The 7 new mortal sins

[elts1956]

Hi,elts!

As I’ve said in previous posts, The title is a secular spin on what the church has been saying for years.

MY take on what is meant by obscenely rich is ‘avarice’. In a culture mainly purchasing on credit, it would appear that we never have enough money. So, this drives us to get more, so we don’t remain ‘a slave to the lender’. Polemically speaking, this is one of the enemies ways of enabling avarice. For, now we see wealth as independence and freedom, instead of a responsibility,(‘to whom much is given much is expected.’) As a Catholic, I am inclined, personally, to see everything I possess as a gift from the Lord. I may have earned it. But, my life is a gift, and He gave me a brain and hands and skills. Without these, I can obtain nothing.

Hence, everything is a gift. But,then again, I am also a minimalist.

As for poverty, Jesus said we would always have the poor. I think that The Pope is referring to a lack of charity and concern.

War.
I find it difficult to turn the other cheek. Unless, I know that I will kill the offender because he doesn’t stand a chance, I will hit back. Self defense is never discouraged in the Bible. Acting impulsively out of malice towards someone who is definitely weaker is, in itself, wrong. This is where one must calm down, count to ten and ask God for prudent judgment. Besides, A nation should defend itself. To attack just for the sake of conquering…a sin in my book.

As for the environment, I like Benedict’s take on it. We are responsible for the earth. If we know we are hurting it and our selves, then we commit a mortal sin. Isn’t the definition of a mortal sin to do something even though you know it is wrong?

That is MY take on it.

But, I could be wrong.

Again, these are issues of Prudential judgement, not Intrinsic Evil, or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[cathybramble]

In the Popes original homily, I believe he was referring to human genetics. However, There are experiments being done in which animal genes are being introduced into tomatoes (since, you chose this fruit as an example.)

geneticengineering.net/atomatofishorafishtomato.htm

froggy tomatoes. what next…

pretty soon everyone will be eating manbearpig. i’m cereal. no really, manbearpig WILL be cereal

youtube.com/watch?v=h7mDa_8bSUY

 

[That_one_guy]

Again, these are issues of Prudential judgement, not Intrinsic Evil, or am I misunderstanding you?

I’m not sure how to answer you.

By the way, thanks for the cool link to Catholic Parenting. I bookmarked it.

Anyway, I’m not a theologian. Just a carpenter.But, I am a thinker!(a Glenn Beck watcher, too!)

In my mind, to knowingly do something which your conscience tells you is bad, is a mortal sin.

I wonder should I drive my car…

Is this a category for indulgence ?

naah…I don’t feel guilty.

Heck. I don’t know…I hate when people make me think.

 

[That_one_guy]

froggy tomatoes. what next…

pretty soon everyone will be eating manbearpig. i’m cereal. no really, manbearpig WILL be cereal

youtube.com/watch?v=h7mDa_8bSUY

Will frogslegs become Vegan?


Thank you Al Gore!

 

[mackbrislawn]

It seems everything we do is sinful. Maybe the theology of John Calvin and the Protestant Reformers is right–humankind since the Fall is intrinsically evil. We cannot do right in the sight of God, all is offensive. Maybe there is no good in humankind after all…

 

[That_one_guy]

It seems everything we do is sinful. Maybe the theology of John Calvin and the Protestant Reformers is right–humankind since the Fall is intrinsically evil. We cannot do right in the sight of God, all is offensive. Maybe there is no good in humankind after all…

I don’t know.

I guess that is what the sacraments are for.Particularly confession, and the subsequent penance. And Lent. And all the exhortations to do good. All though, IMHO, these cats took the all have sinned and fall short thing to the extreme.
Jesus did say, Why do you call me good? there is no one good except Our Father in Heaven… (I think.)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Quote :“The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.”

Cardinal sins, are a classification of the most objectionable vices that were originally used in early Christian teachings to educate and instruct followers concerning (immoral) fallen man’s tendency to sin. They are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

How do these new sins correlate with the original deadly sins? They don’t. The former were vices that each individual was capable of struggling with and succumbing to.

These new ones are actions that most people aren’t even struggling with or capable of. I don’t see the correlation here.

 

[elts1956]

I’m not sure how to answer you.

By the way, thanks for the cool link to Catholic Parenting. I bookmarked it.

Anyway, I’m not a theologian. Just a carpenter.But, I am a thinker!(a Glenn Beck watcher, too!)

In my mind, to knowingly do something which your conscience tells you is bad, is a mortal sin.

I wonder should I drive my car…

Is this a category for indulgence ?

naah…I don’t feel guilty.

Heck. I don’t know…I hate when people make me think.

You are very welcome for the link. Neat huh? It is the best one I have found so far that does a good job of clarifying a lot of the misunderstandings regarding moral/elthical issues.

I “think” you and I were discussing matters of Prudential judgement and those which were of Objective truth? That was you, wasn’t it

 

[That_one_guy]

You are very welcome for the link. Neat huh? It is the best one I have found so far that does a good job of clarifying a lot of the misunderstandings regarding moral/elthical issues.

