The Vatican has taken the world by surprise once more with a burdensome batch of “social sins.” Is this really the time to be dealing with seven more ways to disappoint the deity that created us? Are these new sins realistic and consistent with today’s society?
The blog click here describes the new list of wrongdoings as a positive indicator that the Catholic Church is changing with the times. That while these sins will not lead a person to hell, avoiding them would help “foster community.” Mention is made of the infamous seven deadly sins: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. According to Catholic doctrine if someone dies without having confessed for one or more of these transgressions, the sinner will go to hell. So what is the objective of being aware of these offenses, if doing them won’t lead to eternal damnation?
The previously referenced blog lists the seven social sins are:
1. Bioethical violations such as birth control
2. Morally dubious’ experiments such as stem cell research
3. Drug abuse
4. Polluting the environment
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor
6. Excessive wealth
7. Creating poverty
Not everyone however, has expressed their undying support for what seems like the Catholic Church’s attempt to regain its notorious power over the lives of its community of believers. Across the years people have responded negatively to the incarcerating shackles imposed by the leading Christian infrastructure of the world. And with this new redefinition of what is right and wrong, countless people are questioning whether the attempt to acclimate to the changing times is just a ludicrous charade. But even if they do believe this sham whole-heartily, aren’t most of these new sins hypocritical, inconsistent, and unattainable?
The first sin on the list is the only one that proves itself legitimate, consistent, and feasible. The other six should be subject to a case by case basis rather than being labeled objectively by a narrow-minded standard. Stem cell research has been determined to be wrong. There are two kinds; Embryonic and Adult. Opposing embryonic research makes sense; what about the adult one? There is no logic in condemning that which will offer a saving grace to individuals, who are suffering in this world due to incurable conditions and sicknesses.
Drug abuse is now a sin? So let’s be consistent and label anything we abuse as wrong. It is not enough to simply say using drugs is amoral. By implementing that logic we would have to say that alcohol and cigarettes, even when used in moderation, are sinful in nature. And we know that is not possible given the trivial consumption of these substances.
Polluting the environment is also a sin! This statement leads the cynic to pose a humorous question: unless the Pope drives around in his Pope Mobile with something other than gas as his fuel source, isn’t he sinning?
The remaining “social sins” are in more than one way interrelated. If we are lavishly rich, we are doing something wrong; good job Bill Gates and Carlos Slim, you are bad people. When poverty is created, as is the case in every form of government, we have officially failed God; the economy is to blame. If and when a bigger gap is made between the rich and poor, the one responsible for this has broken the Vatican’s rule; thanks a lot wretched Capitalism.
These rules are perhaps evidence of a Church attempting to renovate the outdated morality of a 2,000 year old religion. Perhaps the right intentions are present, but logic certainly is not. Nothing in life, not even a monotheistic God, is within black and white terms. There is always a grey area and this is what the Church has failed to see after thousands of years of existence. Some see these new set of sins as a harmless whim of the Vatican that can be easily disregarded. Others however, see it as strict fundamentalist view on how to please God. A view that is meant to dictate the life of the believer.
The days of old have long since past, so please don’t try to bring them back.