Say Anything Blog

How much does it cost to get the Vatican’s forgiveness for accumulating as much excessive wealth as say, the Vatican?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

So does this mean that Hollywood is going to make another bad movie and title it “14”?

.oO I wonder how the person guilty of “causing pollution” would die.

"genetic manipulation” - so if I took my two best corn varieties and combined them to make a better plant, is that a deadly sin?

What if I kept my best bull and sold the rest in an effort to create a better stock?

As Rob stated earlier: apparently we’re all gonna go to hell.

I think that by classifying these new acts in the same group as the original 7, they are reducing the value of the original 7 (and of the 10 commandments) to the level or absurdity.

As long as I’m on a roll, what is the definition of drug abuse?  If one chooses to use illicit drugs for pain instead of getting a prescription for a painkiller, is that drug abuse?

If I use my wife’s leftover prescription painkiller when I have pain, is that abuse?

Is alcohol usage considered drug abuse?  How much alcohol usage is considered abuse?  I’m wondering how much of the Catholic priesthood is now headed for hell.

You know, typically this kind of press release shows once again why the Vatican shouldn’t rely on journalists to do the translating and press releases. 

I’m by no means Catholic, but basic fairness compels me to note that it’s not any genetic manipulation, but rather messing with human embryos--a violation of the Catholic understanding of human life and “thou shalt not kill.” Moreover, it’s not just wealth that’s condemned, but rather the using of one’s position to obtain or keep wealth.

For example, what about using the government to steal land, say via eminent domain?  That would fall under the definition. 

And as a Baptist, I would also say “telling people that their sins can be atoned for with money” would also qualify.  Rome doesn’t entirely get off the hook here.

So now we have sub-categories?

Isn’t drug addiction gluttony?
Pollution would be greed/sloth for not doing anything to fix it, excessive wealth would be greed/pride?  What are the stipulations?

Next thing you know, the priest is going to be in confession saying, “What drugs?  How often do you use? How ‘excessively wealthy’ are you?  Let’s see, we’ll deduct taxes and charity donations, double points if it’s a Catholic charity… wait, do you drive an SUV?”

morally dubious experimentation

Wow, now that is vague.

Do these rules apply to the priests who like to play ticklesack?

It is a sin worthy of God’s special condemnation to add or delete from God’s Word. Neither the Vatican nor any ecclesiastical organizaion or minister has any right to add or detract from Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has a disturbing history of adding traditions, Papal Bulls, Vatican Council decisions, rituals and other man-designed rules as being equal to God’s Word, being further Divine Revelation through the Church.

If one claims faith in Christ they are obliged to handle God’s Word as written with extreme care, not being allowed to pick and choose what words of Scripture to believe and which to reject. These kinds of action by The Roman Catholic Church brought about the Protestant Reformation under Luther. It seems the church has not learned from their past mistakes.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

So, this puts the final nail in the Vatican’s coffin, they being multiply guilty of all these “new” sins. About damn time.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I instinctly saw something wrong when the Vatican was creating new sins to accomodate the shallowness of the masses when Neiman layed it out in bare ink for me.  Thanks pal

It’s hard to take these new laws seriously when something as reverential as the vatican once was says that being too rich and polluting the environment is deadly.

To me, it is like putting hip hop and the madonna in the same painting or a new school teacher trying to fit in saying “Mr. Moore? just call me Jay”

The Christian religion could use a renewal, these laws just make their followers all the more narrow-minded or all the more doubtful of the Vatican’s integrity.

You’ll note that the Vatican never condemns its priests and cardinals that sodomize young boys. They have zero moral authority.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The Christian Church does not need any renewal, in one sense of that terminolgy, meaning updated and improved. That would imply the faith once given by God through Christ was flawed and it needs updating and correction by frail, finite human beings. If that were true, then Jesus is not God and the Christian faith is a lie.

Rather, we need to get away from a couple of millennia of such man made changes and get back to the Faith once delivered by Christ to the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit to the early Church. It was very simple, Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone, loving each other as Christ loves the Church, to treat others in His Love and charity and through prayer and meditation on the Word seek to have our lives conformed into the image of Christ by His Spirit.

If that is the heart of Christianity, having everything else stripped away, then the Church will be strong, healthy and separated from the world.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Bike Bubba,
Thanks for bringing some balance to this post. It still seems that the communitarian impulse inherent in Catholicism is trying to extend itself into the market economy, hence this quote from Bishop Gianfranco Girotti,

“Then elsewhere socially we have inequality of wealth with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer, this in turns feeds an ever growing social injustice.”

I would like to know just how the Vatican thinks that wealth is accumulated. We can all (or most of of us, rather) can agree that acquiring wealth through theft or deceit or government power is immoral, but what’s so wrong about creating a product that people want and delivering it to them at the lowest cost possible while creating jobs? The creation of such wealth is completely voluntary. I can choose whether or not to buy said product. And if acquiring wealth through theft and government power is immoral, how does the Vatican propose to deal with this “income inequality” without using the government to take wealth from the rich and give it to the poor?

So now we’re in the “let’s make this up as we go along” phase, right?

