First reports of Pope Francis reminds me of Eggs Benedict in that the media is letting us know about his moral stand on a few contentious issues. They did the same with Benedict when he took over. I remember when Benedict became pope he sounded okay with a few pronouncements on moral issues. Thats what popes are supposed to do. Later on he scared the hell out of me when he went to the United Nations. Francis is only on the job a few days; so Im going back to Benedict looking for a clue to Francis.
Prior to Benedict giving the United Nations legitimacy he approved of the creation of seven new sins. In March of 2008 Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti announced the new sins in an interview. I dont know anything about Girotti. I dont think he would have done the interview without the popes approval. The new sins are called social sins.
I understand that the Vatican was trying to introduce a new product line, but for the Catholic Church to call some of their products sins implies that everyone will be judged harshly in the next life if they commit those sins.
I dont count the first one on the list as a new sin because it is so closely related to abortion:
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
Number 2 on the list is half old and half new. Genetic manipulation is new, while selective breeding has been around for centuries. It will probably be many decades before genetic engineering is separated into acceptable practices and criminal behavior. I doubt if the churchs definition of sin will influence the decisions.
Basically, I object to priests usurping authority over criminal activity just as I object to politicians exercising moral authority over behavior as they define it. In both cases you end up with a theocracy.
Bottom line: The day I turn to anybody in the federal government, or to a priest, for moral guidance is the day I take the gas pipe.
Number 3 on the list is debatable. Morally drug addiction is no different than alcohol abuse. I suspect that God gives drunks a pass so long as they did not hurt others when they were under a full head of steam; so why not drugs? I cant speak for God, but Ill give it a personal pass because I see the moral and societal implications the same way I view alcoholism.
Number 4 is the big problem. Pollution made the cut just when headway was being made against the global warming hoax. UN hustlers running the environmental movement scams invented designer-science as a scare tactic. Thanks to Benedict designer-sin legitimated designer-science. Thats one area where Pope Francis should be closely watched.
NOTE: In 2010 INTERPOL pledged war on environmental crime whatever the hell that is. Bolivias President Evo Morales, a nut job in his own right, even called for prosecuting criminal countries in the UNs International Criminal Court. Tie everything together and you have Bedbug Morales Hussein giving INTERPOL the authority to operate in this country with diplomatic immunity and Benedicts pollution designer-sin. Conclusion: Nothing is deadlier than the United Nations acting in partnership with a major organized religion.
The first thing wrong with designer-sin is that it gives perverts the opportunity to define reprehensible behavior without relinquishing their own perversions. Heres an example: The anti-tobacco movement was a cleansing opportunity for freakazoids. Public demonstrations of anger over secondhand smoke allowed every pervert in the country to show how moral they really are.
Adding pollution to the list of sins will attract more depraved human beings than you can count with a super computer. Perverts dont pollute, they abuse children, they murder, they encourage depravity then they join marches for every environmental cause that comes along.
Also, Pope Benedict was known for putting emphasis on communal rather than individual piety. It sounds too much like politically correct behavior to suit me, but then I am not a Roman Catholic. Once again, Pope Francis should be watched. After all, didnt God give man free will. Institutionally-approved behavior flies in the face of individual responsibility.
For the sake of argument lets say polluting is a sin. If so, it must be a collective sin as much as it is a sin committed by individuals. I pray that I am not judged in the hereafter as one of a group. Judging an entire group as one person is causing enough trouble in this life without doing it the next.
Even if polluting is treated as a criminal activity only, collective liability can get out of hand mighty fast once a group of governments charge a single government with the crime. Needless to say the United Nations has already found America guilty without benefit of a trial.
I assume pollution means more than the sins of air pollution and manmade global warming; so I should not be sent to Hell for the sins of company executives dumping pollutants into the drinking water supply.
Regarding Judgement Day: Dying and being judged by God for driving a gas guzzler is hardly fair since the owners of every gas guzzler who died prior to the Vaticans new list got off easy. Its called the Cave Man Absolution. Every sinner who died before an activity was declared a sin after organized religion came along got off scot-free.
Why did Benedict do it?
The environmental movement became a home for displaced Communists after the Soviet Union imploded. Communists are not friends of Supreme Deity religions Roman Catholics least of all. That makes it difficult for me to understand why the Vatican would give credence to any part of the environmental movement.
The last thing mankind needs is designer-sin. Tried and true, mass produced, sins on the books for centuries are sufficient; pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.
Finally, the Roman Catholic Church appears to support a one government world. Unstoppable global government is sneaking in behind the unstoppable process of globalization. That makes me wonder how Muslims feel about a world where Christians countries administer that government?
