Mother Talkers

Vatican presents new list of Deadly Sins for 21st century

by Rachel

Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM PDT

The Vatican has doubled the number of mortal sins, adding seven new transgressions that will land your soul in Hell if you don’t confess to them prior to your death. I know that I may not be the best person to write this diary, as I’m a.) not Catholic and b.) not pious, but I am intrigued by this new list, because they fall into the category of "social sins", as encapsulated by this list from Bloomberg News:

  1. ``Bioethical' violations such as birth control
  1. ``Morally dubious'' experiments such as stem cell research
  1. Drug abuse
  1. Polluting the environment
  1. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
  1. Excessive wealth
  1. Creating poverty

These new sins are dramatically different from the original deadly sins, which, in my wholly untrained opinion, deal with personal failings and not necessarily sins against a wider community. For those of us who aren’t of the Catholic faith, they are: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. The new sins were presented 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," according to this BBC article.

  • ::

For someone like me, who has a hard time with organized religion, there’s a lot to disagree with. I’m pro-choice and have used birth control; I believe that the right to an abortion and the right to safe family planning methods are human rights. I’m also in favour of stem cell research. So obviously, I’m not going to believe that birth control, abortion and stem cell research are hell-worthy acts.  I also note with great disappointment, that some of the senior prelates in the Vatican have not been able to come to terms with the pedophila crimes that have victimized so many innocent children and shaken the faith of so many. From the BBC article:

In an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Girotti said he thought the most dangerous areas for committing new types of sins lay in the fields of bio-ethics and ecology.

He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".

But I am intrigued by the focus on wealth and poverty and environmental degradation. I’ll throw it out there for you to discuss: do you think this new list is relevant? Does confession and the Catholic Church’s pronouncements on the nature of sin matter anymore? Will this have any impact on preventing some of these actions?

Tags: religion, Catholic, deadly sins, environment, stem cell, birth control, faith, questioning (all tags)

Permalink | 93 comments

  • Question (0 / 0)

    Why isn't pastoral pedophilia on this list?

    by Uhura on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11:53 PM PDT

  • WTF? (0 / 0)

    Bioethical violations? "Such as" birth control?

    I should go to confession every time I start my car?  Or are we going to get a little guidance on the limits of damnation?

    Numbers 5, 6, and 7 are separate mortal sins - why?  It seems to me that greed and gluttony already had most of that taken care of anyway, not to mention centuries of moral and ethical teachings.

    Drug abuse - whether or not it's a disease - is covered under gluttony.  (Pedophilia is of course covered under lust.)  You don't need multiple subcategories of a mortal sin, damned is damned.

    My real problem with this list is that it's based on outcomes, not morality or character.  Catholicism does have a doctrine of grace through works, but mortal sins were moral failings, not actions or results.  (Note that murder is not on either list.)  This strikes me as a massive fundemental change in the faith.  I really don't see that Benedict can do this, infallible or not.

    And by the way, my mom - who once considered becoming a nun - began questioning the church when after centuries of prohibition it suddenly became OK to eat meat on Fridays.  A small matter that was the beginning of her eventual separation from the faith.  No, I don't think this will go over well with the faithful.

    by lyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:27:23 PM PDT

  • Hmm... (0 / 0)

    Very interesting.  I'm having a hard time speaking to the list because I'm in such strong agreement with some (the divide between the rich and poor, the environment) and such strong disagreement with others (abortion et al).  

    But I do think the list is very relevant.  Like you, I think the focus on wealth and poverty is the fuel for very interesting debate.  In theory I agree that excessive wealth is not a good thing, but when I look at some of the wealthiest people in the world, many of them do a lot of good.  Obviously I mean Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.  They are good people, and around here Bill Gates is not an uncommon sight.  He drives his own kids to school, stops for pedestrians and generally walks among the commoners.  It would be naive to say he lives modestly but he could go a lot crazier than he does.  I guess I'm trying to get at the idea that maybe the sin should be excessive consumption and not excessive wealth?

    by Erin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM PDT

    • The original list (0 / 0)

      Damns you for greed, not for wealth. It's not a sin to be wealthy, though you still need to watch out for that camel/eye of needle thing. Greed is in your heart and governs what you do with your wealth regardless of how much you have.

      by lyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • difference (0 / 0)

      between putting out a treatise that says "moral Catholics behave like this... it is Godly and Catholic to behave this way, and favors God" and calling these things DEADLY SINS. Mortal sins. Straight-to-hell sins.

