Vatican's "New" Seven Deadly Sins

According to IBN Live, The Vatican's "Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary," has issued news statements regarding official sins holding that "causing social injustice" and "polluting the environment, failing to recycle plastic bags, being obscenely wealthy, taking or dealing drugs" are considered sinful acts by the Church."

Being "obscenely rich" and causing "social injustice ?" The Church is being very ambiguous here. Whats obscene? The Church neither defines obscenity nor does it distinguish between becoming rich by "economic means" or by "political means." Also, the Austrian School has been very critical of egalitarian social justice beliefs.

Is the Church damaging its ability to be an institution that Catholic free-marketeers can believe in? What do you think about the "new" sins? Perhaps I've missed something that the Church announced. I'm an atheist but I don't think its appropriate to swoop down and critique religion on one of my rants on this kind of forum. Feedback. Thanks

I've read that in the Telegraph and was profoundly shocked. It seems they have abandoned a very important tradition of the Church, namely the moral philosophy of Thonas Aquinas, who argued that an act can never be morally judged by it's results, because human beings cannot foretell the future. Only motivations and actions (methods) can be morally judged.

 Here it seems they are judging results. That's a totat contradiction to the most important traditions. Before they only said don't wish this and this and don't do this and this. Now they seem to say don't do stuff that results in this and this, such as pollution, getting "too" rich or "social injustice". That's crazy...

 And WTF is social injustice. That's just sort of a weasel word. Either it is injustice i.e. personal injustice, or not. Social injustice is something one cannot prove to be unjust but yet likes to condemn anyway.

 They might be taking a moderate Singerian approach, saying that being "obscenely rich" demonstrates a failure to fulfill one's moral obligation to help those in desparate need when one would not lose anything of moral significance by doing so.

Statements like this which the Church has made are just one of the reasons why, I think, so many independent Catholics exist today. Thomas Aquinas did believe in will and not consequences, yet I think the Church has some history of condemning the wealthy. At the risk of being facetious, I would say that the Pope isn't bad off himself though. Doesn't he wear Prada?

I'm not sure if they were listing it as a new sin, but a newspaper here also mentioned tax evasion to be a sin. I don't consider that really an immoral thing, much less of a sin, but I wonder if there is religious basis for that. I think its a stretch to say that Jesus mean to be a sin when he said "to caesar what's of caesar".  But what do you think?

I understand they list not helping someone in need as a sin, but evading taxes doesn't necessarly mean the person isn't going to use that money for charity purposes. Anyway, its basically saying that if you don't give to others what they ask from you, then you are in sin.

I would rather they'd focus on things like tax breaks for special interests, which distorce the field. And also other political actions like invading countries. You'd think these modern crusades would be more of a concern.

BlackSheep:

I'm not sure if they were listing it as a new sin, but a newspaper here also mentioned tax evasion to be a sin. I don't consider that really an immoral thing, much less of a sin, but I wonder if there is religious basis for that. I think its a stretch to say that Jesus mean to be a sin when he said "to caesar what's of caesar".  But what do you think?

Jesus never said that not paying taxes is a sin. He simply said what he needed to say to avoid being called a blasphemer by the Pharisees or an insurrectionist by the Romans. Note he also never says what, exactly, is Caesar's.

I understand they list not helping someone in need as a sin, but evading taxes doesn't necessarly mean the person isn't going to use that money for charity purposes. Anyway, its basically saying that if you don't give to others what they ask from you, then you are in sin.

More than that - what if you have a scripturally sound moral objection to the activities for which the state will inevitably use your tax money?

I would rather they'd focus on things like tax breaks for special interests, which distorce the field. And also other political actions like invading countries. You'd think these modern crusades would be more of a concern.

I look forward to the day when the church (not only the catholic church, but the whole body of believers) stops acting like a government and starts acting the way it was meant to - as a family. "Social injustice?" Where did they find that in the Bible? Maybe they forgot about this verse:

2 Corinthians 9:7 - Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly OR UNDER COMPULSION, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Emphasis added.

The OP is why I am no longer a Christian. It seems organized religion consists merely of leftist shills now. They should enthrone Al Gore as their god, and appoint someone like Peter Singer as the new Pope. 

Although I have only read reports about this interview coming out of the AP, my feeling is that these lists of "modern sins" are being purposefully misinterpreted or under-reported by the AP and others. I see nothing here in conflict with fundamental Catholic beliefs unless these statements are misconstrued to mean something other than their purpose. If you take exception to the fundamental dogmas of the Church (which are also very often misinterpreted) then that is another issue. Take for instance the sin of being "exceedingly rich." Admittedly there have been members of the Church who have interpreted the Gospels incorrectly (in my opinion) to say that the Gospel somehow promotes a socialist society. However, these passages in the Gospel - such as the passage about it being harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle - are meant to condemn greed and an inability to part with money over faith. Furthermore, a proper interpretation of the Gospels cannot lead one to believe that FORCED sharing of wealth (as in a socialist society) is what Jesus promoted. Indeed the only sharing and giving that matters is willful charity as seen most frequently in a free society. So in summary, I cannot say for sure what Monsignor Girotti meant precisely by some of his comments, because very little elaboration is being provided in these reports. However, I am fairly confident that these statements are consistent with the Church's rigid belief in moral truth. It is also important to note that we are talking about moral sins and that the Church is certainly not suggesting that they want big government to legislate or force morality. I am Catholic and a big supporter of Austrian economic theory and see no conflict between the two. Instead I view the two as being rather consistent with one another in regards to seeking truth whether that truth is economic, social, or moral.

Well someone should hand these goons a copy of Thomas Woods' book on catholicism and the free market, because they simply do not get it.

...and on top of this, I think I remember seeing the new Pope complaining in some way or another about green house gasses and global warming and some such nonsense.  So I wonder that since pollution is a deadly sin, and the Church has bought into the global warming hoax, does that mean I sin every time I exhale CO2?

...seems like I'm dead either way... 

 Only if you're a right-libertarian