Lest anyone misinterpret me on this me let me clear up my position. I will do and say anything that helps tear down the United Nations. The R.C.Ch. hopping in bed with the United Nations is one more reason for Americans to want the UN gone.
Prior to Benedict giving the United Nations legitimacy he approved of the creation of seven new sins. In March of 2008 Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti announced the new sins in an interview. I dont know anything about Girotti. I dont think he would have done the interview without the popes approval. The new sins are called social sins.
I understand that the Vatican was trying to introduce a new product line, but for the Catholic Church to call some of their products sins implies that everyone will be judged harshly in the next life if they commit those sins.
I dont count the first one on the list as a new sin because it is so closely related to abortion:
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
Number 2 on the list is half old and half new. Genetic manipulation is new, while selective breeding has been around for centuries. It will probably be many decades before genetic engineering is separated into acceptable practices and criminal behavior. I doubt if the churchs definition of sin will influence the decisions.
Basically, I object to priests usurping authority over criminal activity just as I object to politicians exercising moral authority over behavior as they define it. In both cases you end up with a theocracy.
Bottom line: The day I turn to anybody in the federal government, or to a priest, for moral guidance is the day I take the gas pipe.
Number 3 on the list is debatable. Morally drug addiction is no different than alcohol abuse. I suspect that God gives drunks a pass so long as they did not hurt others when they were under a full head of steam; so why not drugs? I cant speak for God, but Ill give it a personal pass because I see the moral and societal implications the same way I view alcoholism.
Number 4 is the big problem. Pollution made the cut just when headway was being made against the global warming hoax. UN hustlers running the environmental movement scams invented designer-science as a scare tactic. Thanks to Benedict designer-sin legitimated designer-science. Thats one area where Pope Francis should be closely watched.
NOTE: In 2010 INTERPOL pledged war on environmental crime whatever the hell that is. Bolivias President Evo Morales, a nut job in his own right, even called for prosecuting criminal countries in the UNs International Criminal Court. Tie everything together and you have Bedbug Morales Hussein giving INTERPOL the authority to operate in this country with diplomatic immunity and Benedicts pollution designer-sin. Conclusion: Nothing is deadlier than the United Nations acting in partnership with a major organized religion.
The first thing wrong with designer-sin is that it gives perverts the opportunity to define reprehensible behavior without relinquishing their own perversions. Heres an example: The anti-tobacco movement was a cleansing opportunity for freakazoids. Public demonstrations of anger over secondhand smoke allowed every pervert in the country to show how moral they really are.
Adding pollution to the list of sins will attract more depraved human beings than you can count with a super computer. Perverts dont pollute, they abuse children, they murder, they encourage depravity then they join marches for every environmental cause that comes along.
Also, Pope Benedict was known for putting emphasis on communal rather than individual piety. It sounds too much like politically correct behavior to suit me, but then I am not a Roman Catholic. Once again, Pope Francis should be watched. After all, didnt God give man free will. Institutionally-approved behavior flies in the face of individual responsibility.
For the sake of argument lets say polluting is a sin. If so, it must be a collective sin as much as it is a sin committed by individuals. I pray that I am not judged in the hereafter as one of a group. Judging an entire group as one person is causing enough trouble in this life without doing it the next.
Even if polluting is treated as a criminal activity only, collective liability can get out of hand mighty fast once a group of governments charge a single government with the crime. Needless to say the United Nations has already found America guilty without benefit of a trial.
I assume pollution means more than the sins of air pollution and manmade global warming; so I should not be sent to Hell for the sins of company executives dumping pollutants into the drinking water supply.
Regarding Judgement Day: Dying and being judged by God for driving a gas guzzler is hardly fair since the owners of every gas guzzler who died prior to the Vaticans new list got off easy. Its called the Cave Man Absolution. Every sinner who died before an activity was declared a sin after organized religion came along got off scot-free.
Why did Benedict do it?
The environmental movement became a home for displaced Communists after the Soviet Union imploded. Communists are not friends of Supreme Deity religions Roman Catholics least of all. That makes it difficult for me to understand why the Vatican would give credence to any part of the environmental movement.
The last thing mankind needs is designer-sin. Tried and true, mass produced, sins on the books for centuries are sufficient; pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.
Finally, the Roman Catholic Church appears to support a one government world. Unstoppable global government is sneaking in behind the unstoppable process of globalization. That makes me wonder how Muslims feel about a world where Christians countries administer that government?
Lest anyone misinterpret me on this me let me clear up my position. I will do and say anything that helps tear down the United Nations. The R.C.Ch. hopping in bed with the United Nations is one more reason for Americans to want the UN gone.
