Can People Proclaim New Sins?

[Skwim]

I always figured that for an act to be a sin it has to violate a stated prohibition in the Bible. If it doesn't then it isn't a sin. But then I read. . . . .

"In an effort to appeal to the modern Catholic, the Vatican has announced a list of seven new mortal sins. Some of the new don'ts: thou shalt not pollute and thou shalt not have too much money.

The New Mortal Sins

1.) genetic modification

2.) carrying out experiments on humans

3.) polluting the environment

4.) causing social injustice

5.) causing poverty

6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

7.) taking drugs
source
​

And just as an FYI:

"In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law."
source

,​

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is interesting to see that there is a firm opinion about genetic modification. At the moment making a genetic modification to any human tends to be experimental. I can understand the concern, although genetic modification may be the only way to survive at some point. In that case we should learn how to do it. Isn't the real problem the experimentation and the production of insane creatures or causing suffering?

 

[Stevicus]

7.) taking drugs,​

So, does this mean Jesus was committing a sin when he turned water into wine? What about Sacramental Wine? Alcohol is a drug. So is aspirin.

 

[siti]

Whoa - "if you drop a piece of paper on the sidewalk its probably a venial sin, if you manage a company that pollutes the environment its probably a mortal sin"...or presumably by switching on your lights at home when you know very well the power you are using is produced from non-renewable sources and puffs dirty black smoke out of its orifices during production...not to mention driving a car...ye Gods we are all fu...er...I mean damned.

...and what about this from the Holy Roman Catholic arbiter of individual and collective human sinfulness : "there are sins that an organization or an institution can engage in, so an institution can be...sexist..." - Jesuit Priest, Father James Martin!

 

[sun rise]

I don't see a link to that 'new mortal sin' claim in the OP. And in fact, out of curiosity I looked Seven (New) Deadly Sins? Or Not? which stated

And, second, the fact that a headline that reads "Seven New Deadly Sins" is undeniably sexier than a headline saying, "Vatican Official Deepens Church’s Reflection on Longstanding Tradition of Social Sin." The Vatican’s intent seemed to be less about adding to the traditional "deadly" sins (lust, anger, sloth, pride, avarice, gluttony, envy) than reminding the world that sin has a social dimension, and that participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect. In other words, if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.

 

[Father Heathen]

So, does this mean Jesus was committing a sin when he turned water into wine? What about Sacramental Wine? Alcohol is a drug. So is aspirin.

Don't forget that nicotine and even caffeine are drugs as well.

 

[siti]

...if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.

And that's the new absolution mantra - as long as I don't work for BP I can burn as much of their fuel, as inefficiently and carelessly as I want, and remain sinless...but get a job as a forecourt attendant and I'm damned to hell! We really haven't progressed much from selling indulgences have we? Social sin indeed - the Vatican IS a social sin - a bunch of silly old farts prancing around in frocks and pronouncing genetic modification a mortal sin. How the hell do they think their Primate evolved from other primates?

 

[Stevicus]

Don't forget that nicotine and even caffeine are drugs as well.

Indeed.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course people can declare new sins. It's there religion, they can do what they want with it.

I don't know about Catholicism, but most Protestant denominations didn't consider abortion sinful until Jerry Falwell convinced them it was following Roe v Wade.

 

[YmirGF]

6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

Coming from an obscenely wealthy organization.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see a link to that 'new mortal sin' claim in the OP.

I posted two links.

7.) taking drugs
source

"In the Catholic Church, sins . . .
God’s law."
source​

.

 

[Skwim]

Of course people can declare new sins. It's there religion, they can do what they want with it.

My question is in the context of the current dogmas of existing religions. As I indicated, I wasn't aware any religion permitted it. Obviously Catholicism does.
.

 

[Glaurung]

I always figured that for an act to be a sin it has to violate a stated prohibition in the Bible. If it doesn't then it isn't a sin. But then I read. . . .

The Bible is the inspired word of God but it is not alone the totality of God's revelation to humanity. Jesus also left us a teaching authority called the Magisterium, which exists to authoritatively interpret both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Magisterium can neither add or subtract anything to or from the deposit of faith (despite the determined efforts by many otherwise) but as time goes on and the circumstances of society change, how we enunciate that faith and its principles obviously can be subject to change and evaluation. The faith cannot change essentially but it can and must be able to adjust to the contexts it finds itself in.

It is in a large part why Jesus established the Church as a teaching authority rather than hand everyone Bibles. The Bible was never meant to be taken as having all-encompassing explicit answers for absolutely all possible questions for all time.