      Also, who the hell can tell with some of them? If I work for a company that specializes in imports from China, am I widening the divide between the rich and poor?

      I just have no words for my weariness with the Church. The Pope selection pretty well sealed the deal for me, but I hung on with hope. I don't really have any faith in their judgments any more. I'm actually really sad, to tell the truth.

      by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • WAIT (0 / 0)

        I read the article closer. Where does it say they are Mortal Sins? Did I miss that?

        by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • IT'S FOX (0 / 0)

          so far they are the only ones I see listing them as deadly sins... I think they are just modeled after the "deadly sins".

          by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Or maybe not (0 / 0)

            The Times UK is calling them mortal sins too... gah. GAH I say!

            by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Father James Martin (0 / 0)

              said on NPR yesterday that the severity of the sin will determine whether its mortal or venial...that throwing a piece of paper on the ground = venial; a CEO of a major corporation that knowingly pollutes = mortal.... He said,

              "I think it's to remind people that sins are not just individual," he says referring to the Catholic church's old seven deadly sins — lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. "There's also social sins .. .sins that affect the community at large and sins that an institution can engage in."

              by GiGi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • still doesn't work for me (0 / 0)

                This new list is inconsistent with everything I was ever taught by my mother, the nuns, or in church.  The sin is in your heart - the church has always been clear on this.  I find this new list deeply disturbing - theologically it just feels terribly wrong.

                The catholic church I knew would not condemn you for taking a CEO position with a major polluter if your intent was to improve the situation.  Nor would it condemn you if you tried but failed.  It would be far more critical of a trivial but deliberately malicious act of pollution.  As a child, if I'd thrown paper on the ground either because I wanted to make a mess or because I couldn't be bothered to dispose of it properly, I would have confessed it - not the pollution, but the moral failing behind the pollution.

                Of course as a kid you're always looking for something to confess.  :-)  One of the classic moments of a catholic childhood is making up sins as you wait your turn in the confession box, because you need something to tell the priest but honestly can't remember anything.

                by lyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      • I think (0 / 0)

        it would bother more if I were in your shoes.  I understand the trickle down influence the church has on non-Catholics, but at the same time, for me, I'm really just observing from the outside.  I'm only looking at this from an armchair perspective.  

        Like you, I was disgusted by the Pope selection and have been enraged by most of the statements that have come out of his mouth.  I think he's a very bad man.

        But a part of me really respects that the Catholic church has stuck to their guns on so many things.  i like the stance that George Bush is the anti-Christ, I like that they've stuck to caring for the poor while Evangelicals are pretty much mainstream capitalists.  I think it's interesting that the whole "eye of the needle" thing is the one thing Evangelicals don't seem to judge much about.  

        by Erin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Also drug abuse (0 / 0)

          I don't think it's a sin, but I do find that drug addicts are prone to doing harmful, harmful things to others.  I would think the byproducts of drug abuse are the sins, not drug abuse itself.

          by Erin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    • interesting point (0 / 0)

      WB, Bill Gates and George Soros have also committed themselves to piecing out their excessive wealth to ameliorate poverty, injustice, disease, etc. Does that mitigate, in the eyes of the church?

      by Rachel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:36:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • It does, or at least it did (0 / 0)

        It put you in the express line to heaven, last I checked.  Grace through works - the fundamental split with protestant theology.  Though the widow's mite counts just as much as Gates' billions.

        by lyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • Am I the only one (0 / 0)

      who thinks it's hilarious to see the Catholic Church looking down their noses at 'excessive wealth'? The irony is just killing me.

      by sangfroid on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • It's time to become Episcopalian. (0 / 0)

    Seriously. I think I have to turn my Catholic card in for good. I can't deal with stuff like this.

    by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM PDT

  • I'm a Catholic (0 / 0)

    This list seems redundant.  The way I look at it, most of these could be covered by the original 7.  For example, wouldn't contributing to the divide between rich and poor, excessive wealth and creating poverty be greed?  Whatever.  The Vatican is relatively out of touch with the majority of the faithful and has been for quite a while.  I didn't see that improving much with this pope.

    by music teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM PDT

  • just a thought (0 / 0)

    Isn't no. 1 (no birth control) in direct conflict with nos. 5, 6, and 7 (the wealth/poverty ones)?

    by Jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM PDT

  • comment (0 / 0)

    Not in comment to your diary directly Rachel, but I don't see why people are so offended about this interview (it was just an interview BTW) if they are not Catholic.  

    Some of the comments on this thread could be interpreted as quite offensive.  Would we say the same things about tenets of Islam or Judaism or Buddhism?  Lots of stuff in those religions to disagree with too.

    I can understand disagreeing with the politics of the Vatican, but to mock the church outright is just bigotry.

    by NJmom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM PDT

    • If you're Catholic it's ok? (0 / 0)

      I read through the comments again, I'm not sure where the bigotry was in the comments.

      by lilianna28 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:25:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • sure (0 / 0)

        I can understand if someone was a practicing Catholic and read this interview and had strong feelings about it.  IMO, there wasn't much new in it from what I read of it.

        Sure, read through the comments again, but through the eyes of a practicing Catholic and see what you think about some of them.  Or substitute similar quips about Judaism or Islam and see if the comments are still ok.

        Or maybe I'm just over sensitive.

        by NJmom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • BTW (0 / 0)

          BTW, just some of the comments not all.

          by NJmom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • You're not oversensitive. I agree with you. (0 / 0)

          by MKatherine1966 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • Bigotry or just benign snark? (0 / 0)

          I was really surprised by your calling certain comments bigotry. That's kind of an intense accusation. I read through the thread again and could not figure out which comments you were talking about. Bigotry, to me, means intolerance and hateful prejudice. I read critical comments mixed with humor, which I would say is the prevailing attitude on MT in general--responding to news and other cultural stuff with critique, analysis, anecdotes, and humor.

          Maybe what you expect is for organized religion(s) to be exempted from that treatment, because it is something that people take very seriously. I don't have that expectation. I don't expect your sacred cows to be my sacred cows.

          I feel like exempting religion from critique and analysis has a real stifling effect that makes me bristle. Organized religions are human-created institutions. Like the humans that create them, they fill real needs. They do great work. And they can be capricious, strange, dysfunctional.

          I grew up in a very religious household--Evangelical Christianity. I find religion fascinating and still I like to talk about it. Reading the comments, I would substitute similar quips with Islam or Scientology or whatever and feel totally OK about it. Too many wars are fought over religion, including small brushfires on Mothertalkers.

          by Amy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    • disagree (0 / 0)

      I got the impression that most of the comments are from Catholics and former Catholics. I'm the latter, incidentally, largely because of the church's position on women's issues. We have every right to criticize something we are or were a part of--even more, we have the personal obligation to think critically about a philosophy we may or may not wish to pursue. Sorry if my tongue-in-cheek tone offended you, but I consider that issue a major factor in my assessment of an institution that I once invested with a fair amount of power.

      by Jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Word. (0 / 0)

      Some of the comments on this thread could be interpreted as quite offensive.

      And, for the record, I'm an atheist.

      by GiGi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • I hope you don't mean me, NJMom (0 / 0)

      I hesitated in writing this diary in the first place because I did not want to come across as mocking, precisely because Catholicism isn't my house, so to speak.

      I tried to approach this with respect and with an eye to the fact that while I'm not Catholic, the Catholic church is still a major institution with influence throughout the world. So I think it's fascinating that the Church would raise environmental degredation to mortal sin status, for example. I also find it disappointing that an institution would be in such denial over the victimisation of children - but I would have the same problem with any institution, whether it be any religious sect, governmental or non-governmental body, if they did the same.

      I hope that came across, and if not, I apologize.

      by Rachel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • No, not with regards to your story (0 / 0)

        My first line was a preface that what I was about to write was not a reaction to your story, or the way you covered the story.  I thought your diary was written respectfully and thoughtfully.  As was your comment that I just responded to.  

        I don't have a problem with people disagreeing for the reasons you mentioned, it really has to do more with the tone.

        I just wonder if we, as progressives or liberals or whatever we call ourselves, would criticize tenets or practices or leaders of other religions in a mocking manner.  Or is it just Catholicism that is open to this?  

        by NJmom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • okay, good (0 / 0)

          just felt a little insecure and needed the reassurance!

