Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

[BryanS]

Lust, gluttony, greed and the rest of the seven deadly sins gathered in the 6th century will have to get used to a modern companion. A Vatican official has articulated seven new categories of sin "due to the phenomenon of globalization."

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

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/1...-to-vatican/?hp (read the comments)

Don't agree with #1 or #2... among many others, not listed here...

EDIT: Don't agree with #1 or #2 being on the list... Don't have an issue with birth control or stem cell research...

[gwilson]

Am I the only one that finds these hilarious since the Roman Catholic church is the most wealthy institution on the planet and their convert base and much of their member base are those in poverty around the world?

[houstonmacbro]

Religion itself is ludicrous. The Catholics are no more agregious than any others.

[CDeb]

Am I the only one that finds these hilarious since the Roman Catholic church is the most wealthy institution on the planet and their convert base and much of their member base are those in poverty around the world?

For all the Roman Catholic Church's faults, can you name me another institution in human history that has done as much good in the world?

[houstonmacbro]

Or as much evil.

[CDeb]

Or as much evil.

Then you're not trying very hard.

[houstonmacbro]

It's not up to me to prove the worthiness of religion. But it is up to religion to answer to the many horrific things it does around the world (and not just Catholics) in the name of god.

[ricco67]

Lust, gluttony, greed and the rest of the seven deadly sins gathered in the 6th century will have to get used to a modern companion. A Vatican official has articulated seven new categories of sin "due to the phenomenon of globalization."

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

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/1...-to-vatican/?hp (read the comments)

Don't agree with #1 or #2... among many others, not listed here...

I don't particularly agree with the first couple of them, but #6 caught my attention.

There was a clarification by the church on this one that made me feel a bit better by it. Supposedly, this is aimed at people that are "in love" with their own wealth are not responsible with it. To me, this falls under the guise of greed. But the Church (which I prefer to think of myself as a Super Delegate of) feels that if you have enough wealth, it is your responsibility to help others in your community with it, be it helping an individual, or creating something more grand. but whatever.

[Jeebus]

For all the Roman Catholic Church's faults, can you name me another institution in human history that has done as much good in the world?

No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

[lockmat]

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

And yes, the God of the old testament is the same one that's in the new.

[ricco67]

No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

Are you asking about Catholicism or religion as a whole?

Being a poor defender of the faith (I'm agnostic or apathetic, depending on your point of view), but raised catholic; I find that the Catholic's Church's role in a variety of atrocities in the past totally reprehensible. I'm not simply talking about the inquisition, but also suppressing science in the name of religion to keep their own power. Now, at the same time, the church has "FUNDED" quite a few things that have benefited history in the long run, but for the wrong reasons.

Now as far as religion itself goes, I believe that it gives people some sort of solace that there is something bigger than themselves. A way to give a moral compass in what they do and how they lead their day to day lives.

[CDeb]

No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

How so?

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

The Roman Catholic Church is reponsible for the existence of countless:

Universities

Hospitals

Primary and secondary schools

Orphanages

Shelters

Soup kitchens

Ministries to poor

Ministries to families

Ministries to the elderly

Additionally, Catholic Relief Services provides assistance to 80 million people in more than 100 countries worldwide and Catholic Charities is the second largest social services provider in the US after the Federal Government.

The Roman Catholic Church has had a lot of warts in its history, and none of its members are perfect. But I stand by my assertion that no other institution has done as much good in the world. If you have one that would top it, I would be very interested, of course.

[west20th]

The Roman Catholic Church has had a lot of warts in its history, and none of its members are perfect. But I stand by my assertion that no other institution has done as much good in the world. If you have one that would top it, I would be very interested, of course.

I got a lot of issues with the Catholic church but it should be pointed out that their charities are among the most efficient. The percentage of funds dedicated to fund raising is among the lowest. So if your looking for a spot for your charitable donations that would be one good place.

[webdude]

Bioethical violation birth control? I guess molesting little boys is an approved alternative method?

"due to the phenomenon of globalization". Oh my, now that things like science and information and other beliefs are more freely available, its gotta be harder to spread our old crap, so let's add some new crap to guilt folks so we don't lose our hold on them.

[houstonmacbro]

Or the church's role in the Rwandan tragedies.

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafri.../art_10231.html

[lockmat]

Or the church's role in the Rwandan tragedies.

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafri.../art_10231.html

I don't blame people for making blanket judgments, but I think it's better to judge on an individual basis. One Christian who believes and acts correctly (or any other religion for that matter), can only encourage another to do the right thing, not make them, if they're behaving contradictory to the truth. So while I understand labeling an act upon 'the church,' one still needs to be discerning. Afterall, the Bible does teach of 'wolves in sheeps clothing.' Meaning as you know, that not all who claim to be Christians, truly are.

[houstonmacbro]

I don't blame people for making blanket judgments, but I think it's better to judge on an individual basis. One Christian who believes and acts correctly (or any other religion for that matter), can only encourage another to do the right thing, not make them, if they're behaving contradictory to the truth. So while I understand labeling an act upon 'the church,' one still needs to be discerning. Afterall, the Bible does teach of 'wolves in sheeps clothing.' Meaning as you know, that not all who claim to be Christians, truly are.

