On the occasion of the last phase of the Synod on Synodality, the Vatican has just published a new list of sins to add to the long cohort of human failures in doing God’s will. But are these really new sins? The exercise has all the hallmarks of a Catholic version of Soviet-style self-criticism, designed to dress up age-old sins in the garb of political correctness.
The second session of the Synod on Synodality opened in Rome with a new kind of penitential celebration. Presided over by Pope Francis, it was an opportunity to introduce a new list of sins, confessed publicly in an extraordinary assembly. The list includes: the sin against peace; the sin against creation, against indigenous peoples, against migrants; the sin of abuse; the sin against women, the family, young people; the sin of doctrine “used as stones to be thrown;” the sin against poverty; the sin against synodality or the lack of listening, communion, and participation of all.
The form taken by the penitential celebration already raises questions in itself. After listening to the testimonies of the ‘victims’ of these sins, the pontiff asked for forgiveness for all the faithful, but without giving absolution, since collective absolution is reserved only for a few serious and urgent cases. The request for forgiveness is made for all baptised—but doesn’t forgiveness require the full awareness and repentance of the person imploring it? It is hard to see what ‘collective’ conscience could be manifested in such a ceremony.
But let’s turn now to the content of the sins in detail. Several cardinals were given the task of giving live explanations during the ceremony to help the faithful ‘understand’ these new sins. It is not certain that the exercise was a complete success.
Some of these sins are nothing new. The “sin against peace” is obvious, since war is essentially the fruit of original sin. And what about the “sin of abuse?” It’s obvious that highlighting it is a response to the many moral scandals that have defamed and are still defaming the Church in our troubled times. But in abuse, whether moral or sexual, we find once again a new formulation of well-known sins already contained in the divine commandments and the immemorial morality of the Church.
The “sin against poverty” needs further clarification. Fighting poverty is a good thing in itself. Charity towards the poorest of the poor has always been one of the primary driving forces behind Christian action and has earned Catholicism a number of immense saints, such as Saint Vincent de Paul or, closer to us, Saint Mother Teresa—proof of the Church’s infinite awareness of the need to fight against misery. The sin against poverty is perhaps to be understood as the sin of the person who refuses to fight against poverty—but here again, the duty of charity is a well-known fact, so why add to it?
As for others included in this new list, such as “sin against women, the family and young people,” their deliberately restrictive wording gives the impression of a media spotlight on a few sins that are highly regarded in today’s world. Isolated in this way and brought to the fore, they appear to be communication ‘signals’ chosen to appease the spirits of political correctness. What makes a sin against a woman more serious than a sin against a man? And why does a sin against a ‘young’ person deserve more attention than a sin against an ‘old’ person, especially at a time when the race is on in Western countries for euthanasia, with the unavowed aim of shortening the rather too long hours spent by the elderly on this earth at taxpayers’ expense?
The most questionable part of this catalogue is certainly the “sin against creation, against indigenous peoples, against migrants.” The wording encompasses vast possibilities. It can be understood as an ecological catch-all with the air of a cult of the mother goddess. But behind this wording lies above all a self-righteous repentance of colonisation and the missions of yore. The Church wants to ask forgiveness for all the times it has been “complicit in systems that encouraged slavery and colonialism.” The Church knows how to beat its chest, and more, in penitence. Archbishop Jean-Paul Vesco of Algiers, who will be made a cardinal at the next consistory in December, explains that evangelisation should be abandoned as it constitutes a form of violence against indigenous people.
Nevertheless, the definition of “indigenous peoples” remains unresolved. A facetious and politically incorrect mind might just as well note that the peoples of Europe are also, in their own way, ‘indigenous’ peoples whose ancestral traditions and culture are not respected today: they have to bow to the massive influx of migrants who pour into their territory every year, imposing new laws and new practices. Miserere eis! Have mercy on them!
The list ends with the new “sin against synodality.” So those who express doubts about the effectiveness of the machine that is the “synod on synodality,” which has been running at full speed for several years, making a lot of noise but reforming very little, would be in a state of sin. You’d have to ask Moses, the transcriber of the Decalogue, what he thinks about this, and see which divine commandment is being violated by someone who distrusts debates that lead nowhere. The “sin against synodality” is complemented by a sin against “the lack of listening, communion and participation of all.” Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, asked for forgiveness for all the times the Church has “stifled plurality.” We can always hope that, following his own advice, the pontiff will make progress in the future in ‘listening’ to the pleas of the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy, who are only asking to ‘participate’ a little more in the life of the universal Church by evangelising and administering the sacraments without humiliating restrictions.
Dominican Timothy Radcliffe, former superior of the Dominican order, was commissioned by the Pope to preach two of the first retreats for participants in the Synod. He was keen to point out that “the synod is not a place for negotiating structural changes, but a place for conversion.” The preacher explicitly put conservatives and progressives back to back. He acknowledged the prevailing scepticism: “The most common question I’ve received about the synod over the last eleven months has been sceptical: has anything been achieved? Isn’t it all a waste of time and money?”
The official response to this legitimate question may be a while in coming.
A Catalogue of New Sins: A Catholic Self-Criticism Session?
Pope Francis presides a penitential celebration on October 1, 2024 at St Peter’s basilica in The Vatican.
Photo: Andreas SOLARO / AFP
On the occasion of the last phase of the Synod on Synodality, the Vatican has just published a new list of sins to add to the long cohort of human failures in doing God’s will. But are these really new sins? The exercise has all the hallmarks of a Catholic version of Soviet-style self-criticism, designed to dress up age-old sins in the garb of political correctness.
The second session of the Synod on Synodality opened in Rome with a new kind of penitential celebration. Presided over by Pope Francis, it was an opportunity to introduce a new list of sins, confessed publicly in an extraordinary assembly. The list includes: the sin against peace; the sin against creation, against indigenous peoples, against migrants; the sin of abuse; the sin against women, the family, young people; the sin of doctrine “used as stones to be thrown;” the sin against poverty; the sin against synodality or the lack of listening, communion, and participation of all.
The form taken by the penitential celebration already raises questions in itself. After listening to the testimonies of the ‘victims’ of these sins, the pontiff asked for forgiveness for all the faithful, but without giving absolution, since collective absolution is reserved only for a few serious and urgent cases. The request for forgiveness is made for all baptised—but doesn’t forgiveness require the full awareness and repentance of the person imploring it? It is hard to see what ‘collective’ conscience could be manifested in such a ceremony.
But let’s turn now to the content of the sins in detail. Several cardinals were given the task of giving live explanations during the ceremony to help the faithful ‘understand’ these new sins. It is not certain that the exercise was a complete success.
Some of these sins are nothing new. The “sin against peace” is obvious, since war is essentially the fruit of original sin. And what about the “sin of abuse?” It’s obvious that highlighting it is a response to the many moral scandals that have defamed and are still defaming the Church in our troubled times. But in abuse, whether moral or sexual, we find once again a new formulation of well-known sins already contained in the divine commandments and the immemorial morality of the Church.
The “sin against poverty” needs further clarification. Fighting poverty is a good thing in itself. Charity towards the poorest of the poor has always been one of the primary driving forces behind Christian action and has earned Catholicism a number of immense saints, such as Saint Vincent de Paul or, closer to us, Saint Mother Teresa—proof of the Church’s infinite awareness of the need to fight against misery. The sin against poverty is perhaps to be understood as the sin of the person who refuses to fight against poverty—but here again, the duty of charity is a well-known fact, so why add to it?
As for others included in this new list, such as “sin against women, the family and young people,” their deliberately restrictive wording gives the impression of a media spotlight on a few sins that are highly regarded in today’s world. Isolated in this way and brought to the fore, they appear to be communication ‘signals’ chosen to appease the spirits of political correctness. What makes a sin against a woman more serious than a sin against a man? And why does a sin against a ‘young’ person deserve more attention than a sin against an ‘old’ person, especially at a time when the race is on in Western countries for euthanasia, with the unavowed aim of shortening the rather too long hours spent by the elderly on this earth at taxpayers’ expense?
The most questionable part of this catalogue is certainly the “sin against creation, against indigenous peoples, against migrants.” The wording encompasses vast possibilities. It can be understood as an ecological catch-all with the air of a cult of the mother goddess. But behind this wording lies above all a self-righteous repentance of colonisation and the missions of yore. The Church wants to ask forgiveness for all the times it has been “complicit in systems that encouraged slavery and colonialism.” The Church knows how to beat its chest, and more, in penitence. Archbishop Jean-Paul Vesco of Algiers, who will be made a cardinal at the next consistory in December, explains that evangelisation should be abandoned as it constitutes a form of violence against indigenous people.
Nevertheless, the definition of “indigenous peoples” remains unresolved. A facetious and politically incorrect mind might just as well note that the peoples of Europe are also, in their own way, ‘indigenous’ peoples whose ancestral traditions and culture are not respected today: they have to bow to the massive influx of migrants who pour into their territory every year, imposing new laws and new practices. Miserere eis! Have mercy on them!
The list ends with the new “sin against synodality.” So those who express doubts about the effectiveness of the machine that is the “synod on synodality,” which has been running at full speed for several years, making a lot of noise but reforming very little, would be in a state of sin. You’d have to ask Moses, the transcriber of the Decalogue, what he thinks about this, and see which divine commandment is being violated by someone who distrusts debates that lead nowhere. The “sin against synodality” is complemented by a sin against “the lack of listening, communion and participation of all.” Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, asked for forgiveness for all the times the Church has “stifled plurality.” We can always hope that, following his own advice, the pontiff will make progress in the future in ‘listening’ to the pleas of the faithful attached to the traditional liturgy, who are only asking to ‘participate’ a little more in the life of the universal Church by evangelising and administering the sacraments without humiliating restrictions.
Dominican Timothy Radcliffe, former superior of the Dominican order, was commissioned by the Pope to preach two of the first retreats for participants in the Synod. He was keen to point out that “the synod is not a place for negotiating structural changes, but a place for conversion.” The preacher explicitly put conservatives and progressives back to back. He acknowledged the prevailing scepticism: “The most common question I’ve received about the synod over the last eleven months has been sceptical: has anything been achieved? Isn’t it all a waste of time and money?”
The official response to this legitimate question may be a while in coming.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics