eyes of many Protestants, an instrument of Satan. Even English Protestantism was strongly influenced by this belief, particularly prior to the Restoration.
And whoever suggested Jesus was a Catholic: not so much. He lived and died a Jew.
"let your faith light the world,
set fire to the church of your choice today"
So, according to this list, there is nothing wrong with buggery of children and conspiracies to cover up crimes?
They also left off another one of their favorites--thou shalt not have a relationship with God that is unmediated by Us.
It reminds me once again why I left these bastards for good, as soon as I was grown up enough to see the difference...
Looks like they "forgot" to add pedophilia.
Looks like they "forgot" to add pedophilia.
"The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church". BBC article
KHONSU wrote:
"You just can't have that kind of doublethink--either you believe that the Bible is dead wrong about slavery, gays, women's lib, et al. or it's absolutely right."
Yeah, I agree - it is dead wrong about those things. However, for the most part, Jesus was on the "right" side of these issues. Modern biblical scholars can identify what he probably said and lots of other stuff that was said in his name, or added by others, etc., and the latter is the stuff that makes lots of rules, oppression, etc. BTW - this drives lots of people crazy but it's the truth. I spent two years of my life going to seminary to try and figure this out.
My main point - If you look at the *gist* of his message, it is in line with what I would guess about 95% of the people who read Boing Boing think.
The problem is that organized religion doesn't really do *gist* very well.
I don't want to preach, just share the message that Jesus wanted us to love other people unconditionally, and that's not a bad thing.
Also, you don't have to believe in magic to be a Christian. I don't. For that matter, I don't really believe in God, but still consider myself a Christian.
Now I suppose I have made someone else sick...
I was just thinking about that 'Jesus was a Jew' thing. Wouldn't he be a Christian simply by believing in himself?
Anyway, yeah. pretty depressing in a lot of ways. Earth needs a good strong plague to thin us humans out a bit.
@54
just don't kill anyone, OK?
Re: these comments, for the most part:
Is hateful bigotry a sign of freedom? No. But it
always has an element of fear in it.
"Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities."
G.K.Chesterton
? are you suggesting we are bigots because we hate the catholic church because of the fear it inspires in us?
Are you suggesting we are irresponsible because we decline catholic rules?
There is no problem with anything jesus said and jesus was not a jew because...jesus didn't exist!
Arguing about the alleged doings and beliefs of a myth is worse than most internet arguments unless they are taking place in a fan fiction forum.
"historical" jesus is bigger scam than the religion he didn't spawn
Catholicism, or the culture it resided in, gave us Bach and Handel's Messiah. That's got to count for something. Oh and Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel and da Vinci's Mona Lisa. There were some good things to come from the Church.
Re: Jesus is a Jew, I thought he was an Essene?
Re: The need for a plague, you go first, I'll be right behind, I promise.
Re: Either the Bible is right or wrong about slavery etc. Well, if you reject black and white either/or thinking, and you should, you can't then turn around and use it to criticize one's opponent.
So if you reject the narrow minded thinking that leads some people to a restrictive, fundamentalist interpretation of a sacred text. Then you should also evaluate said text from a more scholarly or literary view. You should also try not to as big an asshole as they are.
Atheists can be just as tiresome as Fundamentalists. Case in point, Pharyngula.
"Catholicism, or the culture it resided in, gave us Bach and Handel's Messiah. That's got to count for something. Oh and Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel and da Vinci's Mona Lisa. There were some good things to come from the Church."
nope, nope, nope, nopeity nope nope no.
People gave us all that. Probably all would have been better if the church power barons of the day weren't steering the artists and creators. The church gets credit for nothing.
Here we go again, from the "do as I say not as I do" church.
* "'Morally dubious' experiments" such as ignoring pederasty, wiping out entire competing religious sects, destroying artifacts and history of competitors...
* "Drug abuse ... Polluting the environment ... Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor" -- such as claims about guardian angels, eternal damnation, et al that cause people to accept oppressive living conditions and fear authority in return for reward in an imaginary afterlife - for millenia.