It's been my observation that many (not all and maybe not even most) people that claim religion and God and Jesus act in ways that utterly astound and baffle me.

It is often the spiritual people that are in touch with themselves and their 'god', that make no dramatic announcements, and just 'DO' that are the 'religious' people that I respect the most.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear "I'm saved ... I'm blessed and highly favored' (etc.) and then you see them off doing very unsaved things or speaking in very unsaved manners.

But whatever.

[lockmat]

It's been my observation that many (not all and maybe not even most) people that claim religion and God and Jesus act in ways that utterly astound and baffle me.

It is often the spiritual people that are in touch with themselves and their 'god', that make no dramatic announcements, and just 'DO' that are the 'religious' people that I respect the most.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear "I'm saved ... I'm blessed and highly favored' (etc.) and then you see them off doing very unsaved things or speaking in very unsaved manners.

But whatever.

I understand. I see it too. But the Bible doesn't say once saved, sin is nonexistent in their life. Keep that in perspective. And I'm sure you're probably talking about more extreme things, but also remember where we live, many people are 'born into' Christianity. The Bible doesn't teach salvation is passed on by birth. So what you get are a lot of people who claim the religion, maybe go to church once a week/month/year and don't even try to live according to what they 'say' they believe the other days they're not sitting in the pew. See, even people who don't claim Christ can see 'the wolves' sometimes.

[WesternGulf]

I do not think this is adding, just a re-confirmation. Does someone religous need to be warned that polluting the environment is a sin? The Vatican could come up with all types of "new" sins that some do not need to be reminded of. Just a reminder that some people need to think for themselves and not to focus on, mainly for political reasons, a few issues. The Bible may not talk about the sport of hunting for the purpose of just leaving an animal for dead, but many including myself still think it is wrong.

[HtownWxBoy]

Woo Hoo... more sins to commit!!

[H-Town Man]

Are you asking about Catholicism or religion as a whole?

Being a poor defender of the faith (I'm agnostic or apathetic, depending on your point of view), but raised catholic; I find that the Catholic's Church's role in a variety of atrocities in the past totally reprehensible. I'm not simply talking about the inquisition, but also suppressing science in the name of religion to keep their own power. Now, at the same time, the church has "FUNDED" quite a few things that have benefited history in the long run, but for the wrong reasons.

Now as far as religion itself goes, I believe that it gives people some sort of solace that there is something bigger than themselves. A way to give a moral compass in what they do and how they lead their day to day lives.

So even when the church did something right, it was for the wrong reasons, huh? Just non-stop evil for 2,000 years? Sounds like somebody still resents having to go to Mass as a child.

[lockmat]

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

I would have to say these four are for sure adding. The Bible is not explict or even implicit on these situations. Jesus helped the poor and even commands it, but at the same time says there will always be poor. It's a fact. There's nothing morally wrong with being poor, just like there's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich.

[H-Town Man]

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

They domesticated the barbarians who invaded Rome and turned them into a civilized people.

Their monasteries and churches were pretty much the source of charity in the middle ages.

They saved and passed down the intellectual works of the ancient world so that they could benefit the modern.

They have, for 2,000 years, maintained an army of people spread throughout the world who are on call 24/7 for any parishioner's need. They counsel marriages, visit the sick, console people in times of grief, and are woken up in the middle of the night to go sit with people in hospitals when there is an emergency. In none of these circumstances to they ask for pay, and sometimes the people they help are strangers who they have never seen before and will never see again. They endure (and have always endured) constant ridicule from the societies they live in without saying a word. They are called priests.

I would have to say these four are for sure adding. The Bible is not explict or even implicit on these situations. Jesus helped the poor and even commands it, but at the same time says there will always be poor. It's a fact. There's nothing morally wrong with being poor, just like there's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich.

The Bible is not explicit or even implicit? There's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich?

"Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-4

Are we reading the same Bible?

[H-Town Man]

It's not up to me to prove the worthiness of religion. But it is up to religion to answer to the many horrific things it does around the world (and not just Catholics) in the name of god.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.... Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" Matthew 7:15-23

There's your answer.

[ricco67]

So even when the church did something right, it was for the wrong reasons, huh? Just non-stop evil for 2,000 years? Sounds like somebody still resents having to go to Mass as a child.

Not that. I just didn't like people's attitudes after they left church. Even today I get all sorts of hell for not going to a church. Whenever someone calls on my door at religion, I usually say, "No thanks, I'll give at the office" or "I'm waiting to see if I pass the death test."

They domesticated the barbarians who invaded Rome and turned them into a civilized people.

Who says that the barbarians WEREN'T civilized to begin with?

Maybe some christians can come to the HAIF to civilized some of the members.

The Bible is not explicit or even implicit? There's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich?

"Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-4

Are we reading the same Bible?

Depends on which version you're talking about.

I heard tracking down and reading the original gospels (which the Bible is composed of) is the "in" thing to do.

[lockmat]

The Bible is not explicit or even implicit? There's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich?

"Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-4

Are we reading the same Bible?

The Rich man had a problem with pride and his faith was in his money/posessions. There's nothing inherently wrong with money. Look at a few characters in the old testament. David and Solomon. Among two of the richest men who ever lived, yet they're heralded among Christians and God because of their great faith. That rich man was being tested.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:34

The rich young man was wondering what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus told him to keep the commandmens, which he said he did, yet we know nobody is perfect so he way lying. Jesus went along with it anyway and then told him to give away all his posessions and follow him. And this is key: "When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

He wasn't willing to give up his 'life' to follow Christ. He would rather have money/posessions than Jesus. The point being that to follow Christ, it costs your life, not so much that being rich is bad.

And consider the verses following those:

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26But Jesus^(AJ) looked at them and said, ^(AK) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Then Peter said in reply, "See,^(AL) we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world,^[b](AM) when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me^(AN) will also sit on twelve thrones,^(AO) judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29^(AP) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name

[H-Town Man]

The Rich man had a problem with pride and his faith was in his money/posessions. There's nothing inherently wrong with money. Look at a few characters in the old testament. David and Solomon. Among two of the richest men who ever lived, yet they're heralded among Christians and God because of their great faith. That rich man was being tested.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:34

The rich young man was wondering what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus told him to keep the commandmens, which he said he did, yet we know nobody is perfect so he way lying. Jesus went along with it anyway and then told him to give away all his posessions and follow him. And this is key: "When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

He wasn't willing to give up his 'life' to follow Christ. He would rather have money/posessions than Jesus. The point being that to follow Christ, it costs your life, not so much that being rich is bad.

And consider the verses following those:

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26But Jesus^(AJ) looked at them and said, ^(AK) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Then Peter said in reply, "See,^(AL) we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world,^[b](AM) when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me^(AN) will also sit on twelve thrones,^(AO) judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29^(AP) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name

[ricco67]

It's important to understand the original context and meaning of words. That's why it's so beneficial to go back to the greek, hebrew and aramaic.

We value original context today, same goes for the Bible or any other writings.

I totally agree, but some people don't believe in context and that's why you have fundamentalists (in all religions) today.

While I don't claim to be a true scholar of the bible (or even a knowledgeable novice, I do call out people who I suspect take the verses out of context.

My favorite story:

At the at of 12 (or so), my parents were concerned that I wasn't being very diligent or enthusiastic at Sunday school and the bible (which I had read cover to cover before I had to), the priest came to me and basically asked my opinion on the Bible and I responded, "Not bad. It had some slow parts in the middle, but the ending wasn't very satisfying." he did the sign of the cross and left.

[lockmat]

Read the verses again. He wasn't saying "this rich man." He just said "one who is rich." Meaning ANYONE who is rich. This verse is difficult to accept for a lot of Christians who want to enjoy their wealth, so they try to find ways of twisting it, but the text is pretty clear and plain.

As for David and Solomon, they also had multiple wives (in Solomon's case, hundreds); does that mean it's okay to have multiple wives? Just because those two guys did something doesn't make it okay.

But the reason "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" is not because being rich is wrong, it's because people who are wealthy have a harder time seeing they have a need for Christ/salvation. Our mindsets are so temporal and focused on this earth, that when one has a lot of money, it can get them anything they want. So who needs Christ/salvation? What value does he add? It's not impossible, as Christ says in later verses which i pasted, "with God, all things are possible." I don't think in that case Christ was using hyperbole, but the main point was, one must give up their life, what they value most (in this case his money), that is if it gets in the way of following Christ, to attain eternal life. One must "die to self." Just like money is not THE root of ALL evil, "the love of money is a root of all kinds(not every) of evil." (1Tim 6:10)

My favorite story:

At the at of 12 (or so), my parents were concerned that I wasn't being very diligent or enthusiastic at Sunday school and the bible (which I had read cover to cover before I had to), the priest came to me and basically asked my opinion on the Bible and I responded, "Not bad. It had some slow parts in the middle, but the ending wasn't very satisfying." he did the sign of the cross and left.

haha, what?

Guess he didn't care enough to sit down and do a little explaining?

[H-Town Man]

But the reason "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" is not because being rich is wrong, it's because people who are wealthy have a harder time seeing they have a need for Christ/salvation. Our mindsets are so temporal and focused on this earth, that when one has a lot of money, it can get them anything they want. So who needs Christ/salvation? What value does he add? It's not impossible, as Christ says in later verses which i pasted, "with God, all things are possible." I don't think in that case Christ was using hyperbole, but the main point was, one must give up their life, what they value most (in this case his money), that is if it gets in the way of following Christ, to attain eternal life. One must "die to self." Just like money is not THE root of ALL evil, "the love of money is a root of all kinds(not every) of evil." (1Tim 6:10)

So it's okay to be rich, as long as you aren't focused on money. Kind of like it's okay to eat six course meals as long as you're not gluttonous. But if you aren't gluttonous, then why would you eat six course meals? And if you aren't focused on money, then why hoard up riches for yourself rather than giving them to those in need?

Sorry, but you're not going to argue this one away.