modern mortal sins (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

jazzact13 -> modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 7:10:24 AM)

quote:

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession - or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.

Modern Evils

Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature


So, PCness is now not just socially acceptable, but going against it is now considered a mortal sin?

And how many of those can even be known? What, for example, is "excessive wealth"? Who determines what is excessive? Or, for that matter, what does "inflicting poverty" mean? And environmental pollution, who determines what actions and what limits to put on that concept?

That's a joke, but sadly it's a big and pretty powerful joke now.

So, sit back, and watch as your liberties are whittled away still more.



rcjames -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 8:43:03 AM)

PC mortal sins;

Saying/writing anything that someone somewhere in the world can twist, constrew, or misunderstand to be offensive to someone somewhere in the world.

Thanks
RC



P31W -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 8:57:38 AM)

quote:

Accumulating excessive wealth


Exactly how much land does the catholic church own? Jewels? paintings? artifacts?

Last time I checked it was the CC that was the largest world wide landowner.

quote:

Inflicting poverty


What about inflicting sexual preditors on unsuspecting children?



SonInMe1 -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 10:50:14 AM)

quote:

Inflicting poverty


How do you do that? Socilaism.

I believe Jesus. Love God and love others like yourself



jazzact13 -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 11:01:18 AM)

quote:

How do you do that? Socilaism.


Well, I do remember it being characterized as "...the equal distribution of poverty".

But yeah, between the "accumulating excessive wealth" and "inflicting poverty", doesn't that simply open the doors to all kinds of social manipulations?



CatholicCritter -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 1:35:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P31W

quote:

Accumulating excessive wealth


Exactly how much land does the catholic church own? Jewels? paintings? artifacts?

Last time I checked it was the CC that was the largest world wide landowner.

quote:

Inflicting poverty


What about inflicting sexual preditors on unsuspecting children?



This is a foolish post with nary a thread of truth or evidence. Make an argument but remember that bearing false witness is a sin. As to the 'mortal sin' article...

First, an article in L’Osservatore Romano is not an official definition of the Holy See. In fact, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti is not an official Vatican spokesman and the articles I've seen can't even get his position correct. He is not head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, but rather assistant to Cardinal Stafford who is head. The basic point is that a newspaper interview by a Vatican functionary doesn't constitute an official action by the Church of any sort.

Secondly, the article(s) and your representation of them confuse 'mortal sin' with 'deadly sin'--the two are completely different. Capital sins are also referred to as 'deadly sins'. They are the sources from which all actual sins spring--including the ones Msgr. Girotti listed. Polluting would be the result of sloth, unethical genetic engineering would be the result of pride, being obscenely rich would be the result of greed, abortion would be a result of the sin of pride, pedophilia would be the result of the sin of lust, and so on.

Third, the article was in Italian, as L' Osservatore Romano is an Italian newspaper. Had you or anyone taken the extra step of translating it, here's what you'd have found. The sins named by Girotti are not, nor were they ever, designed to 'add to' or 'replace' the original 7 deadly sins. He, instead, calls them 'new forms of social sin'. You and others like you then placed his remark in a false and deceptive light. Your assertion of 'new sins' is bogus--the Church does not arbitrarily define sins or change them whenever they see fit--that notion is ludicrous. Sin is objective wrong--it will remain wrong whether you or the London Telegraph decide to 'replace' it with some other act. The original list of deadly sins remains; nothing has replaced it. Greed, gluttony, and lust are as wrong today as they were a day or a year or a century ago. If Archbishop Girotti referred to 'new' sins, it's because some of the offenses he named (such as genetic manipulation) were just not possible in the past, and others (such as international drug trafficking) are seen much more today, in a global society. Even if people could have engaged in these activities a century ago, they would have been sinful then as well.

Finally, the fundamental point of the L'Osservatore Romano interview was that Catholics need to recover a sense of sin, make use of the sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution for their offenses. Sin, Girotti claims, is a reality that man cannot escape. No official list here. Most of the world today does not see drug trafficking as a sin unless it affects them directly. Girotti's point was that these things that happen in everyday life in a modern world ARE sins and that the Church has been granted a gift in which we can turn away from sin today--it's called Reconciliation. Nothing new to see here from the Church, but you sure bought it hook, line, and sinker.



WesP -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 1:55:50 PM)

Regardless of who said that the list is modernized, the point is that the sins are still the same as they were when man fell. I agree that attacking the whole RCC is inappropriate, but people have a habit of declaring guilt by association in all venues.



CatholicCritter -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 2:09:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

Regardless of who said that the list is modernized, the point is that the sins are still the same as they were when man fell. I agree that attacking the whole RCC is inappropriate, but people have a habit of declaring guilt by association in all venues.


the Monsignor calls them 'new FORMS of sin', not new sins. of course dropping a nuclear bomb on a defenseless nation for no reason is a sin in any era, but nuclear bombs did not exist in 1492, so it'd be tough to label the action a sin when things like nuclear energy, fusion, et al, were completely unknown at the time and place.



WesP -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 2:19:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CatholicCritter

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

Regardless of who said that the list is modernized, the point is that the sins are still the same as they were when man fell. I agree that attacking the whole RCC is inappropriate, but people have a habit of declaring guilt by association in all venues.


the Monsignor calls them 'new FORMS of sin', not new sins. of course dropping a nuclear bomb on a defenseless nation for no reason is a sin in any era, but nuclear bombs did not exist in 1492, so it'd be tough to label the action a sin when things like nuclear energy, fusion, et al, were completely unknown at the time and place.


OK. My point is that murder is murder, theft is theft, etc. The method is inconsequential. The intent defines the sin, and there is nothing new under the sun.



