Bless me father, for I have committed systemic social injustice, and excessively accumulated wealth.

So, Good on 'em.

The socialists and Marxists in the Church have been searching for decades for those elusive "social" and "corporate" sins the Jesuits are always banging on about. You know the ones; we hear about them all the time in The Suppository and Amerika. And they've finally found them, courtesy of Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences.

He said that priests must take account of “new sins which have
appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process
[sounds more like plate techtonics than sin
to me. Tough to figure out who's responsible if its "unstoppable".]
of globalisation” [does this mean that Globalization
has to go to confession now? And can he go in the Rec. Room? Not sure Globalization
is capable of kneeling in a little confessional...or making an act of
contrition]. Whereas sin in the past was thought of as being an invididual matter,
it now had “social resonance”.

“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your
neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally
debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations [well, OK, but again,
who actually has to go confess these sins? The politicians who voted for the
legislation? or just the actual scientists doing the splicing and
dicing?] which alter DNA or compromise embryos,” he said.

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs,
[ok, I'm on with
this, assuming that he means to be more specific and is not talking about caffiene]
and social injustice [here's where it gets fun. Since sins, by definition,
have to be committed by a person, not a 'society', who do we call on the carpet?
Who goes to hell for 'social injustice'? a 'sin' that no one has ever been able
to define? Everyone? because, as you know, if you're not part of the solution...No.
I think he means no one. Because he's not actually talking about sin, as it is
understood by Catholics.] which caused poverty [ah, only the kind of 'social
injustice that causes poverty? or other kinds too?] or “the excessive accumulation
of wealth by a few” [which few? exactly? Only the board members and shareholders of,
say, the top Fortune 500's? or are we talking about anyone who
owns more than one car? Be specific].

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion,
which offended “the dignity and rights of women”, [Err...Hhuh? Whatthefuh? here's a nice little givaway.
The man is not a Catholic, clearly, and has outed himself. Abortion
'offends' the 'dignity and rights of women' and that's why "the Vatican" objects to
it. Yah. Gotcha] and paedophilia, which had even
infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the “human and institutional fragility
of the Church”.

The mass media had “blown up” the issue “to discredit the Church”, but the Church
itself was taking steps to deal with it.

We hear about them all the time at the intercessory prayers at Mass (if you go to that sort of thing). The new improved sins are the ones no one is personally responsible for. They're the ones about which we all get to point at someone else as we congratulate ourselves for being part of the solution every time we buy a Fair Trade coffee.

War, poverty, social injustice, the arms race, The Third World, private property and Walmart.

Now we've got backup from the Vatican.

Who said those guys don't move with the times?

But if they think the New Deadlies are going to result in a rash of calls to the rectory to book some time communing with the potted palms in the Reconciliation Room, it might be time to wake up and smell the lattes.


BTW:
Nice little slag at the pro-life movement towards the end there eh? and a new twist, don't you think? Abortion isn't the problem, but the apparent emphasis upon it in the Church (where?) is all the fault of the media for focusing on it too much...at the expense of, naturally, the Church's commitment to the preferential option, no doubt.