A really easy example would be pornography. The Bible doesn't "say" anything about internet pornography (how could it?) but the principle from which we can see it as obviously sinful is pretty clear. Matthew 5:27-29 alone is more than sufficient to answer the question, yet alone the sixth (seventh) commandment. Pornography use isn't a new sin, it is simply a new technologically enabled manifestation of that old sin called lust. Likewise greed isn't a new sin but how greed manifests in modern contexts is not going to be identical to how it did in the first century.

"In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law."

Yes, however not everyone who falls into grave matter is necessarily culpable of mortal sin. And even if you do fall into mortal sin, you can always get out of it by a sincere confession.

 

[Grandliseur]

I always figured that for an act to be a sin it has to violate a stated prohibition in the Bible. If it doesn't then it isn't a sin. But then I read. . . . .

"In an effort to appeal to the modern Catholic, the Vatican has announced a list of seven new mortal sins. Some of the new don'ts: thou shalt not pollute and thou shalt not have too much money.

The New Mortal Sins

1.) genetic modification

2.) carrying out experiments on humans

3.) polluting the environment

4.) causing social injustice

5.) causing poverty

6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

7.) taking drugs
source
​

And just as an FYI:

"In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law."
source

,​

Let me give you another one, a real Bible defined one:

Romans 14:23 . . .Indeed, everything that is not out of faith is sin.​

That kind of puts atheism in a new light.

​

 

[YmirGF]

1.) genetic modification

So much for enhancing crops, eh. Anti-science much?

2.) carrying out experiments on humans

So much for new drug trial that could save countless lives. Anti-science again....

3.) polluting the environment

But polluting the environment of ideas is A-OK... Okies...

4.) causing social injustice

Like denying woman in the clergy? Gays in the clergy?

5.) causing poverty

by taking donations from the poor the church does not need.

6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

*sigh*

7.) taking drugs

So, doctors prescriptions are out. Good to know. Anti-science, again...
​

And just as an FYI:

"In the Catholic Church, sins come in two basic types: mortal sins that imperil your soul and venial sins, which are less serious breaches of God’s law."
source

,​

When will we rid ourselves of these self-righteous buffoons?

 

[Skwim]

Let me give you another one, a real Bible defined one:

Romans 14:23 . . .Indeed, everything that is not out of faith is sin.​

That kind of puts atheism in a new light.

"Everything"? Boy that's an awfully huge category. Are Micky Mouse comic books a sin? How about bathrooms? Or eating popcorn? Problem is, statements like this are so monumentally broad as to be meaningless. Sorry, but no sale.

.

 

[sun rise]

I posted two links.

7.) taking drugs
source

"In the Catholic Church, sins . . .
God’s law."
source​

.

I missed the first link. But the point is still valid - media headlines were not accurate.

 

[Glaurung]

So, does this mean Jesus was committing a sin when he turned water into wine? What about Sacramental Wine? Alcohol is a drug. So is aspirin.

Intoxication (be it by alcohol or otherwise) is actually a sin.

If we were to exercise basic charity it becomes obvious that your morning coffee or Friday night beer and parma at the local pub aren't within the realm of what the Church is condemning. Of course, I am certain that you and everyone in this thread knows that.

Don't forget that nicotine and even caffeine are drugs as well.

Although the Church doesn't condemn smoking as such you could make an argument that picking it up now, when the health implications of the habit are fully understood, constitutes a sin. And even if it doesn't it's still an idiotic habit to take up.

Coming from an obscenely wealthy organization.

Much of that wealth is in assets invaluable to the cultural and historical patrimony of Europe. (Especially Italy). It would be culturally and historically criminal to liquidate it off. A lot of what the Church owns isn't necessarily the Church's to sell if you understand what I mean by that.

The Catholic Church as an institution is wealthy, no doubt, but its pockets aren't as infinitely deep you probably imagine. The biggest institutional Church in the world isn't exactly cheap to run. (And the days of the Papal States are long gone).

You're also forgetting that the Church is one of (if not the) biggest charitable organizations in the world. It not only runs churches, but schools, hospitals, missions, charities and so forth. It does more good with its money than most comparable organizations. But you have your narrative.

 

[Tumah]

To fabricate a new sin or commandment out of no where, no. To draw conclusions based on existing principles or to facilitate fulfillment of existing commandments and prohibitions, yes.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The Catholic Church just makes stuff up all the time.

Example? For whatever reason, it's important that they are not eating just symbols of a guy's body and blood, it actually has to be the real deal. So someone invents transubstatiation.

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

Then they debate about it. They write papers, hold councils, and scrutinize it from all angles . . . this weird idea that a guy just made up in the 1200s.

Why would new sins be any different? And if a church can just invent them, what does that say about older writings about sin?

Was Paul making stuff up? Was Moses? At what year of human history do you draw the line?