Pope Francis Calls Sex Outside Marriage ‘Not the Most Serious Sin’

[Antonio the Sixth]

Didn't Dante rank lust as the lesser of the deadly sins? I don't necessarily agree myself, but this is certainly nothing new and would only be surprising to the perpetually sex-obsessed Americans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dante's work is also fiction, not a chapter of the Bible.

The 7 deadly sins aren't in the Bible either, you know.

If you think the Bible is supposed to clearly and definitively settle every religious question, you really don't understand Catholicism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because we live in dumb world, I'm sure this will be blast all over as "Pope says adultery ok now", which is unfortunate. 

     This is the one thing that worries me about this story. While it is definitely true that sexual sins are not the worst sins one could commit, there are certain folks representing a few different causes who would gladly interpret this as meaning that sexual sins aren't bad. Being charitable to Pope Francis he probably did not intend that understanding at all, but that could easily be warped into the intended meaning in the eyes of the general public.

This would be a valid concern if there wasn't an equally pervasive tendency on the right to act like sexual sin is the only kind of sin worth worrying about, at the expense of all the far more serious sins rooted in greed or pride that they regularly condone.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because we live in dumb world, I'm sure this will be blast all over as "Pope says adultery ok now", which is unfortunate. 

     This is the one thing that worries me about this story. While it is definitely true that sexual sins are not the worst sins one could commit, there are certain folks representing a few different causes who would gladly interpret this as meaning that sexual sins aren't bad. Being charitable to Pope Francis he probably did not intend that understanding at all, but that could easily be warped into the intended meaning in the eyes of the general public.

This would be a valid concern if there wasn't an equally pervasive tendency on the right to act like sexual sin is the only kind of sin worth worrying about, at the expense of all the far more serious sins rooted in greed or pride that they regularly condone.

No, it's a valid concern anyway, in the same way that lynching was a valid concern despite being the object of the OG whataboutery. Someone with PiT's political loyalties and low overall opinion of Pope Francis might not be the best messenger here, but it's difficult to deny that the secular press has a habit of exaggerating Francis's liberalism to advance its own "liberal default worldview".

     In the interests of disclosure, I'd also mention that this sort of stuff bothers me because of a tendency by many to see the Orthodox as "Catholic but Greek", and as such they impute Pope Francis's statements that are construed as progressive onto us despite him having absolutely no standing within our ecclesiastical hierarchy. I am reminded of a poster on here (who I will not name, to spare the embarrassment) predicting that not only the Catholics but the Orthodox would be marrying same-sex couples within 30 years. Such a risible prediction is only made possible because certain people assume that we are just like Catholics. While the ecclesiastical structure and the traditional adherents of our respective churches differ substantially (to the point that the complaint that "trads believe only sexual sins are real sins!" is mostly irrelevant to Orthodox), there are plenty of people in both churches who do not pay close attention and who are prone to believing that the liberalization is real.

I don't believe for a second that either the Catholics or the Orthodox will be recognizing same-sex couples in 30 years, of course. And if the latter did, I'm perfectly aware that this has nothing to do with what the Pope says (and fwiw, it's not like we should expect every Pope after Francis to keep talking like he does, although I'd certainly hope future Popes will continue to look down on the reactionary heresies that have festered in places like America for years).

I just think that saying "the Pope shouldn't say this thing that is clearly true, and that he has a very good reason for saying given that some people within his Church are acting like it isn't, because some people outside his Church will willfully misinterpret it" strikes me as seriously backwards in terms of priorities. Like, I'm sorry that other people are taking something the Pope is saying and using it to make dumb points about your Church, but I think the crypto-Evangelical rot that's actually festering within the Catholic Church is a far more pressing issue for him to be concerned with and tailor his rherotic around.

And on a side note, Nathan, I understand the point you were making, but using f**king lynchings as your parallel is an unnecessary rhetorical escalation and just plain gross. You're better than this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dante's work is also fiction, not a chapter of the Bible.

The 7 deadly sins aren't in the Bible either, you know.

If you think the Bible is supposed to clearly and definitively settle every religious question, you really don't understand Catholicism.

Lol. I don't believe in biblical inerrancy, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I mean, it sounded a lot like you were saying the Divine Comedy was an invalid reference in understanding Catholic tradition because it's not in the Bible. Which sure sounds a lot like the sola scriptura position, but if that's not what you meant fair enough.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And on a side note, Nathan, I understand the point you were making, but using f**king lynchings as your parallel is an unnecessary rhetorical escalation and just plain gross. You're better than this.

The only reason my mind went to lynching was because, as I said, it's the subject that the term "whataboutery" was coined in reference to. I obviously shouldn't have left open the interpretation that I thought the severity of the problems was similar (which I don't, as I'm sure you trust), and you're right to call me out on that.

Thanks. Yeah, I knew you didn't actually mean to draw a moral equivalence between those two, hence why my criticism was rhetorical rather than substantive. I think I've been able to address the substantive part of your comment in my reply to PiT, but if you have further thoughts on it I'm always happy to hear them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Didn't Dante rank lust as the lesser of the deadly sins? I don't necessarily agree myself, but this is certainly nothing new and would only be surprising to the perpetually sex-obsessed Americans.

See you in circle I.

hahahahahahahahahaha