* "Excessive wealth" - see: St. Francis; how many crowns *does* a Pope need?
* "Creating poverty" -- see: South America
(I'm secretly hoping a rabid true believer will savage us here soon - I'm dying to try out "sallykerning")
Lizardman,
I think that very few historians would agree with you.
I'm secretly hoping a rabid true believer will savage us here soon
You want me to defend the Most Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church? Fine! Here goes. There has been no more fertile breeding ground for gorgeously costumed male homosexuality since late antiquity. Chew on that.
They paid for those works Takuan. Would they have existed without the religion in which they arose? I wonder. Anyway, it's the best counter argument I can come up with at the moment.
Please don't tell me that you're going to play the tired card again. I can't take it anymore!
I'm perhaps as atheistic as they come (I used to be an evangelical Dawkins-style atheist even), but after a few years of rabid anti-Christianity when I reached the age of reason and rejected my religious upbringing, I've come to have a more nuanced view of the matter. I think religion is on the whole, like most human institutions, a mixed bag.
Yes, it's suppressed knowledge and progress and resulted in tons of needless suffering and death, but it also motivates millions of individuals to be happy and act kindly towards others. It's also not the only major offender when it comes to crimes against humanity since there are plenty of (more or less) secular regimes guilty of genocide, wide-scale persecution, thought control and other nasty things.
I'm a far bigger fan of reason than faith (I happen to be a philosopher by trade), but it is probably true that most of the beliefs that most people have are not adequately supported by evidence, and that most of reasoning is rationalization anyway.
My point: let's not paint religion, organized or otherwise, in broad brushstrokes, calling it hopelessly evil or what-have-you, especially if we disapprove of it for reasons like its simplistic black-and-white thinking and its hypocrisy.
(That said, I do think the Catholic Church as an institution is extremely blameworthy for its stance on birth control, which likely causes far more suffering than those more sensationalist pedophilia cases. Conversely, though, it deserves credit for opposing the unjust distribution of resources when many Protestant Churches, for example, are nervously looking the other way on that one.)
The people paid. The church collected.
In any case, we can't be arguing. You are sane.
I agree with IRREAL. If you think these newfangled things are sins (and I could go along with the last four, for sure) then you can simply assign each of them to the wider scope of the deadly sin(s) to which they correspond:
1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control (LUST)
2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research (PRIDE, probably GREED considering big Pharma would be the industry involved here)
3. Drug abuse (err...maybe GLUTTONY? The Church is on weak ground with drugs in general)
4. Polluting the environment (SLOTH, GREED, etc)
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor (GREED)
6. Excessive wealth (MORE GREED)
7. Creating poverty (GREED YET AGAIN)
This comes across as just so much Vatican Marketing(TM).
gotta use the broad brush. We are up against a huge, well funded, well defended, utterly ruthless propaganda machine that has had its way for centuries. Try using nuance and they'll flood you.
Look at the archbishop beardy and the press circus.
They are recruiting the poor, uneducated and vulnerable. The only effective counter-propaganda is exposure of their most lurid crimes.
Well, I think I have covered two or three of the new sins on my Boch-ian painting "The Return of the Blue Man":
http://public.cwpanama.net/~ysanson/arte/arte1.html (last one to the right)
and a couple more on "Bad Roots":
http://public.cwpanama.net/~ysanson/arte/arten.html (last one to the right, too)
-click on the + sign for greater detail-
still, I would have to work on a new ones for the bioethical stuff... said that, what will I win? The Vatican as a patron would be nice, absolution nicer.
AH... *luxuriates in his sinful decrepitude*
I can't believe they left off "Being a judgmental ass". Oh... wait, never mind.
I must say, the new list is quite a bit more confusing. Didn't the catholic church learn in school that scare quotes are ungrammatical? Now they should write it over a hundred times.