CatholicCritter -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 3:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

quote:

ORIGINAL: CatholicCritter

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

Regardless of who said that the list is modernized, the point is that the sins are still the same as they were when man fell. I agree that attacking the whole RCC is inappropriate, but people have a habit of declaring guilt by association in all venues.


the Monsignor calls them 'new FORMS of sin', not new sins. of course dropping a nuclear bomb on a defenseless nation for no reason is a sin in any era, but nuclear bombs did not exist in 1492, so it'd be tough to label the action a sin when things like nuclear energy, fusion, et al, were completely unknown at the time and place.


OK. My point is that murder is murder, theft is theft, etc. The method is inconsequential. The intent defines the sin, and there is nothing new under the sun.


We agree here. The method is consequential insomuch as WAYS to commit a specific sin exist today that did not 500 years ago. The logical consequence of that is, for a Catholic, important. Mortal sin entails commiting a grave act, knowing it's a grave act, and then acting with full consent of the will. But in this day, some people may not realize that certain applications of genetic engineering or strip mining would entail grave effects/matter. Once they know this, they can then decide to do it anyway or not.

I'm on board with Monsignor here. Speaking as a Catholic, we don't hear about sin NEARLY enough these days, so pronouncements like this, properly understood, work for me.



radiorobert -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 4:44:31 PM)

What is interesting is how these 'social sins' are interpreted by the culture at large, apart from the church.

inflicting poverty and excessive wealth are the two that jump out at me the most.

There is no measuring rod to determine these. It also implies that these two things are the same. So, if I want to make more money to help my family be more comfortable, is that evil? Or better yet, save it up for a rainy day, or to give with, or help others with? Create jobs with?

You see, that is the problem.

Christ never said DON'T make this much money, or, you MUST give this much.

He told us what we can do to love our neighbor (in a Godly fashion) as we would love ourselves. Well, we can't love others if we hate ourselves. Therefore, loving others can only be done once someone knows Christ as their savior first and then comes to the conviction that others NEED to know Christ for their salvation as well. Once that is established, a person's fruits will carry into the other areas of their lives.

Sin is sin period. It is commited in the heart first and then translates into actions later. There are rich people who are not greedy and there are poor people who are so greedy they wouldn't ever be able to get enough.

Here is something to consider: When someone isn't content with what they already have, they need to first examine themselves, under God's criteria and then understand whether or not they truly NEED more, or if they just WANT more. Neither of which are inherintly bad. But the latter is only blessed upon someone circumstantially as determined by God. Whereas the former, we are commanded to fullfill.

Therefore, we are to give others only what they need, not what they always WANT.

Even though I could qualify under the poverty line in some areas, I know that God wants me to work harder if I want more money, in which he will bless me with. However, I have exactly what I need to survive and live. I would feel very bad if I made someone else give up their billions so I could have a little more THAN I already need. But, I would gladly give up some of what I need to make sure someone else has what they need.

Excessive wealth is a false concept, b/c it assumes that wealth is something to be required of every human being on the planet. It also assumes that God sets no conditions on what is expected of us all if we want to survive. Thus, everyone should be a billionaire. That is not what God expects. God wants us to focus on our relationship with him first. Then the rest shall be given to us.

Can someone love money too much? Absolutely! Can someone inflict poverty on someone else? Absolutely! But understand that is not what is happening in every case. And, that the lord sees our hearts and knows us better than we know ourselves.

This fixation we have now with taking others money away to give to those with less is a slap in the face to God b/c it assumes that everyone deserves to have a certain amount above and beyond what they NEED to survive.

Example: A woman I used to work with constatnlty complained about how much she DIDN'T have, and why she always needed more. Yet when observed, I found that she ate meals out at nice resteraunts at least half the week. Spent money on stuff that she didn't necessarily need. So, she always struggled, in spite of making above the average amount that many people made in that department. She only had herself and her one son in her household. SHe lived in a decent house, had a decent car and had good healthcare.

But it still wasn't enough.

Wealth is not taken, it's CREATED. This is a major misconception people often have. You accumulate wealth through work/innovation and through saving it somewhere (accumulating an increasing amt. in a bank acct. for example)

It isn't a piece of pie out there in front of your door waiting fro someone to walk away with. You are not FORCED to BUY anything in life except what you need. The only entity that can take money away from you or keep you from making it is a governing entity. Period.

Excessive wealth? Inflicting poverty?
...I only ask what is the intent with these concepts and how will fighting it better humanity in any way?



CatholicCritter -> RE: modern mortal sins (5/16/2008 5:08:04 PM)

quote:

Excessive wealth? Inflicting poverty?
...I only ask what is the intent with these concepts and how will fighting it better humanity in any way?


First, I'm sure that the Church understands that wealth, in whatever form, does not automatically equate to being excessive, nor to inflicting poverty. Paul talks about 'craving' that is what pulls us away from God. Wealth is a good that comes from God and is to be used by its owner and circulated so that even the poor may enjoy it. Evil is found in the imbalanced attachment to riches and the desire to hoard it.

Second, economic behavior (wealth building) and moral behavior are inextricably linked. One is not without moral demands while they are making money, are they? The economy doesn't exist for itself, but exists for the common good. Now don't freak out, nobody's pushing Communism here, which is inherently immoral in its practical application. The Bible doesn't condemn riches, but rather the misuse of those riches. I'd say keeping a large portion of one's nation poor thorugh the use of the nation's wealth is a misuse. In Myanmar, i've seen estimates as high as 3 out of every 5 workers being poor. This may be high or may be low but it's irrelevant. When a government hoards its riches and the natural resources of a nation from its people, it inflicts poverty. The Church points at that and condemns it rightly.

I think the point is that 'progress' and 'wealth', when used with faith, hope, and love, can be facilitators of becoming 'rich in God'. When wealth and economy function as instruments to this end, then they are good. When they do not, they are being misused.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI