Thu 13 Mar 2008
Seven Deadly Sins Version 2.0
Posted by Greg Molyneux under Current Events, Religion, Society
Fifteen hundred years have passed – enough time for several Crusades, the Inquisition and the Fall of the Papal StatesNow the Catholic Church stands at a crossroads, opting to revise itself. CNN.com reported this evening that Apostolic Penitentiary is prepared to update its legendary seven deadly sins to adequately address more applicable circumstances of our modern era.
The New Mortal Sins
- Pollution
- Genetic engineering
- Drug dealing
- Abortion
- Pedophilia
- Social injustice
- Extreme wealth
Normally in my discussions of all things Catholic I might take some obligatory cheap shots at the Church to which I belong. This time, I must refrain (boo!!!). I actually want to take an opportunity to applaud the progressiveness of the Church, if you can even say that in the same sentence (see I couldn’t help myself). Their willingness to recognize and adapt to changing conditions can only serve their cause as the papacy aims to reconnect with its flock.
Secondly, this is a pretty solid list – sure there is nothing ground breaking here but it’s a start. Items 2 and 3 are certainly controversial and wide open for debate, but I think few can really argue with the other five. The Church is recognizing hubris and self worship as the root of all mortal sins and now has a written account of their devilish manifestations in a compact ordered list. Let’s go shopping! While redundant and obvious to some, let’s face many … many people need a written invitation to go along with their spoon fed food.
About the Author
March 13th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
All they have done is absolve themselves from the sins they like and pinpointed ones they don’t. It is when you act on the original that leads to the new.
So they are basically saying to have as much pride as you want.
Eat all you want and be a gluttonous pig.
Envy everything everyone has that you don’t.
Sit on your butt and do nothing for as long as you want.
Apparently bestiality (Interspecies erotica F***o, bonus points if you know the movie.) and necrophilia are OK.
Being angry for any reason is quite alright. Even if you’re in the wrong.
As long long as your name is not Bill Gates you be as greedy as you want. By the way what is the definition of Obscenely rich?
I just thought of something. The USA House of Congress and the House of the Senate have already broken the new ones.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I too am unsure of what defines richness to excess, perhaps we should look to the Church itself during its medieval heyday.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Greg:
I think number six is far too nebulous. If one means murder by “social injustice” than why not say murder? But if one means simply stating the truth a la Geraldine Ferraro, than that’s a bunch of crap.
Number seven is far from a sin, unless one acheives it by immoral or dishonest means. If that’s the case, just say dishonesty or immorality. When wealth is acheived by honest and moral means it is because one brought joy or value to another who was willing to pay for it. Nothin’ wrong with that.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I have to disagree with the wealth issue, I think there is such a thing with excessive wealth. If you acquire far more than any one person or family needs you should strive to help others achieve greater wealth by sharing yours. After all what does money get you when you die? And the desire to amass gross amounts of wealth is rooted in greed. Call me un-American for those beliefs, but that is how I honestly feel.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
So the loophole in #3 is that you need to create your own drugs at home for your own use. I’m guessing that keeps you out of hell and buys you a seat in purgatory.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Greg:
Tell me, Greg. Who decides how much welath is enough? You? Hillary? How ’bout me? I say, let the free market decide.
If people don’t like what I am selling, they will stoip buying it. If what I am delivering is seen as valuable to others, why shouldn’t they be free to buy it? If my price is too high, then let others provide it for less and put me out of business.
In any event, a society or religion that establishes a wealth police, will fail. As a matter of fact, I contend that it is the creation of wealth that has led to most of the things that have advanced the cause of humans.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Wealth is not for me to decide, all I will do is point the finger at those I feel are greed and them gluttonous fiends who deserves punishment for their excess. It is absolutely commendable to do great things in a capitalist construct. But it is far more commendable to demonstrate benevolence by doing something worthy and charitable with the fortune you have been blessed to obtain. I am sorry, but I find zero merit in hoarding.