As regards this whole religious bit, Terry Eagleton wrote a good review of Dawkins /Delusion/ about a year ago that struck me as sensible. I'm not religious but I'm not sure all the same that the great evils of the church are intrinsic to its theology.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
an interesting essay, if too wordy. Here's the only bit in there:
"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."
My own doctrine is: "it's hopeless, but you fight anyway". Don't need jesus or popes for that.
Now, why is it that I have conspicuously failed to butcher millions in an attempt to enslave the planet?
I think it's because I'm honest. And them priests ain't.
I'm entirely in favor of #4-7. #3 depends on the definitions of the words "drug" and "abuse".
#1 - ok, now they're double-dipping. it's a sin to have sex for non-reproductive reasons AND to use birth control? two sins in one! (well, four, if you count that doctrine where you sin once by deciding to do something, then again by actually doing it...)
#2 - how on earth can it be a major sin to do something "morally dubious"? being morally dubious means the jury's still out on whether or not it's immoral.
I hope they realize their saviors blood is chock full of the most abused drug on the planet.
My new 7 Deadly Sins after reading the Bible, corresponding to the original 7:
1. Pride -> Memes
2. Envy -> Squirrels
3. Gluttony -> Caffeine
4. Lust -> Porn
5. Anger -> Trolling
6. Greed -> Goatse
7. Sloth -> Youtube
self-righteousness?
Takuan - "In any case, we can't be arguing. You are sane."
Huh? Is debate better then? Because to me to argue means to debate. So I am sort of playing "Devil's advocate" here, if you pardon the pun. Ideally it would be nice to "argue" without everyone getting bent out of shape over it. And yeah, I can be a hot head too, I've been working on doing better.
Re: Religion, I'm in the Spinobobot camp. I believe in science 'n stuff but I have doubts about my doubts. I can't help it, it's how I am. When ever I come across someone with different beliefs I always think "Humm.. what if they are right?"
Re: Antinous - "playing the tired card. Nope, not gonna. That's why it's bedtime for me starting now....
I'm probably the closest thing you get here to a rabid true believer, as I think the list is pretty great but also don't mind the abuse of my Church when it's warranted.
Watch out for reporting on the Vatican or Vatican officials (this is not an official pronouncement, by the way, just one guy in an interview); it's almost always wrong, mistranslated or misunderstood. This one seems to have even more variance than most. No one seems to agree on what the seven sins are, or even if there are seven - some have no numbering at all.
There're at least four different varieties on the subject of pedophilia, too, since it came up in many of the comments. The original post doesn't mention it in the list, which is odd. A few do that, and a few just have it as one on the list. The BBC and the AP go into more detail:
The BBC is openly hostile, as above: "He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".
The AP has "Closer to home, Girotti was asked about the many "situations of scandal and sin within the church," in what appeared to be a reference to allegations in the United States and other countries of sexual abuse by clergy of minors and the coverups by hierarchy.
The monsignor acknowledged the "objective gravity" of the allegations, but contended that the heavy coverage by mass media of the scandals must also be denounced because it "discredits the church.""
I'd like to see a direct translation instead of soundbites, since lack of context never helped anyone except the news media, but very little gets translated. Oh, for primary sources...
definitely more sense than me...
RE; the art competition (I hate competitions, esp. art competitions)I'm thinking more Gustave Dore, but it might take me a while to do it.
@ 64
Antinous,
From my admittedly limited experience a good number of historians will agree with me but most know better than to make such an unpopular public outcry. The fact that there is still a case made for there being a historical jesus is a political and social situation rather than one of interpeting facts. Not to mention that most people who are doing the history have a vested interest in continuing to claim there was a historical jesus
Outside of the bible there is little to no mention or support for jesus as even just a historical figure. Given what we know or can at least assert to know of the bible's (group) authorship it is most likely that jesus is an amalgam character based on various persons and echoing ideas popular with the writers - which goes a long way to explaining some of his positional variances.