          As to your question, I'm not sure. I'm an agnostic working her way into atheism, and I have a pretty snarky sense of humor, and I know that over the years, I've had a go at religion (all major religions). Of course, I've tried to temper my remarks; I would never, ever say anything snarky about Catholicism to my much loved godmother, who had a very fervent, pure faith for all of her life. I just loved her too much to hurt her feelings! I try not to be disrespectful, but on the other hand, I do have a huge problem with institutions that are discriminatory. It's a conundrum that I try to approach with sensitivity, and often fail, I must emphasize!

          by Rachel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • context matters (0 / 0)

          FWIW I've been perfectly comfortable debating both papal infallibility and preprogrammed elevators on the sabbath (in the same conversation) with my orthodox Israeli inlaws.  I would not have had the same comfort had the conversation moved to Baptists or Muslims.  It's true that religion is difficult to 'debate' - there needs to be comfort, understanding, and respect among all parties - and especially in this type of written forum the overtones can get lost.  But I hate to see it put off limits on the chance someone may misinterpret remarks.

          I was a big fan of The Daily Show's "This Week in God" back when Colbert did it.  He mocked all religions, but you could sense that he himself is a deeply religious person and I found the segment hilarious.  They've tried other correspondents since he left, and I'm sure the material is by the same writers, but nobody else has quite been able to pull it off.

          by lyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:17:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • Evangelicals (0 / 0)

          Evangelical Christianity gets mocked way more than the Catholic Church. Huckabee has been a favorite punchline for his religious beliefs. Among other things.

          Q: What's the difference between snark and a mocking tone?

          by Amy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:35:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • To answer (0 / 0)

            To answer your question, bigotry, to me, is intolerance.

            My original question still stands...

            My original thought was wondering if a diary reporting about new developments in the theology of Judaism or Buddhism or Islam, for example, would have been met with such snark and criticism here.  As progressives, are we ok with criticizing the tenets of Catholic Church, but not Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam, etc?

            by NJmom on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:44:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Can't answer for progressives... (0 / 0)

              I certainly can't answer for progressives as a whole. But I can certainly answer for myself, and say an unequivocal YES. The problem is that there is much less in the way of media coverage for new developments in some of the other religions you mention, especially Buddhism. I don't know if I've ever read a news peice on Hinduism. I do come across some articles that describe the theological differences in Muslim sects, because factions are warring, or European countries are considering banning chadors, etc.

              I have read opinion peices (usually written by conservatives) that fault "liberals" for being completely uncritical of Islam and other world religions under the banner of "tolerance" or "multiculturalism/diversity," but then hyper-critical of Christianity. I have noticed this phenomenon here and there, but I would not say that it applies to all progressives and it doesn't apply to me.

              I still don't understand where you're coming from, because what is not being tolerated here? The intolerance I see is coming from people who want the prevailing tone of MT (which includes snark) to stop at the door of a particular religious institution.

              It's very true that a blog is different from someone's living room, and perhaps that's where the clash of expectations happens. That it's about perceived norms of manners.

              by Amy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • I'll chime in (0 / 0)

                It's not so much the snark that is offensive, but the disrespect. There is a fine line and some people here, IMO, have crossed it. I'm not going to pull quotes because I don't want to call anybody out. As I posted on the Galileo thread, the Church is not responsible for adapting to the social mores of the time. If one does not  like it, fine, but that doesn't mean one needs to to disparage it.

                by GiGi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            • I can't answer for everyone (0 / 0)

              But I imagine the answer is yes, for Judaism, mainline Protestantism, and Evangelical Christianity, all of which I suspect are well represented within this group.  No for Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism, which are further from the mainstream in our culture and less well understood.  A very large fraction of the responders on this thread are Catholic, and I have not seen any sign of bigotry or intolerance.

              As a biologist I've always been amused by the fact that eggs are pareve.  I've snarked this point to my Jewish inlaws, who also happen to be biologists.  Does that make me an anti-semite?

              by lyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    • Mocking the church--maybe it's okay (0 / 0)

      It isn't the Bible or Jesus or God that is being mocked, it's church leaders and their pronouncements. In the same vein, I would never mock Allah, Mohammed or the Koran, but I will happily take to task the mullahs of Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, All. Day. Long.

      Religion has such a profound influence on society and individuals, I think it is okay--and even important--to call B.S. on religious organizations and leaders when you see it.