And has the cause of humans really been an advancement? I would contend that this is a matter of personal belief. I am not here to tell anyone how to live, but I see our possessiveness as an extreme character flaw and the root for our excessive pride. But don’t listen to me, I am a miserable person.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Greg:
Try living without electricity, the light bulb, the automobile, Coca Cola, and the computer. If these were nothing more than worthless wealth-builders, people wouldn’t pay their hard-earned money for them.
And once again, I want to know what qualifies as a charitable or benevolent event? Who is to decide what is charitable or benevolent? And is it charitable or benevolent if I am forced to do it?
You see, Greg, it is the liberal frame of mind that says those that decide these things are smarter and better than all of the rest. This kind of thinking enables the emmergence of a ruling class. In fact making these kinds of decisions for the rest of us is nothing short of tyranny.
Capitalism is the only true economic solution to man’s innate desire to be free. All we need governement for is to ensure that the laws of capitalism (freedom) are allowed to work their wonders. It may not be perfect, but only because nothing man-made really is.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I don’t want or recommend people making these decisions for the rest of us. For me it is just a personal judgment that I will pass. Perhaps it is a character flaw. But from time to time I will get on my holier than thou high horse. But I would be lying if I said part of me doesn’t wish for a truly egalitarian society. My logic obviously tells me this is not possible only working in theory with no success in real life. I mean we all know how awful Marxism is.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:48 am
The issue isn’t the attainment of excess wealth, but rather how one chooses to use that excess wealth - in what direction, in what way one chooses to manage their earnings.
Choice is at the heart of the matter. Money is just the means for good or bad decision making, selfish or unselfish decision making.
Seriously though, do the mortal sins act as some kind of point system where you win by scoring zero?
March 15th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Also…
The two wealthiest individuals in America are also the top two financial donors on planet Earth. Almost all of their contributions have been put toward research projects dedicated to finding vaccines for many of the world’s greatest killers.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Yes Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Paul Allen are all tremendous philanthropists.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I would have to say that it is good that the Catholic Church is finally adapting to current social needs and issues. But why must they label such things as Deadly Sins. Who are they to pass such high and mighty moral judgment when they themselves were and are no better than anybody else.
As to the discussion at hand, I have to agree with Greg that ‘ideally’ the wealthiest of people have a social OBLIGATION to be more benevolent, but ultimately it is their choice. If a person donates actively to impress their GREAT image upon others then I deny that person of being benevolent for their actions are solely motivated by greed or popularity. To give and expect nothing in return (no recognition, friendship, anything) - that is what we call altruism. Unfortunately, our society no longer has the mentality of doing good things for others without expecting something in return. As is stated in Quinn’s “Ishmael”, we are a ‘taker’ society.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Jim -
Excellent 1st comment. I completely agree.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Thank you Gregory.
As for the ongoing wealth debate. It really is quite simple. Moist that obtain great wealth do so through exploiting others. Show me an obscenely wealthy man and I will show you a man that has wronged others in more ways than one. There are few exceptions to this I admit but for the most part the amassing of wealth goes hand in hand with trying to amass power. What is legally ok and what is morally ok is vastly different. That and what you do with your money also speaks volumes as to whether or not you are a decent human being or just another fat cat that I would rather slap than look at. Karma can take you down which is why if you dig you find these guys getting busted for amassing their wealth in illegal ways or spending their wealth on frivolous things only to show how wealthy they are. Then again I could just be a rambling mad man.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Jim:
Show me any grown man who hasn’t wronged another. It’s not a matter of being rich or poor that makes a person human. I maintain that a person who has obtained wealth legally has done more to help others than some poor slob on unemployment or the guy behind the counter at a fast food place. Those who focus ont the negative usually end up poor, while those that focus on the positive usually end up a lot happier if not richer.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Will, last time I checked being born into a human body is what makes somebody human.
That aside, you make no sense.
You say you don’t want wealth of moral police, but then you go on judging someone’s worth based on their current career path. You then reduce the complex variety of factors that effect someone’s ability to get ahead in society down to optimism vs. pessimism!!!
If you love capitalism so much than you gotta recognize that it relies on a few people reaping the benefits of a massive working class. Thats the competition - to get to the top of the pyramid.
So if the majority of people are never going to be wealthy, is it really their fault? Is it really pessimism? Or is it just the natural result of living in a capitalistic society?