In any other case we would hardly accept one document (which is known to have several other historical inaccuracies - many of which were seemingly willfully included / manufactured) to be the deciding evidence
Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me.
How come the original list only took one word to scare you, but the new list needs a bunch of explanation?
In the last couple of days I read (don't think it was on BoingBoing, maybe Yahoo news?) that the US Catholic Church had paid out $600 million in abuse case settlements in 2007. Which brings up my fundamental issues with the church: 1) that they ignored, covered up, and condoned abuse by priests, and 2) that they have $600 million.
I'm a C&E Catholic (Christmas and Easter - that joke actually made by a priest one Christmas mass). I only attend at holidays when we go down to stay with my wife's family (and even then not every time). I never give them money. I have not gone to church regularly since I was about 14 years old (my mother cried when I refused to go, that's one of the worst things I ever felt in my life).
And so I find myself, any time the church is mentioned, making comments along the lines of "I'll believe in them when they remember their vow of poverty and sell their gold mansions and use the money to help the poor". I believe in God and in Jesus, at least I think I do, maybe I just believe in the ideals they represent. I just can't stand any kind of organized religion, it really is just a guilt trip into giving money.
Why am I saying all this? Just to point out that the Catholic Church is not all powerful, it is not all evil (there are lots of folks who truly believe), it's really just another of the Jim Bakker type scams, only it's been around a lot longer. It might have been born of real belief, but it certainly got corrupted along the way.
In summary: this is yet another worthless pronouncement by a worthless group of people. To paraphrase Billy Connolly: "Why are we being told how to f*ck by the f*ckless?".
Or U2: "I'd join the movement if there was one I could believe in, yeah I'd break bread and wine if there was a church I could receive in".
@ 85
How so? I don't think that phrase means what one of us thinks it does.
Obviously, I cannot prove there was no historical jesus. However, I can and have come to the conclusion that the evidence given for such a person is extremely lacking and utterly unconvincing. I am open to seeing more evidence, in fact I have devoted a great deal of time looking for it as I was once in the position of thinking there was a historical jesus (but have always been an atheist) and upon being challenged on that point was unable to back it up and thusly changed my position.
SteveKM - the church DOESN'T have 600 million, at least not in liquid assets. What happens whenever those large settlements are levied is that the church has to sell a lot of its land and close a lot of institutions, like schools, monasteries and parishes - many of which are the ways in which it does try to help the poor.
That doesn't absolve them of #1. I can only hope that the media attention and the lawsuits will do what moral rectitude should have, and end the cover-ups.
I don't buy the scam hypothesis, though. If the priests themselves were making millions instead of, as they mostly do, living communally in small houses or apartments, working 60+ hours a week, and the like. They could make a lot more working in the secular world, and a LOT more if they joined a different religion or made their own (ah, L. Ron).
Takuan @ #63 said:
(I'm secretly hoping a rabid true believer will savage us here soon - I'm dying to try out "sallykerning")
While I'm not at all rabid, I do truly believe in YHWH and His plan for His creation. It is my "thing" to tell this story always, but it does it, me, or those listening no good if I'm a jerk, idiot, et c. while telling it. I'm part of what the (Roman) Catholic church now calls "seperated bretheren." I like this new list, but would list it backwards myself. I'd also get out the word about what Saul/Paul meant when writing 1 Corintians 7. I also don't really see anything wrong with avoiding like the plague the things on the first list. So what is this "sallykerning" you speak of? If it would help you to "get it out" (whatever it is), go ahead and do it to me.
Christ was a mushroom. Original "Christianity" was the inner state achieved from consuming same. Way too much Love and freedom running around loose. The church took care of that. Thanks Takuan
Why are 5, 6 and 7 the same thing?
Why are 5, 6 and 7 the same thing?
I can't believe it took 91 comments for someone to ask that.
...
And on the "was there a historical Jesus" debate... there is exactly as much historical evidence for the existence of the man known as Jesus Christ as there is for the idea that a large society of Jews were once enslaved in Egypt: absolutely none.