I “think” you and I were discussing matters of Prudential judgement and those which were of Objective truth? That was you, wasn’t it

yup.:yup: And intrinsic Evil.

So, for the sake of argument,…Prudential Judgment should apply in all cases unless one were not of sound mind. Prudential judgment should lead to truth, no?(Objective truth is a redundant term,no?) Truth is the antonym of Evil. Truth is always true all the time in all situations. correct? And the idea of a subjective truth would be intrinsically evil, in that it would not necessarily apply in all cases.

I think…

 

[elts1956]

Quote :“The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.”

Cardinal sins, are a classification of the most objectionable vices that were originally used in early Christian teachings to educate and instruct followers concerning (immoral) fallen man’s tendency to sin. They are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

How do these new sins correlate with the original deadly sins? They don’t. The former were vices that each individual was capable of struggling with and succumbing to.

These new ones are actions that most people aren’t even struggling with or capable of. I don’t see the correlation here.

From what I found on this website,

ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2008/03/seven-new-deadly-sins.html

(I have no idea as to how accurate this site is),

the supposedly New Seven Deadly Sins pertain to “social” sins and don’t replace the original Seven Deadly Sins of
lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

Because of expanded knowledge in science, social issues etc. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti stated the “new sins” need to be brought to public consciousness. Here is a bit of what is said.

WHAT THE PRESS REPORTED: Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican, by Malcome Moore. The Daily Telegraph [UK] March 10, 2008:
Failing to recycle plastic bags could find you spending eternity in Hell, the Vatican said after drawing up a list of seven deadly sins for our times.

The seven, which include polluting the environment, were announced by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia’s main court.

The “sins of yesteryear” - sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride - have a “rather individualistic dimension”, he told the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.

The new seven deadly, or mortal, sins are designed to make worshippers realise that their vices have an effect on others as well.

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID: the original text of the interview with Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, in Italian - courtesy of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[THE LESSON LEARNED: [COLOR=“red”]Not “new sins” but an old media blind spot, by Phil Lawler. Catholic World News March 11, 2008:

When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines. Archbishop Girotti was obviously trying to offer a new, provocative perspective on some enduring truths. The effort backfired-- but in a very revealing way. . . .

Sin is an objective wrong: a violation of God’s law. What is sinful today will be sinful tomorrow, and a deadly sin will remain deadly, whether or not Telegraph editors recognize the moral danger. The traditional list of deadly sins remains intact; 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 is because some of the offenses he named (such as genetic manipulation) were impossible in the past, and others (such as international drug trafficking) are much more prevalent today, in a global society. Insofar as people could have engaged in these activities a century ago, they would have been sinful then as well.

A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so. Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, “is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…” The precepts of “reason, truth, and right conscience” do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.

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, the archbishop insisted, is a reality that man cannot escape.

Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate’s point.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, but how many individual people are guilty of drug dealing, genetic engineering, being a pedofile or being obscenely rich?

Abortion I agree is a sin. Pollution - yes we should try not to pollute but today’s society leads to a lot of individual pollution without people even being very aware of it. (like driving a car).

I just think it’s silly. Everyone has experienced the original seven deadly sins (or at least most people) and by focusing on those, and trying to improve your individual morality, you can improve the world by just being in it.

What I was wondering though was does each of these new sins have a correlation to the old ones? I don’t think so. Being rich could be the sin of greed I guess, but I can’t fit the others.

 

[bobzills]

This is important to Catholics, particularly American Catholics, who appear to be on the brink of apostacy.

So it would then be a mortal sin to pollute the atmosphere for future generations by driving an automobile?

 

[That_one_guy]

So it would then be a mortal sin to pollute the atmosphere for future generations by driving an automobile?

I’m not sure how to answer you.
.

Anyway, I’m not a theologian. Just a carpenter.But, I am a thinker!(a Glenn Beck watcher, too!)

In my mind, to knowingly do something which your conscience tells you is bad, is a mortal sin.

I wonder should I drive my car…

Is this a category for indulgence ?

naah…I don’t feel guilty.

Heck. I don’t know…I hate when people make me think.

And therein lies the rub…

Romans 7:7…All the same, if it had not been for the Law, I should not have known what sin was; for instance, I should not have known what it meant to covet if the Law had not said:…

Taking into consideration that the Bible is multi-dimensional,…could this also not apply in this situation?

15 I do not understand my own behaviour; I do not act as I mean to, but I do things that I hate.

If I could, I would get an alternative fuel vehicle. I am just as much to blame as everyone else. But, IMOD, I do my best.

I am sure that you do, too.

 

[That_one_guy]

Yes, but how many individual people are guilty of drug dealing, genetic engineering, being a pedofile or being obscenely rich?

Abortion I agree is a sin. Pollution - yes we should try not to pollute but today’s society leads to a lot of individual pollution without people even being very aware of it. (like driving a car).

I just think it’s silly. Everyone has experienced the original seven deadly sins (or at least most people) and by focusing on those, and trying to improve your individual morality, you can improve the world by just being in it.

What I was wondering though was does each of these new sins have a correlation to the old ones? I don’t think so. Being rich could be the sin of greed I guess, but I can’t fit the others.