      (full disclosure: I am a liberal Christian by way of Buddhism, and I have studied many other religions academically. ) When religious leaders of any stripe make declarations regarding the lives of their constituents, I think they should be exposed to full examination. If that includes "making fun," I think that's an acceptable part of the process.

      The unfortunate reallity is that powerful religious leaders from all traditions have the ability to make their followers miserable. Taking a hands off, "different strokes for different folks" approach to world religions can be as destructive as the blind adherence of the faithful to any religious dogma that comes their earthly leaders.

      by sangfroid on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Good (0 / 0)

        Well, good, glad to hear you're an equal-opportunity BS-caller for the sake of their followers.  Very big of you.

        by NJmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:58:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Ouch! (0 / 0)

          Just trying to add another perspective to the conversation, but I will happily wear the 'equal opportunity BS caller" t-shirt.

          Certainly nothing I've read in these posts rivals some of the bashing of evangelicals I've seen in other threads. No one comes to their defense. And if you're a Scientologist--all bets are off! ;)

          I'm not sure why the Catholic Church (or any other church) would get a 'snark-free' zone. Religious leaders should be subject to the same scrutiny as political ones. None of these venerable--and important--institutions will falter because someone makes a joke regarding an interview.

          by sangfroid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:55:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I agree (0 / 0)

            I agree, and I apologize for my previous snarky comment. This thread does not rival some the bashing of evangelicals seen in other threads.  Guess that could help explain why we don't have many evangelicals hanging around here (besides the fact few identify themselves as progressives, unlike Catholics).

            My original thought was wondering if a diary reporting about new developments in the theology of Judaism or Buddhism or Islam, for example, would have been met with such snark and criticism here.  As progressives, are we ok with criticizing the tenets of Catholic Church, but not Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam, etc?

            by NJmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:54:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Sincerely doubt it too (0 / 0)

              I think you're right, a diary about developments in some other religion (besides evangelicals, as has been noted) wouldn't get the same response as this one.

              by RachelD on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:10:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • well, we'll have to test this theory! (0 / 0)

                I'm going to set up a google alert for other religions and post some diaries in future. Which is hugely ironic considering my current status as  bonified church non-attendee. But I like a good social experiment as much as the next person and I am fascinated by institutional evolution.

                I should probably note that I occasinally cruise over to Street Prophets to see how things are from that prism.

                by Rachel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            • Bring on the snark! heehee (0 / 0)

              I agree with your premise that there is a double standard in some liberal/PC circles: you can bash Christians, but not the other world religions. Certainly, this isn't okay. We should be bashing all religions equally. (kidding!)

              I am wary of shutting down dialogue when it comes to religious proclamations. I think you could make an argument that we (you, me, the global community at large) should subject all religions to MORE scrutiny--not less. I think the PC-inclusive vibe is insufficient in some situations, like when mullahs 'interpret' their holy texts and declare that people should be killed because of cartoons. The 'world' should not pussy foot around out of a fear of causing offense and a desire to be inclusive.

              Likewise, when the world's richest private institution implies that 'excessive wealth' is a sin in and of itself, I think it's acceptable for a group of intelligent, funny, diverse (and totally gorgeous) American mothers to say, "Dudes, you CANNOT be serious!"

              by sangfroid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:22:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • That's an interesting point, slightly OT (0 / 0)

                Are we here at MT "the world", or are we a large group of online friends, where we might want to not get too critical of a friend's religion? With a friend, why do that. Out in the world, esp politically, sure, I hear you on that one.

                I don't know, it's a much larger topic. But given the political stuff on here recently, plus this stuff, it's an interesting question. What is a blog anyway, where it is certainly public, with many lurkers I assume, but we also happen to have here a bunch of people who post all the time, and it starts to feel like you know someone "personally."

                by RachelD on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • That's interesting (0 / 0)

                  I posted awhile back about a political prisoner situation, and asked (from a place of severe frustration) "what can we do from so far away?" The answer I got was "talk about it. talk about it. talk about it."

                  I think of MT as a place where we can dialogue about issues and hash out different perspectives. I love that, and I do it with my 'real life' friends. (It probably drives some of them crazy!) I grew up in a house where people happily took sides in discusions just to play devil's advocate. I think it's a very cordial and productive way to approach things.