I'm with 30 & 70.
This new list doesn't seem to get the point of the original seven deadly sins at all.
The first list, which is a great list (each and every one a sin I cherish and adore ('cepting maybe envy, maybe)) is a list of drives. It's a breakdown of the parts of human nature which motivate us to do things that might hurt others or ourselves. It's a good list.
The new list is just a list of things that a committee ideologically committed to sentiment over reason has semi-arbitrarily decided are bad.
The hating on organised religions is always funny. The absolute certainty, the - capital f - Faith that they do more harm than good... Cleverer people than me have pointed out the religious zealotry apparent in the denouncements.
@93-
"The absolute certainty, the - capital f - Faith that they do more harm than good"
I've never heard of scientists starting an 80-year war of occupation to secure some real estate. Also, I don't remember any scientists torturing and killing thousands upon thousands of people, just for having different ideas. The last official Inquisition was ended in 1858, so the Holy See has only been Inquisition-free for 150 years, which is about 7.5% of its history. And last I checked, the National Science Teacher Association didn't have a pending class action lawsuit vis a vis statutory rape.
You may call it "religious zealotry," but I'm perfectly willing to accept evidence that the Catholic Church (or dogma in general) has done more good than it has done harm. However, looking at the history books, and looking at the atrocities that Islam is inspiring worldwide, I have yet to see a convincing argument that religion makes the world a better place for anyone other than its own adherents.
Is this even branch of Christian anymore?
First they substracted commandment, now they add 7 new sins?!
Jesus was pretty sharp guy and some claim he knew the future (or at least predict it with god-like accuracy). He might easily add these. And even in form understandable to ppl of his time.
1. Human life starts at conception, so behold punishment for killing the unborn.
2. Human life is sanctified and any tempering with it is forbidden in the name of thine God. (this would definetely hurt medicine, just as stem cell research blocking may hurt it now)
3. Do not cloud thine mind by impure substances.
4. Thou shall cherish nature and thou shall not litter.
5. (ok maybe not this one... it's some BS even now, but let me try) Thou shall pay close attention to sins 6 and 7. Very close.
6. Thou shall not be wealthier than thine bishop.
7. Thou shall not make people poor.
@94 -
Excellent points all, if'n a religion good or bad argument was what I was talking about.
(I'll accept that it may have seemed that I was talking about that - I'm not a scientist and thusly my comment wasn't phrased with the elegance and clarity that a scientist could have achieved.)
Dude, what I was talking about was that thing where anti-religious sentiment occupies the same place in the brain as religious sentiment - it hits moral buttons, with reason only being brought in to buttress what the advocate already feels is right. Is what it seems like to me.
Now, maybe you weren't doing this - but there are plenty of examples on this thread of this happening. And I get it - I get that righteous anger is fun - believe me, I know how much fun it is. And the calling out the litany of the sins of your enemies - I know that is fun too.
I guess - sorting out my thoughts a little - that what I roll my eyes at a bit is that when religion comes up in certain circles it seems like just an excuse for some hating, which I don't think is that constructive. That a priori relegation of anything with a religious base to somewhere between worthless, stupid and evil.
I see it as a positive trend. At least it is an attempt to stay current, finally, from one of our most staid and unchanging institutions. They are at least attempting to move up into the 1970's, which is an improvement of 2 or 3 centuries.
Overall, though, I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens that one of the worst attributes of modern religion is that it encourages people to settle for deferred justice.
Church better get working then. They are guilty of #5 and #6 for sure.
PFFTT..wow, #5 and #6 are clearly visible within that organization ( adding the other Catholic affiliates..)..this is hillarious, what a paradox.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, what's next?
"Thou shalt not hack thy neighbor's WiFi"
Really i don't think the church has to worry much about my becoming excessively rich. The good lord saw fit to make me particularly resilient against that sin, damn him.
But surely one couldn't commit any of the new sins without having committ