This is the same as our politicians getting laws passed that address their pet peeves. I wonder how the conversation went that led up to all of this?

“Hey, Pope, you know what really irks me? Wealthy people, that’s what. Let’s make it a sin.”

“Gluttony is already a sin.”

“No, no....that’s too specific. Let’s just say that being overly wealthy is a sin. That’s vague enough. Then we could be the deciders on who the sinners are. Hey! Let’s make it a mortal sin, too! And while we’re at it, I have a list here......”

Sheesh.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Two points -

1.  This is based on one prelate’s opinions rendered in an interview, not “the Vatican.” This no more reflects Catholic Church teaching than if he were to announce a belief that the the Mets will win the World Series this year.  Unfortunately, being human means we often do and say stupid things, even if you’re a priest.

2.  This isn’t a “new” list of sins.  It simply looks at sins and applies them to today’s world.  You shall not kill—not even a tiny embryo.  Care for God’s creation—even if you run a billion-dollar corporation.  etc. etc. etc.

So now we’re in the “let’s make this up as we go along” phase, right?

Now??  That’s how religion has always worked.  Religion is a representation of Darwinism in its most purest form.

accumulating excessive wealth at the expense of the common good of society.

Does this mean that Job, Abraham, David, and, of course, Solomon all are burning in Hell for their “excessive wealth”?

Folks, I think you’re reading too much into this; all that’s going on here is that the Vatican is trying to put the reality of sin into terms that modern people understand.  Greed is spelled out as taking unfair advantage of the poor--for example, via eminent domain abuse and such.

And religion evolutionary?  Not exactly.  They’ve found portions of the Torah (books of Moses) that are about three millenia old and indistinguishable from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia now used as the “standard” Hebrew text for most seminarians--and that is virtually identical with the Torah scrolls of virtually every synagogue around the world.

Sometimes, people don’t change, and this is one of them.

Rather, we need to get away from a couple of millennia of such man made changes and get back to the Faith once delivered by Christ to the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit to the early Church

Neiman: that is what I meant.

You’re right Bike Bubba, they are putting it into modern terms.  But the Christian religion should never have to compromise by adjusting to modernism

Neiman:

...and I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16: 13 - 19

I would suggest to you, friend, that Roman Catholics might question your “man-made changes” observation, since the Church, in their view, holds the keys delivered in the reading above.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Even as a non-catholic, I have to take issue with the unfair shots against the Church here.

I love how the headline says that the Church bans “excessive wealth. when the quote clearly is:

The new seven deadly sins are those...causing poverty and accumulating excessive wealth at the expense of the common good of society.

It lists accumulating wealth at the expense of others to be a sin, not accumulating wealth in and of itself. And it lumps causing poverty in there too. So clearly the church views making money as a sin only when it is detrimental to others.

You’re right Bike Bubba, they are putting it into modern terms.  But the Christian religion should never have to compromise by adjusting to modernism.

That’s silly, Dirl. Adjusting the message to modern terms is not compromise. Saying that destruction of embryos for Stem Cell Research is wrong because embryos are life and therefore their destruction is murder is FAR from compromise.

Look at the crowd that says that since the Bible doesn’t mention the word abortion (and instead refers to making a woman have a miscarriage) that abortion is A-OK. By referring to abortion instead of forced miscarrage, Christians are updating their terms without compromising.

It is the responsibility of Christians to bring others to God. So if that means they find new ways to explain or introduce it (such as plays, movies, songs, etc) without altering the message, then what they are doing is good.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

I would suggest to you, friend, that Roman Catholics might question your “man-made changes” observation, since the Church, in their view, holds the keys delivered in the reading above.

While that is their assumption, one could simply counter that the keys were given to Peter exclusively, and not the Catholic Church in general.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

Kenny: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church...”

Well, you might counter it, but its no simple matter.

Or were the keys to be null and void after Peter’s death?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

Who’s done more good in the world, Bill Gates (or Andrew Carnegie) or the average bum on the street (or even the pious but poor guy sitting on the other end of the pew?)

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Kenny: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church...”
Well, you might counter it, but its no simple matter.
Or were the keys to be null and void after Peter’s death?

The answer for me is “Yes, the keys were to be given to Peter exclusively.” As the founder, the Rock, Peter was given privledges that didn’t extend to others. And the Catholic Church has done some egregious things (such as papal endulgences) that I have no doubt were never honored in heaven...as they went against the spirit of the Biblical law.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

Uh, guys, Peter’s profession is that certainty (rock) upon which the church would be built.  Peter (rock) simply signified the necessity of faith in Christ as the foundational truth of the church.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

See the preceeding profession in Matt 16:13-18:

Matthew 16:13-18 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It lists accumulating wealth at the expense of others to be a sin

No, not quite.  It lists excessive wealth (kinda like the catholic church possesses) that comes at the expense of the “common good” as a sin.  We all know the “common good” to be a liberal cliche’ which is more accurately “bad” for the poor and good for democrats at election time.  It is the ambiguous justification for wealth redistribution which comes at the expense of justice for those whose “good” is said to be excessive.

It is the ambiguous justification for wealth redistribution which comes at the expense of justice for those whose “good” is said to be excessive.

Excessive seems to be the key.  What’s fair to the earner is unfair to the slacker.

I happen to know the Bishop of the Diocese around here has a much nicer car than I do.  I don’t think that’s fair.  (Ok actually I do and he seems like a nice man.)

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

This is not the place and this thread does not speak to the legitimacy of The Roman Catholic Church. There are excellent ministries available for information on this subject.  However, being brief just to clarify a point in contention here: If you carefully diagram the verses in Matthew 16:13-18, you will discover that Jesus said two distinct things. 1) He changed Simon’s name to Peter (Rock). 2) He then said upon this rock, not upon Peter, but the Divine Rock (Truth) that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, He (Jesus) would build His own Church (Spiritual body). Think just for a moment, can any mere man build God’s Church? Does God need any mere man to help Him build His perfect Church (Body)? You see Church does not mean a building, a denomination or a religion, but it solely relates to the Spiritual Members (Believers) of the Body of Christ. So, Jesus changed Peter’s name and then He promised that upon the truth of Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus would build the Church.

Pparets: I have no doubt the RC would not agree with my interpretation of Scripture, which differences by the way brought about the Protestant Reformation. However, no where in Scripture do we find any Divine warrant whatsoever for the slightest change in God’s Word, which is settled forever in Heaven. We read in Revelations 22:19 wherein God gives us clear directions that He will not allow any human being to change the tiniest dot or tittle of His Word. But, we don’t need this command or any man’s opinion to help us understand and appreciate this matter, just think about it: If God is real, He must be all that He claims to be, all-powerful, all-knowing, etcetera; and if He failed in even the smallest point to make His inspired Word perfect in absolutely every respect for all times, seasons, geography and social/political settings, then He cannot be God at all. His Word, if to be absolutely trusted by His children and be able to make us wise in Him and victorious in this life and the next; it must not, it cannot contain even the tinest error or suffer any sort of limitations whatsoever, or His Word cannot be trusted at all, our faith is in vain and Christianity is a lie. So, if the Pope, Mohammed, Joseph Smith of the LDS or any other human being are needed to give us new Divine revelations or clarifications of any kind, the Word is not perfect and the faith falls into ignominy. This matter of adding to or deleting from His Word is that critical and each person must decide for themselves if it is perfect every whit and either true or a most damnable lie. Of course, the trap here is, if it is a lie it has so impacted all human history that this lie would require a Divine miracle to have existed so long.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Whistler,

It is completely arbritrary.  To liberals a percentage of every earners “good” is arbitrarily condemned as excessive and necessarily confiscated for the “common good”. What arbitrary method the Pope would use to determine “excessive” and what is the “common good” is unknown.  I still can’t theologically comprehend such a thing given the excessive wealth of many of the Patriarchs in the OT.

Bless me father for I have sinned, I drive a big car, use plastic grocery bags, eat too much, have indulged in Economic Wealth enhancement and generally been an all round bad guy.

I’m not going to say any hail mary’s.  I’m going to go the gas station and fill my car.

That will be penance enough.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

So wealth=success?  Okay.  Somebody better tell Jesus, who never had a dime to his name, that he’s the least successful human in god’s eyes ever.  Good thing we got that cleared up.

So wealth=success?  Okay.

Yep. Okay.

Wealth = food.
Wealth = protection.
Wealth = shelter.

Wealth is success.

Somebody better tell Jesus, who never had a dime to his name, that he’s the least successful human in god’s eyes ever.  Good thing we got that cleared up.

You’re being stupid. Nobody had said that.

Well, now let’s hold on a minute and see who’s being stupid.  You say “wealth is success,” and then you say that no one said that wealth is success.  Stupid is as stupid says, comrade.

And explain to me then how Jesus was successful in your eyes without wealth?

Actually, don’t bother.  I’m off to read my Bible.  I mean, it’s a tough choice between the spiritual guidance I could get there versus the pearls of wisdom I find here ("wealth is success”—did you get that from a Chick tract?), but I’ll have to go with the old Bible there.

Talk about being stupid! You are the poster child.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Paul Westerberg - Well, now let’s hold on a minute and see who’s being stupid.  You say “wealth is success,” and then you say that no one said that wealth is success.

Where did I say that “no one said that wealth is success”? Go ahead and quote me please. I know that I didn’t say it, so you’re going to have a hard time finding that quote.

And explain to me then how Jesus was successful in your eyes without wealth?

Wealth is but ONE measure of success. It is not the only measure of success.

This is where your stupidity is shining loud and clear, Paul Westerberg. You’re making too many assumptions.

Actually, don’t bother.  I’m off to read my Bible.  I mean, it’s a tough choice between the spiritual guidance I could get there versus the pearls of wisdom...

You mean, what you think you have read versus what was actually said.

...("wealth is success”—did you get that from a Chick tract?)...

Trying to be cute now?

...but I’ll have to go with the old Bible there.

Good. Be gone. You’re too God-damned stupid.

Good luck in righting that.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/03/11/media-falsely-portrays-bishop-s-opinion-interview-new-sins