                  It seems like even arguments here are good spirited. That is something to be proud of.

                  by sangfroid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                • interesting (0 / 0)

                  Interesting (and big!) question RachelD!  I think, like any community, we have norms and we are entrenched in those norms, what is ok to say, and what is not.

                  by NJmom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:40:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              • Waving hand... (0 / 0)

                surely I'm not the only non-American here?!
                :-)

                by SwissClogs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:45:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • tee hee hee (0 / 0)

                  maybe you've got honorary status as you lived in DC? If you want it! ;-)

                  I know there's ExpatBriton, but it's an interesting question!

                  by Rachel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                • Sorry (0 / 0)

                  I'll change that to "an international coalition of wildly intelligent and drop dead gorgeous women."

                  by sangfroid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:34:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • :-) (0 / 0)

                    I was actually trying hard to think of others and couldn't initially come up with anyone. Rachel is right though, there's ExpatBriton and I just thought of Lonestar Canuck. And I may still overlook a couple of others - sorry if that is the case.

                    But I'll take your new description of all of us any day :-)

                    And thanks Rachel, but I think I will remain the 'non-resident alien' I was when I lived in DC - it's a better descriptor now that I don't actually live in the US anymore.

                    by SwissClogs on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      • I agree 100% (0 / 0)

        Quashing dissent, quashing humor, never speaking out or being critical of the annoucements or doctrines of church leaders--forget that action. That's not the world I want to live in or create.

        Being respectfully mum about doctrines that harm people because I might offend some true believer...nah.

        by Amy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:43:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Oh, this is absurd. (0 / 0)

    With all due respect to Catholics, this is ridiculous.  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is committing mortal sin because every single one of us is doing something to pollute.  I don't even need to get into my frustration with the birth control thing (although I could have sworn this has been the case for some time because my mother always said she was damned for getting her tubes tied.)

    I appreciate that the Church is trying to raise conciousness, but this is extreme.

    by tessajp on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:07:28 PM PDT

  • Katie? (0 / 0)

    Where art thou in this thread??????

    Probably being smart, as usual, and staying the frig out of it! :)

    by GiGi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:11:43 PM PDT

    • I"m here. I"m reading it all (0 / 0)

      I guess I'll just say what I always say.  I'm Catholic. the prayers and rituals and meanings of the Catholic Church are deeply rooted in me. I find tremendous comfort in the mass. I find comfort in my prayers. I often even find my self in tears when is say the prayer of the faithful at mass.

      However. I am gay. I have practiced birth control. I am pro choice and believe in stem cell research. I am divorced.

      and my daughter goes to Catholic school and serves as an altargirl.  

      For me I try to focus on my little corner of Catholicism. my parish. the kind priest who was so good to Liza when she FREAKED out her first day serving mass.  the deacon who teaches high schoo ethics and gives the most fascinating homilies. the fact that Liza is in a national catholic school approved and sponsored program for children of divorce. little changes here and there that wouldn't have happened in my youth.  Are there flaws in teh church of course.  And maybe i'm taking the easy way out but I just tune out the political stuff and focus on the rest then I'm ok.  

      wimpy answer I know ;-) but when i'm asked to defend my catholicism I usually say> I'm gay. and I'm catholic. Whoop de freaking doo.  

      by MKatherine1966 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:16:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Hey - not wimpy (0 / 0)

        but real, personal, and touching. Thanks and sorry to call you out!

        O/T I'm reading a really cool book right now by James Martin, SJ...it's called My Life with the Saints. I heard him on NPR discussing sainthood and he was great. I know nothing much about Saints or Catholicism and I'm enjoying it immensely.  He has several Saints with whom he 'communicates' on a regular basis. It reads part biography of the Saints, part biography of this guy, and is just really cool.

        It's relatively new, but my little library had it...

        by GiGi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:04:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Honestly my prayers for interecession (0 / 0)

          go to Mary  - to St. Jude and to St. anthony -- my big three -- the worship of Mary and the saints is a HUGE reason I'm still Catholic.  I tried going episcoplian and the absence of Mary was grating and upsetting to me.  I tried UUism and was IRRITATED BEYOND BELIEF.  I want a mass not a freaking book group...

          this is my church. this is my faith. I can separate the religious from the political and be very happy. I'm so FREAKING TIRED of defending the fact that i'm "still catholic"   Do you  EVER Say to someone "wow. I can't believe you're STILL JEWISH?'  as if all truly enlightened people would know better.  I feel like saying It's my faith.  if you don't like it don't practice it but bug out and leave me alone about it.

          so there.

          by MKatherine1966 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:32:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • So there! (0 / 0)

            I think you'd like the book. Mary is in there, no Sts Jude or Anthony but many others (that I must confess I've never heard of!).

