Lying About 'Sin?' Media Botch Another Vatican Story

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

NewsBusters.org - Media Research Center

[Update, 5:39 pm Eastern: The Acton Institute's office in Rome has provided an English translation of Bishop Girotti's interview. In it, the bishop has his own criticism for the media. "[I]t is necessary also to denounce the emphasis given to the media that on a daily basis casts discredit on the Church.]

A supposed list of "new sins" from the Vatican, such as pollution and genetic manipulation, made headlines across the world on Monday. The list actually didn’t come from any official Catholic Church document, but from an interview of a bishop that was published in L'Osservatore Romano, the "semi-official" newspaper in Vatican City, and it exposed the mainstream media’s fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church specifically.

L'Osservatore Romano printed the interview of Gianfranco Girotti, a bishop who is a member of the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, in its March 9 edition. In it, Girotti discussed "new forms of social sin," and gave examples such genetic manipulation and drug trafficking. Girotti, who is the number-two official at the Tribunal, is in the mid-level of the Vatican’s bureaucracy, and wouldn’t make any official decisions on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Despite Girotti’s lack of real authority, the mainstream media hyped up the interview as being authoritative. The Daily Telegraph’s website claimed that Girotti’s list of "new forms of social sin" "replaces the list originally drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century, which included envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride." Reuters’ article reported that "the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight." CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, on Monday’s "The Situation Room," even went so far to say that "some Christian teachings say love thy neighbor and don't lie, cheat, or steal? But might would one more virtue be added -- go green? Find out why the pope says polluting the planet is a sin." And Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t even the one who was interviewed by L'Osservatore Romano!

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

But Phil Lawler of Catholic World News blasted the media for their irresponsible reporting of the interview. He first labeled the Daily Telegraph’s claim that the new list replaced Pope Gregory’s list as "preposterous," and then clarified what the interview actually meant. "When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines. Archbishop Girotti was obviously trying to offer a new, provocative perspective on some enduring truths. The effort backfired -- but in a very revealing way."

Lawler continued:

An ordinary reader, basing his opinion only on the inane Telegraph coverage, might conclude that a "sin," in the Catholic understanding, is nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome. If these rules are entirely arbitrary, then Vatican officials can change them at will; some sins will cease to exist and other "new sins" will replace them. But that notion of sin is ludicrous.

Sin is an objective wrong: a violation of God's law. What is sinful today will be sinful tomorrow, and a deadly sin will remain deadly, whether or not Telegraph editors recognize the moral danger. The traditional list of deadly sins remains intact; nothing has replaced it. Greed, gluttony, and lust are as wrong today as they were a day or a year or a century ago. If Archbishop Girotti referred to "new" sins, it is because some of the offenses he named (such as genetic manipulation) were impossible in the past, and others (such as international drug trafficking) are much more prevalent today, in a global society. Insofar as people could have engaged in these activities a century ago, they would have been sinful then as well....

The fundamental point of the L'Osservatore Romano interview was that Catholics need to recover a sense of sin, make use of the sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution for their offenses. Sin, the archbishop insisted, is a reality that man cannot escape.

Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate's point.

Of course, the mainstream media, fixated as they are on "climate change," are going to hype up Bishop Girotti’s mentioning of pollution as a "new form of social sin."

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My first thought

When I heard that the Vatican had come out with 7 new deadly sins my first thoughts were, "This report is false." Too say that the Vatican issued these 7 sins is too fanciful to believe. I was right. Then again, I think that on almost everything I read or hear from the MSM.

FINALLY!!!!! THIS IS WHAT

FINALLY!!!!!

THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING ALL DAY YESTERDAY!!

Why Conservatives jumped all over the place on this story to attack the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope is beyond me. 

Conservatives yesterday did exactly what they accuse the MSM of doing.  They read something and instead of researching it, they just went with it as if it were facts. 

I am going over to HotAir.com and sending this link to Michelle Malkin who lambasted the Roman Catholic Church for the "new" sins that were falsely reported by the MSM. 

thank you Mr. Matthew Balan! 

 

Did Michelle write on that,

Did Michelle write on that, or was it Ed Morissey?

Hmmm....yes, I think it was

Hmmm....yes, I think it was Ed Morissey, not Michelle Malkin.  Sorry. 

But, my point stands.  Too many Conservatives went crazy with this story, they didn't bother to read the actual words of the Bishop, instead, they went with what the MSM said. 

We, Conservatives, can't claim the moral high ground when it comes to news reporting when quite a few of us do the same thing as the MSM.  I will admit, not as frequen, but this story had me going nuts, especially when Conservative blogs like HotAir.com picked it up and reported what Reuters said as the ultimate truth.

I think the real tragedy

I think the real tragedy here is their willingness to fabricate their own versions of stories. A Bishop speaks out on new moral responsibilities in a changing world, and they immediately holler that the list of "deadly sins" has been replaced with a whole new list.

