Adding seven more to the list —
Seven deadly sins that Pope Benedict XVI apparently approved in 2008 (see below): “polluting”, “being obscenely rich”, “causing social injustice”
At Vatican, ‘Tenets of Faith’ Seen as Crucial in Climate Change Effort
What we vaguely remember and dismissed at the time as mere embellishment, one can’t under Pope Francis. And his commissions, by his design, will pick up and run with certain of the new seven and we expect that he will obsess about his “favorites” and proceed as a bull in a china closet.
“Jerry Brown, the governor of California, who also spoke at the conference, underlined the importance of religious leaders’ involvement. “Until religious leaders from every part of the world and every denomination are engaged, we will not be able to move aside the huge rock of indifference, complacency and inertia,” he said.”
By golly, if Monsignor Moonbeam is on board with this climate change stuff, how can a ‘good Catholic” not be anxious to go out and take an axe to their air conditioner and send alms to California?
Seriously, we have joked about when Pope Francis would declare “climate change denial” a “deadly sin”.
Anyone think that moment can be very far away?
(Note: In a list published in L’Osservatore Romano in 2008, the Vatican brought the “7 Deadly Sins” up to date. According to a FoxNews report at the time:
“After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday (Mar.10,2008) in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.
“The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.”)
DLH
The Benedict list certainly does not represent the only modern sins, indeed they are not even particularly modern. Evil people have endorsed them as norms but the basic sin and the promotion have always been covered by simple exegesis of the formerly cardinal seven. The ~~ new~~ sins their promotion serve one or more aspect of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride.
Benedict might have been asked the question — why stop with these — and also critiqued for not seeing to sufficient clarification to the more vague of the itemization. Francis, we expect, will have no such reticence to defining what “pollution” and social (in)justice mean, including criticizing if not condemning those who disagree with him.
Some need no clarification. There is little to excuse procured elective abortion as it is akin to infanticide. A whole lot of nuance is not necessary especially in light of the Church’s long defense of life in the womb. Abortion and pedophilia are sinful in the singularity of the acts and of course any promotion of same. But one can understand degrees of pollution, wealth, and that “social injustice” is often an arguable situation when honestly using Biblical standards.
Francis’ little conclave is focused on one, and we do not hesitate to point out that some of those renowned scientists and speakers in their dark hearts see abortion as no sin, indeed a salutary thing decreasing pollution, which is the ultimate offense to Gaia or asceticism or whatever it is they prioritize (not individual human life).
In other matters what they consider the solution to “social injustice” we may well see as social injustice of its own when it impinges on other rights and obligations.
Are we left to determine for ourselves when various of the allegations about social sin – wealth, pollution, are sinful or is it to be the eye of the enforcer? What if we don’t believe current levels of CO2 effluence are polluting that science actually says something different?
Regarding genetic engineering, we realize Benedict was probably talking about human genetic engineering and “clone and kill” experimentation on embryonic humans, but we have no confidence Francis’ cast of characters uniformly oppose that. So are we now talking about the sin of plant generic engineering as in GMO crops which has been a boon to feeding mankind with greater efficiency?
How rich is obscenely rich – would the trappings of the Papistry be included? Indeed how much steak or pasta, asado or chivito can you eat . . . and is having planes, a palace, artwork, guards, air-conditioning at your disposal to be considered obscenely rich?
Drug dealing, well greed is greed, somehow the specification is necessary?
As regards abortion, Francis has emoted some fairly eloquent life affirming statements about it, but he giveth and taketh away on the matter. He implies the church has been obsessed with the subject, what a lie and a diminution at the same time. And has he clamped down on the honors and emoluments given by Catholic institutions to proponents of abortion? Certainly not, they are part of his little conclave.
Pedophilia, we would suggest the inclusion was a timely matter in response to ongoing revelations about clerical involvement.
Then there is “causing social injustice.” — such a ridiculously politically correct catch all.
The way Francis acts, he embraces real-world practitioners of social injustice – communist dictators, whatever they have wrought, and practically shuns cardinals ,bishops and clergy that beg him for clarification on doctrinal matters. He allows confusion to run rampant and new undefined or undefinable sins made sine qua non.
Hypocrisy is allowed, indulgences of a sort are back in vogue. If a political figure preached against “social injustice” of one sort or another even embracing confiscatory government greed, they can be notoriously as black-hearted on abortion as they you want. Francis has not only failed to correct certain US bishops for their embrace of the likes of the Kennedy’s Bidens, Cuomos, Browns, indeed he has embraced as bad as them in public settings. Politeness or discretion has nothing to do with it as he selectively castigates more conservative political leaders.
Assaults on religious liberties of Catholics and other Christians by the left, in the name of social justice of course, — meh — certainly not a concern to do anything about, to make demands about. No ultimatums from Francis. On that score all is negotiable, in the name of tranquility perhaps, the left’s.
The false idea that “peace” means the absence of war . . . that “peace” should be treated as the highest value – meaning contentment with encroachment on freedoms, on culture and Western values (what’s that?) — that compromise is always the highest value even when the hegemony to be exercised after the encroachments is of a predictable violent nature — seems to be the new doctrine, except when it comes to “pollution”.
Nuclear weapons in anyone’s hands are evil, ergo we are as evil as the North Koreans and the Iranians and Soviets and Maoists. Of course their purpose was/is not to defend against us it is to extort. But never mind, the Pope must be evenhanded as he enjoys the protective umbrella of NATO while pontificating in Rome.
What of the great temptation, the envy, greed, lust for power and pride inherent in communism, an unexamined (by him) concept now enshrined almost by his holiness, faults that are a true extant reality of that system as opposed to his characterizations of capitalism.
And what about sins that have been essentially dropped as far as worthy of mention, as if they are not rampant in modern times? We note that homosexuality was not specified in the reporting anyway. Adults can’t sin if they are consenting? Are traditionally understood elements of the original seven deadly sins now “no longer operable” ? Why does Francis not communicate better?
We agree some matters are complicated enough and should be analyzed in ongoing discourse but ideally, if not traditionally, that has been with honest dialogue within the magisterium and not by ignoring or banishing traditionalists, not signaled by offhand comments. It is also one thing to alter ecclesiastical punishments, and another to ignore human failings.
The Church as a “field hospital” analogy, which Pope Francis likes to use, is profoundly inappropriate in its narrowness. It is akin to treating symptoms instead of the disease. Indeed we agree, make everyone feel good with Christ’s message of forgiveness but that is only part of spreading the Gospel. His analogy is as if to suggest that if you don’t feel bad, don’t seek the Word, then everything is OK. People do not go to field hospitals if they feel good. We humans are all sinners all the time. Properly understood the church is at least as comparable to a public health undertaking, preventing disease not simply social work after the fact. But neither is sufficient as an analogy.
The Pope’s should have left the deadly sins litany as it was, and within that, if the shoe fits . . .
R Mall, totally unworthy to be commenting on any of this.