            We just started at a UU church and I like it because it's more like an undergrad lecture each week than church. I'm an atheist so it appeals to me on that level.

            I really hear you about the "still" part... there are those that call themselves "recovering" or "relapsed" Catholics, but have the "Catholic" in there nonetheless. Very interesting. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic I suppose.

            by GiGi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:39:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • ah yes... (0 / 0)

            while I threaten, I know that I'm probably not going to leave. I forgot about how I'd have to "give up" my near-daily prayer to Mother Mary, and my saints, and how much I really really like Mass... if not the politics of church.

            Funny, I read "Catholicism for Dummies" and didn't realize how many of my opinions were formulated by faith teachings. So I guess I worry more about permeating my daughter if I attend and can, as an adult, pick and choose- which is the reason I don't attend the church RIGHT BY my house, because I don't feel like walking past the "aborted child graveyard" they've erected.

            That said, I've made comments about wondering why my friend was still Jewish when she believes next to nothing in her faith... so maybe I'm an equal opportunity questioner. :)

            by lilianna28 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          • St. Anthony (0 / 0)

            He hears from me a lot.  I think the phrase "patience of a saint" must apply to him.  Can you imagine how often he must be prayed to? I'm always losing stuff.

            We pray to St. Joseph a bit too.  My first son is a Joseph and my husband has a special devotion to the holy family.  Plus our last house sold within a week of burying his statue;-)

            by music teacher on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:54:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      • I have been exactly there (0 / 0)

        for a very long time now. I can't help but feel, lately, that I'm 30, I do not believe a good majority of what the Catholic Church's Vatican hands down, I'm terribly disappointed with the leadership choices, and I don't even want to find a Catholic Church in my neighborhood (going on 2 years of saying, I really need to...) and I owe it to myself to find a church I can feel comfortable in. I feel like I owe it to my kids too, because I don't want to be a non-church goer, I see the value in that (I have the exact same emotional connections to the service, prayers and rituals you describe) and I just can't seem to reconcile it all in my head.

        I guess I could say "the ritual is what you make of it," continue to attend the mass I can tolerate 20 minutes from home, and call it all a day. But I can't help but feel so weary of being a cafeteria Catholic.

        by lilianna28 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:15:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Vatican vs average parish (0 / 0)

          I work as a music minister, keyboards and vocals, at a church and I have worked in several local churches as a musician.  Most of the priests I have met have been really good guys.  Many of them are so frustrated by the stuff that gets handed down from the leadership.  Also, they are PISSED about the way the pedophilia scandal has been handled from above because they are the ones left holding the bag so to speak.  The leadership is so insulated from the people but the priests on the local levels are not and usually lead their parishes in a reasonable way.

          by music teacher on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:38:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      • we don't always have to parse the whys (0 / 0)

        I think sometimes people get a bit too "meta" about their lives, or other people's lives. Accept the contradictions, and accept that people have complex lives! It's more fun that way, anyway. Where's that next cup of coffee?

        by Rachel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • We are all (oxy)morons (0 / 0)

          People are full of contradictions, but that doesn't make them hypocrites.

          These discussions always make me think of a woman I know who is a politically conservative, evangelical Christian, and strident vegan environmentalist.

          My guess is most people are surprised by that combination... ;)

          by sangfroid on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:14:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • Nothing really new about this. (0 / 0)

    It seems like a restatement of traditional Catholic social justice teaching going back to the 1880s. The Church's teachings on these matters was always closer to the Democratic Party than the GOP's heartless laissez-faire free-market capitalism. That's why blue-collar "ethnics" always voted Democratic, until Reagan peeled them away on social concerns. That was the case with people in my own family. I myself, I'm sure, am an aberration as I am a progressive pro-life Roman Catholic Democrat. If we had keep the "ethnics," elections would not turn on such razor-thin margins.

    by mercedes99 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:11:04 PM PDT

Permalink | 93 comments