They take a few sentences and weave a tapestry of an entire new theology out of whole cloth.

On the other hand, a someone quotes a verse from the Quran that says  to slay those who oppose Isalm, and they claim that that's not what it really means, it's a metaphor, and Islam is really a Religion of Peace.

Motherbelt, Well said, the

Motherbelt, Well said, the MSM and the Christian bashers don't have a problem distorting and lying about any Christian religion, but the wrath of a Liberal will befall upon anyone that dares claim something about Islam that is not in line with how Liberals think of Islam....a religion of peace.  Political correctness for a Liberal means kneeling and worshiping Islam and Muslims and bashing any and all Christian religions.  Truly sad.

 

Poor Leon.

Poor Leon.

Agnostics reporting on the

Agnostics reporting on the Cathloic Church. Thats what you get.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Reporting on Catholicism

Amazingly, there are plenty of Catholics who base their understanding on what they read in the newspapers. Can you imagine a surgeon basing his awareness of the medical world on what he reads in the newspapers? You'd hope a surgeon would know better, and so should Catholics.

As for the reporters, who says that Catholicism is the only thing they don't understand? Reporters gleefully tell the rest of us what's happening in the world, and yet they understand so very little of it.

Not too long ago the media

Not too long ago the media were running with a story about the Catholic Church ordaining married  women as priests. Turned out it was a renegade offshoot, broken off from Rome and making their own rules; they were not part of the traditional magisterium, but still called themselves "Catholic."

A lot of people swallowed that one too.

`The MSM desn't have a clue how the Catholic Church

operates, yet they snap to attention when some Islamic nut job releases his newest fatwah on some far-flung internet site.

Guilty as charged

I'm Catholic and admit I got caught up in the Lamestream Media's reports, and was consequently furious at the Pope. Shame on me and thanks, Matthew, for the clarification. I should have known better.

However, the Pope has yet to clarify his position compared to the archbishop's remarks, so I'm not entirely shrugging my shoulders on this.

There are many in my Catholic circle who think Benedict's finger wagging has become white noise. E.g. not long ago he criticized contemporary music, saying it's not good for the soul, or something to that effect. All old people criticize popular music. I'm 39, and I do that.

 

MAC

Not sure...

Girotti, who is the number-two official at the Tribunal, is in the mid-level of the Vatican’s bureaucracy, and wouldn’t make any official decisions on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Despite Girotti’s lack of real authority, the mainstream media hyped up the interview as being authoritative

According to the Vatican's own website the Tribunal is part of the Roman Curia...

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

That can be interpreted to mean that what Girotti says is by the authority of the pope.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

I would guess that does

I would guess that does not apply to an interview.

Why?

It was given in the Vatican's own newspaper. You would think that anything that is contrary to church doctrine would not make it into print.

"On that occasion, it reported a declaration of obedience to the Pope and of total adherence to his directives on the front page, reaffirming that it would remain faithful "to that unchangeable principle of religion and morals which recognizes as its sole depository and claimant the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth".

In the particularly heated atmosphere of those years, the paper was sequestered several times. But nothing prevented the editors from resuming their battle of faith and ideas. Indeed, very soon L'Osservatore Romano began to replace the Giornale di Roma, the official organ of the Pontifical State, in communicating the Church's official news. This happened more obviously under the Pontificate of Leo XIII, who acquired the paper's ownership and in 1885 made it the Holy See's official organ of information."

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/history/hi_eng.html

Why?March 11, 2008 - 14:53

Why?March 11, 2008 - 14:53 ET by mvfreeman

It was given in the Vatican's own newspaper. You would think that anything that is contrary to church doctrine would not make it into print.

 

What did the Vatican newspaper say that the Bishop said?  He never said what the MSM, Reuters, the Daily News, etc claimed he said.  I believe this is Mr. Balan's whole point. 

Where in the Vatican newspaper can you find, "Bishop said that there are new 7 deadly sins."  where?  NO WHERE!  made up by the MSM!

The Bishop never said that there were any new sins!  That's the whole point.  this whole "new" sins thing came from the Daily News, which Reuters picked up and then the likes of CNN, MSNBC and even Foxnews picked up and they all claimed that the Pope said something he never said, the Bishop didn't even say it.  Reuters and the Daily News said it.  get it? 

The MSM twisted the words of the Bishop and even claimed that it was the Pope saying it.  get it? 

Stop putting words into the mouth of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope and the interviewed Bishop. 

are you not getting it? 

Some but not all

news services are twisting the interview. The report I heard on the radio said the were adding sins, which appears to be what this archbishop has done.

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=6179

Unfortunately the actual interview given in the Vatican's newspaper is not on their website.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

It doesn't follow that

It doesn't follow that everything this Bishop says is on the authority of the Pope, any more than everything coming out of the Pope's mouth is "infallible."