March 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
And nobody has yet to hit on the point that these new sins are probably referring primarily to governmental laws and policies that are bound to have the most dramatic effect on the world population and its future.
This is a great way for the Catholic Church to criticize policy without openly accusing any one country.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Andrew, I could not have put it better. Well done.
Will, I read these guys because they tend to be less attacking and more explorative. Your statements come across as some one that has a lot of anger and no good place to put it. To amass obscene wealth first takes the drive of some one that will do anything at any cost succeed. I am not a wealthy man but it is not because I focus on the negative. Quite the opposite actually> I have had several opportunities in my life to a mass a fair amount of wealth. However to amass this wealth I would have had to to do things I do not morally agree with. I have sacrificed opportunities to become rich to be able to look at myself in the mirror. there is no worthy justification for exploiting others. Don’t bother saying that’s how capitalism works as it is an empty argument lacking any intelligent thought. Just admit to be a greedy person who is more interested in being self serving over being a decent human being. Some of the best people I know and have known in my life have dirt poor. they understand what it means to enjoy the simple pleasures that life has to offer. Generally speaking those that seek out wealth do so with the misguided belief that is what it means to be a successful person. I have a loving woman and 2 outstanding kids that I would not trade for all the money in the world. I am no where close to being rich but I am happier then I have been.
As for the rest of you Babelers, keep up the good work guys.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Andrew,
My point is that nobody is perfect. To say that wealth is an indicator of how much a person has sinned is simply not true.
The pessimist v. optimist thing is simply a reference to the fact that most liberals try to make victums out of people. Jim did this in his reply. It’s the old “you’re miserable because of the other guy” thing. It seems as though liberals want a poor person to believe that their plight is do to what someone else has done to them.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
You make it sound like the Liberals are their own nation of people.
“We the Liberals take these truths to be self-evident: poor people should do what other people tell them because the people making the decisions are smarter and better than all of the rest.” (Will Gundabar, Comment 8 & 20)
I’ll honestly and truly mail you a $50 check if you can find and post statistics that back up your imaginary findings on Liberals.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Will, some, like myself, are not rich due to personal decisions. Others are screwed over by people. It really is the fault of the person whose job was shipped overseas that he can’t find work and ends up flipping burgers due to a lack of options. There is no catch all. Oh and by the way I am a conservative. I love the death penalty. I am not fond of abortion. I am all for protecting our borders and deporting illegals. I want less government. I am against special programs for minorities women gays and any other “protected” group because we are all equal. I like guns. You make general statements that you expect us to take as absolutes. Broaden your thinking please for your own sake.
Andrew, you are cracking me up man. I love the “We the Liberals…” I haven’t even had my coffee yet and I chuckled. Great line.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Disclaimer: This culture is on a crash-course to oblivion, so these alleged sins are all well and good but offer no hope even if rectified.
1. Pollution is indeed a very deadly sin.
2. Genetic engineering is a controversial item on this list, but I like it and think it deserves this status.
3. Only certain types of drug dealing are morally wrong, while just about every type of drug dealing is legally wrong. There are bigger fish to fry than this, I would’ve kept this one off and put something more pressing on instead.
4. Whatever. My enormously long pole is kept securely in my pants and I therefore can’t touch this one.
5. It is horrible that this one even has to be written down for people.
6. Way to be clear with the good ole “social injustice”…
7. Few with extreme wealth and many with little wealth is inherent to the human condition. This is a reflection of our distorted version of evolution wherein those that produce something viewed as valuable to others, whether real or perceived value, obtain more resources to reward and entice said individual to produce further valuable goods/services. If you don’t like it, go subsistence. Too bad the government will still tax you.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I almost was able to restrain myself from attacking the Church - but I couldn’t. Here it goes:
This is an excellent example of why Buddhism is far superior to Catholicism. The Catholics want to distribute a little list of things that you aren’t supposed to do, or you will be damned forever. The Buddhists, on the other hand, give you a list of behaviors that help you and explain why. This is much more productive and helpful, wouldn’t you agree? An amazing concept, a religion with no scare tactics, just honest advice on how to live a meaningful and spiritual life.