Pollution is now a SIN!

I don't know the scripture that say's this, but isn't their scripture that say's we are suppost to take care of the earth? This might just be one of those things that is widely believed to be in the Bible when in fact its not but I don't know.

I think they declared pollution and cloning sins, correct me if I'm wrongThe sins the vatican just "made up" were sins which most christian denominations have condemned already.all we did is make it official. It doesn't really matter anyway, the vatican could call climbing trees a sin and it wouldn't make any difference. It is God who decides what the sins are.but saying that, I think God agrees with these sins. God declared that the world is good. And Gods creation is not something we should recklessley destroy. Cloning I shouldn't have to explain. ( it involves the killing of human life, and violation of what should be sacred. It is an abomination.)I agree with these sins, as in Gods book they were sins already.

yeah, no one laughed when the Southern Baptist announced their stand against pollution. Guess it is only funny when someone wearing a robe does it.

It's definitely not a sin. But God made us the keepers of the earth, and it's our duty to take care of it.

Wakka,If God gave you a duty and you did not do it, you are saying that would not be a sin???????

Ok guys I dont think any one met to offend anyone and I think the Vatican had good intensions putting a modern day name to things we know are wrong.But you catholics also have to understand we find it strange sounding when a the headline News is Pope anounces "New Sins"

(kriss;40221)
Ok guys I dont think any one met to offend anyone and I think the Vatican had good intensions putting a modern day name to things we know are wrong.But you catholics also have to understand we find it strange sounding when a the headline News is Pope anounces "New Sins"
I find it somewhat strange too. Catholics seem to blindly follow the pope and if he announces something we follow it.We cannot blindly follow the pope.Just like you will do with every other human doing, tests what he says. Most of the time he's accurate but there could be cases where the opposite is true. ( For example theres a proposal to make Mary the co-redeemer. How Ungodly can you get...this comes straight from Satan)but as for this announcement, it passed my test.

I think if they could have reworded it somehow that it will be accepted with no problem. (Not into the Bible but with the population)

(Learning;40245)
I think if they could have reworded it somehow that it will be accepted with no problem. (Not into the Bible but with the population)
The article stated that there were no "new sins" just a better understanding of what constitues sin. For example, when the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" we understand that in our modern day, that includes the sin of abortion - even though "abortion" isn't in the Bible. Is there anyone who doesn't believe the things they listed are sinful? They are certainly nothing "new" in my mind. (recreational drugs, ignoring the plight of the poor, polluting the Earth..?) Who thinks God is OK with those? It wasn't so much with the way the Vatican "worded" it - it was more of the way the media reported it, of which they have no control.

According to Vatican official Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, environmental pollution is one of the most dangerous ‘new sins’, alongside genetic manipulation, excess wealth, drug trafficking, morally debatable experimentation, inflicting poverty on people, and violations of human rights. Girotti’s sins occupy a different moral plane to the seven deadly sins. His list was thrown together as part of a public relations exercise. The invention of new sins through a brainstorming session reveals much about the Church’s opportunistic attitude to doctrinal issues. Traditional sins were part of a moral universe that focused on the relationship between human beings and God; the new updated list is a cultural statement about what is ‘acceptable behaviour’. The most striking thing about the new list of sins is that it reverses the moral relationship between Church and society. Historically, the Church’s mission was to provide teachings that could offer moral guidance to society. In recent times, however, the Church has been forced on the defensive – and now, instead of converting people to its moral outlook, it has started to absorb many of the fashionable secular values of our times. Of course, religion has always adapted to new conditions. But today it does not simply adapt; it takes its cue from the secular imagination rather than from the divine. The new sins are good examples of secular values that the Church has co-opted in a desperate bid to stay relevant. For some time now, the Catholic Church and other Christian churches have been painfully aware of how difficult it is for them to exercise moral authority. The Church often appears uncertain and defensive about moral issues. So, for example, protesters have threatened to cause a stink during the proposed papal visit to Ireland unless Pope Benedict XVI agrees to meet people who were sexually molested by priests. Here, the victim of abuse, rather than papal authority, lays claim to the moral high-ground. In many parts of the Western world, Catholic officials have been forced to ban priests from having private contact with children, in response to pressure and public mistrust. A powerful sense of moral defensiveness, combined with an awareness that its teaching seems out of touch with the modern world, means the Church finds it difficult to assert its authority with any conviction. As a result, many churches feel increasingly uneasy about preaching the seven deadly sins to their flocks. The Catholic Church seems to believe it can revitalise its relationship with its worshippers and the public by preaching the virtues of environmental responsibility instead. Reportedly, the Pope plans to use his first address to the United Nations to warn the world about global warming and to promote ‘saving the planet’ as a moral duty for all Catholics (1). The Pope has actively tried to associate himself with green issues. And now we have, from the very heart of the Vatican, the proposal that sin itself should be closely linked to environmental awareness and responsibilities.Such a moral outlook is even more confused than the theology of the Dark Ages.

Well I was giving the Vatican the benefit of the doubt but I have changed my mind though I dont take issue with a couple of the new Sins Some are clearly self serving and as my biggest complaint about all mens big religious Organizations,but particularly the catholic church the emphasis is on putting themselves above God, How dare they preach excess wealth is a deadly sin from that description Job would have been a sinner, Seems as though a rich catholic had better give what ever is over and above what the church decides is excessive wealth to them so he wont go to Hell.of course Lust is no longer a deadly sin but if one is finicaly blessed by God you will be deemed guilty by the Popebut Im sure a big enough donation to them will save you

(kriss;40267)
Well I was giving the Vatican the benefit of the doubt but I have changed my mind though I dont take issue with a couple of the new Sins Some are clearly self serving and as my biggest complaint about all mens big religious Organizations,but particularly the catholic church the emphasis is on putting themselves above God, How dare they preach excess wealth is a deadly sin from that description Job would have been a sinner, Seems as though a rich catholic had better give what ever is over and above what the church decides is excessive wealth to them so he wont go to Hell.of course Lust is no longer a deadly sin but if one is finicaly blessed by God you will be deemed guilty by the Popebut Im sure a big enough donation to them will save you
Wow I missed that one. Well seeing a the RCC is one of the richest organizations around, we catholics are going to hell .right now it sounds like they threw in a sin just to scare people to donate. Even as a catholic thats the only conclusion I can come up with.Apparently all the kings of Isreal are going to hell also. I'm going to try to get the official guidelines for these new sins. Hopefully its better than it sounds.

(Letsgofishing;40274)
right now it sounds like they threw in a sin just to scare people to donate. Even as a catholic thats the only conclusion I can come up with..
Ryan,The Vatican doesn't want your money. What it wants is to call attention to corrupt systems where the rich benefit from the explotation of the poor. Take Cuba for example - the government leaders live like kings whereas the common working person struggles every day for clean water, adequate food, electricity and housing that isn't crumbling ontop of his family. It goes along with the long standing Catholic fight against social injustice. No idea why anyone would have a problem with that. And where Kriss did you get that Lust was no longer a deadly sin? Do you make this up as you go along?

You must be so brainwashed you cant see the forest through the trees what does making Excess Wealth a deadly sin have to do with anything you said it is a deception It literally takes the controll of who's blessed by God with wealth and makes it the business of the church by passing God as the blessing giver I notice that Lust was removed Dont think God will agree with the Pope herethis is nothing but the same ole bull church before God always

(kriss;40282)
You must be so brainwashed you cant see the forest through the trees what does making Excess Wealth a deadly sin have to do with anything you said it is a deception It literally takes the controll of who's blessed by God with wealth and makes it the business of the church by passing God as the blessing giver I notice that Lust was removed Dont think God will agree with the Pope herethis is nothing but the same ole bull church before God always
Where did you notice that lust was removed??? Did the Pope call you and tell you this himself?

if peacebewithyou is right, The Vatican needs to word what it says better. "excess wealth" clearly doesn't decribe what its trying to say.They could of went with greed. But wait thats been a sin since the beggining of time. So why in the heck would they say Excess wealth??

The thing is LGF it does not matter if you are blessed with wealth it is a matter between you and God what you do with it. If you are greedy you are judged for that if you are generous and help the poor you are blessed the church has no right injecting itself in what is Gods buissness How many times in scripture do we God awarding or denying or correcting one through Gold or wealth and now the church has decided its the one who will decide these things ????

(Peacebewithyou;40283)
Where did you notice that lust was removed??? Did the Pope call you and tell you this himself?
Vatican Updates Its Thou-Shalt-Not ListBy FRANCES D'EMILIO – 2 days ago VATICAN CITY (AP) — In olden days, the deadly sins included lust, gluttony and greed. Now, the Catholic Church says pollution, mind-damaging drugs and genetic experiments are on its updated thou-shalt-not list. I understood there to be 7 deadly sins if the seven have changed are the old no longer deadly

(kriss;40287)
Vatican Updates Its Thou-Shalt-Not ListBy FRANCES D'EMILIO – 2 days ago VATICAN CITY (AP) — In olden days, the deadly sins included lust, gluttony and greed. Now, the Catholic Church says pollution, mind-damaging drugs and genetic experiments are on its updated thou-shalt-not list. I understood there to be 7 deadly sins if the seven have changed are the old no longer deadly
Kriss, Lust is still a Mortal Sin. Thats just a creative way of saying that they added seven new ones.one of them I just don't get