In my mind, The majority of the ‘sins’ listed fall under ‘greed’ or ‘avarice’. Most of these ‘sins’ are motivated by the almighty dollar…

 

[elts1956]

yup.:yup: And intrinsic Evil.

So, for the sake of argument,…Prudential Judgment should apply in all cases unless one were not of sound mind. Prudential judgment should lead to truth, no?(Objective truth is a redundant term,no?) Truth is the antonym of Evil. Truth is always true all the time in all situations. correct? And the idea of a subjective truth would be intrinsically evil, in that it would not necessarily apply in all cases.

I think…

The bit I understand about Prudential Judgement and Objective Truth and Intrinsic Evil is that an Intrinsic Evil is always, always wrong. Prudential judgement can not be used to decide whether an Intrinsic Evil is wrong or not. It is just wrong, no matter what. Some of the Intrinsic evils are abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research. These were the Intrinsic evils that were on the ballot in the past election.

The following evils were among those of prudential judgement to be voted on in this past election. Such issues as the War, economy, enviroment etc. are of such that disagreements as to their level of evil can be stated and used to solve such issues. In other words they are as evil as one “believes” them to be. But they are not of an Intrinsic evil nature as their evil can be debated.

You are right in saying evil is the antithesis of good, but as you can see from the above, it is being able to discern subjective truth from Objective truth (which has always and will always exist) that is at the crux of a decision.

Issues of a Prudential Judgement will change with the times, but not those of Objective truth and Intrinsic Evil.

Hope that helps.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

Someone wrote: “Yes, but how many individual people are guilty of drug dealing, genetic engineering, being a pedofile or being obscenely rich?..Being rich could be the sin of greed I guess, but I can’t fit the others.”

As pointed out above, there are no “new mortal sins.” This is absolutely false. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti reported later that he was flatly misquoted. The Vatican has NOT issued 7 new “deadly sins.” Anyone who believes this is flatly wrong.

That being said, there is this odd belief floating around the Catholic world that being successful and rich is somehow “greedy” and “sinful.” This is absolutely absurd.

There is no sin in being rich. You will never find anything in all official Catholic teaching that says financial success is a sin.

What about Bill Gates? What about Warren Buffet? These are two of the richest men in the world. How would they have turned out if they had been worried about “being too rich?” Such thinking is nonsense. It is not rational thinking, and will certainly cause anyone who meditates on it much needless pain.

There is no highest dollar value mentioned in the Bible. There is no highest amount of money you can accumulate that will qualify you for sin. Nowhere in any encyclical, papal publication, in Canon Law, or in the Catechism, is there any highest limit on what you can earn or own. There is no statement reading “If I earn, say, more than one million dollars, I have sinned.” Such a thing is ridiculous.

We can earn whatever we want. We can rise as high as we want. If anyone believes otherwise, this is a purely subjective view. It is not official Church teaching. You will never find anything authoritative to back it up.

We can spend our money however we choose. We can enjoy it however we wish. A Vatican Bishop I know told me that God has not put any limits on how we spend our money, on what we do with it. We should never feel any guilt in this matter. It would be utterly pointless. If we buy plenty of possessions, how many possessions are “too much?” This is arbitrary. Totally relative. You will never reach an objective answer. It is absolutely impossible. And the Church knows it.

Most people who believe that being rich is a sin cite the story of the rich young man. But there are serious problems with interpreting the story this way.

In the New Testament, Jesus asks a rich young man to sell all he owns and give the money to the poor. Christ says “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven.” So most people reading this story conclude that rich people cannot enter Heaven. It is sinful to be rich.

But in Proverbs, it says “A fortune gained quickly is quickly spent. But wealth accumulated slowly, steadily grows.” So it would seem that gaining wealth is a sign of wisdom. It is pleasing before God. This would seem to contradict the words of Christ.

And in another Parable (story), the Bible condemns a man who stores up much money for his own comfort. He is sent to Hell (not literally – it is a figurative story.) But in the Parable of the Talents, a different story, God rewards the man who makes much money. He punishes the man who makes nothing.

For every passage that says that being rich is a bad thing, you will find another that says being rich is good. Back and forth, back and forth. Contradiction after contradiction. How to resolve it?

First, the Bible must be understood as a unified whole. It cannot be picked apart in pieces. If you read it this way, you will get a very unbalanced, harsh, limited understanding of it. A unified understanding of the Bible is called “exegesis.” You cannot approach the Bible without it.

In the example above, the rich young man asked Christ what to do to get to Heaven. Christ told him “You know the Commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’" It is only when the young man pressed Jesus for what else he should do that Christ said: "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”

Thus, keeping the Commandments was all that Christ required for entering Heaven. Nothing else. Until the young man pushed for more.

The story of the man who stored up much money for his comfort, and who was sent to Hell is interpreted by the Church as simply telling people that one should not forget that one’s wealth comes from God. Nobody should feel threatened by this. Simply remember God. That is all.

And God is certainly not going to punish you for making a lot of money (or perhaps none.) This is simply absurd. Such a belief will only cause you misery.