It has to be made plain that this is a teaching of the Church, with the authority of the Pope behind it; not just a conversation.

Are you trolling me?

According to the catholic church the pope IS infallible concerning doctrine.

And it is plain that it is a teaching of the church...

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3717

The Vatican Council (Sess. iv, cap. iv) solemnly taught the doctrine of papal infallibility in the following terms:


"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedrâ , that is to say, when
in the exercise of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians
he, in virtue of his supremeApostolic authority, defines that a
doctrine on faith or morals is to be held by the wholeChurch, by the
assistance of God
promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, has that infallibility
with which it was the will of Our Divine Redeemer that His Church
should be furnished in defining a doctrine on faith or morals."
From this teaching we obtain an authoritative notion
of the meaning of definition in its theological, as distinct from its
philosophical, or canonical, sense. It is an irrevocable decision, by
which the supreme teaching authority in the Church decides a question
appertaining to faith or morals, and which binds the whole Church

And bishops also have a say in doctrine:

There are two organs of supreme doctrinal authority, viz.: the pope,
speaking in his official capacity of pastor and teacher of all
Christians, and the bishops
of the Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world or assembled in a
general council. The pope, as successor of St. Peter, has definitive
authority, in the exercise of which he speaks neither as a private
individual, nor as a mere theologian, nor as Bishop
of the Diocese of Rome, nor as Metropolitan of the Roman Province, nor
as Primate of Italy, nor as Patriarch of the Western Church, nor as
head of any Roman Congregation, but as supreme pastor of the whole
Church. The bishops
of the Catholic Church assembled with the pope in a general council
have the same doctrinal authority with which the pope is endowed; and
so have the bishops
dispersed throughout the Catholic world when, in conjunction with the
pope, they teach a doctrine of faith or morals to be irrevocably held
by all Christians. These two supreme teaching authorities are the
organs of active infallibility from which alone a theological
definition can proceed.

As I said, the newspaper that the interview was originally published in is owned and controlled by the Vatican. It doesn't follow that they would print anything antithetical to official church doctrine.

Never thought I'd see the day I'd ever defend a Catholic. . .

(revised my statements a bit)

But seriously MV, the burden of proof is on you to prove the RCC is actually speaking ex cathedrâ in this case, which is nearly impossible.  Futbol's holding all the cards on this one.

You'd be way better off abandoning the news story altogether, or rather use it as a springboard instead, to simply ask why ex cathedrâ/infallability is even valid to begin with (you'd get better footing that way).

OR. . .

Ask Futbol why sin must be clarified and/or redefined for the laity.  The RCC is either denying conscience, or the Holy Spirit that has sovereignty to convict of sin.    

That is, if I were in your shoes.  Otherwise, you're going down with the ship, IMO.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

On second thought. . .

I did notice you had a lot of leverage w/this statement:

MV:  As I said, the newspaper that the interview was originally published in is owned and controlled by the Vatican. It doesn't follow that they would print anything antithetical to official church doctrine.

Very well-played.  I like that angle.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

On second thought. . .

On second thought. . . March 12, 2008 - 00:45 ET by tracheostomy

I did notice you had a lot of leverage w/this statement: MV: As I said, the newspaper that the interview was originally published in is owned and controlled by the Vatican. It doesn't follow that they would print anything antithetical to official church doctrine. Very well-played. I like that angle. -PJ

 

Trach and MV,

I do not believe MV has a leg to stand on, why?

As he said, he can't find the original interview ran in the Vatican newspaper.  So, while he is correct that the newspaper where the original story ran is owned by the Vatican.  We have to take the word of the Daily News and Reuters as to what it actually said.  I do believe, as pointed about by Mr. Balan, that the Bishop came out and actually said that the MSM of the world twisted his words and that he never claimed that there were new deadly sins. 

I believe the latter is my whole point.  We are criticizing the Pope and the Church based on a Reuters, Daily News story, NOT on the FACTS. 

found the transcript

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/penitentiary_interview.pdf

Apparently the focus was on new "forms" of sins, which doesn't seem to be a far stretch from new "type" of sin. It comes down to arguing semantics at this point.

Genetic manipulation, environmental pollution, social inequality, unsustainable social

injustice: these are the new forms of sin appearing on the horizon of humanity, like a

corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization

In your opinion, what are the “new sins”?

There are various areas today in which we adopt sinful behavior, as with individual and

social rights. This is especially so in the field of bioethics where we cannot deny the

existence of violations of fundamental rights of human nature – this occurs by way of

experiments and genetic modifications, whose results we cannot easily predict or control.

Another area, which indeed pertains to the social spectrum, is that of drug use, which

weakens our minds and reduces our intelligence. As a result, many young people are left

out of Church circles. Here’s another one: social and economic inequality, in the sense

that the rich always seem to get richer, and the poor, poorer. This [phenomenon] feeds off

an unsustainable form of social injustice and is related to environmental issues –which

currently have much relevant interest

So some outlets definitely hyped the degree of what was said but he does mention new sins, mainly because they were not possible in the past due to technological advances, industrialization, and globalization.

Thanks for the link to the

Thanks for the link to the translation!

Matthew

"Here’s another one: social and economic inequality, in the sense that the rich always seem to get richer, and the poor, poorer. This [phenomenon] feeds off an unsustainable form of social injustice and is related to environmental issues –which currently have much relevant interest."

Is this guy talking to Hugo Chavez or the USA?  Oh, I see, it's "related to environmental issues".  Codespeak for USA

♣ a seal

Oh, it's very easy to get

Oh, it's very easy to get into the mindset. He very well could be speaking of China for that matter, a country that persecutes devout Catholics.

He would be like Chavez if he were advocating the government fixing the problem. I don't see him saying anything like that.

»→ Yes, Matt

If he's referring to home "environment" I can see where that feeds poverty, but when he says "ruining the environment" is a sin, I think it's incumbent on him to be specific as I can't think of people who do it on purpose.  ELF, maybe?

♣ a seal

MVfreeman, Well, I should

MVfreeman,

Well, I should have read the post above before I responded to mvfreeman.

Yes, thanks for finding the translation.  I think the story speaks for itself.  The media hyped up and pretty much lied about what the Bishop said.  Reuters claimed that the Bishop had said that becoming wealthy, that being rich was a sin.  Well, saying that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is not condeming the rich.  It is condeming social injustices that are very prevelant in third world nations, more so than in second and first world nations. 

I don't think that the Bishop has to specify which nations he is talking about since I think it is self-explanatory. 

Once again, I do not believe that the Bishops said anything that I wasn't taught a long time ago.  Social injustice, polluting the envrionment, genetic manipulation, drug usage, I knew before the Bishop gave the inteview and it was made public, that these are sin.

Official law

Relax.

The church has a whole system, and a large chunk of laws, that control what is (and what is not) official Catholic teaching. A reporter's story (even if the reporter works for the Vatican-sponsored newspaper) doesn't have any official authority. The interview of a bishop is not the same thing as the bishop promulgating a law. 

And remember, an official organ of "information" is vastly different than an authoritative source of Catholic teaching. The ancient method of promulgating a teaching is for the pope to send an encyclical, just like Paul did to the Corinthians, etc., that gets "cycled" through the churches. As it is, in Rome, there is a technical list of official laws, and the written law has to be published in that list for it to take effect. There are other safeguards in place, so don't worry about it.

»→ New sins.

"God was offended not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife but by ruining the environment"

Sorry but this is a new one on me.  Yeah, it's huddled in there with a bunch of other sort of "common sense" derivations of biblically sound definitions, but they are simply the "spoonful of sugar.

It's politics, pure and simple that prompted that blowhard Girotti to include "ruining the Environment".

Please turn in your checkbooks to hymn #23.  An old Ray Repp favorite.

 

Cool Arrow, I agree with

Cool Arrow,

I agree with you most of the time, but as you well know, this one, I can't agree with you. 

1)  As we now know, neither the Pope nor this Bishop said what the MSM claim they said. 

2)  Ruining the envrionment on purpose has always been a sin.  As I said yesterday, I am 32 years old and this was taught to me a long time ago before my First Communion, when I was 7 years old.  I still believe it today.  Does this mean that I believe in Global Warming-no.  Does this believe that I believe SUV, jet planes are evil-no.  Does this believe that I am tree hugger-hell now, far from it.  What it means is that I will not go around and purposedly destroy nature, plain and simple.

You are a logical and smart individual, I am sure why you don't get this one. 

»→ futbol

"What it means is that I will not go around and purposedly destroy nature, plain and simple."

Futbol, having made that statement, certainly you are aware of individuals who commit this sin.  Can you name any of these evildoers?

One must conclude the Monsignor has observed the commission of this sin, right?

♣ a seal

*rolls eyes* The Rocky

*rolls eyes*

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

»→ Thanks wiwf

I can't name any of these sinners either.

♣ a seal

people certainly do it

Perhaps something like dog fighting would qualify. Any kind of intentional abuse of animals or the environment, like arson in a forest. Throwing litter out the car window on the highway. Wasting food, electricity, water. It's not that hard to think of examples and is basic common sense that we shouldn't do these things. But, lots of people do it. The problem is that we tend to act without thinking. That's a basic result of original sin. So, it's helpful to be reminded that we need to think before we act.

Besides all that, the intended audience of what a person at the Vatican says is not just the USA or the "western" world. It would be helpful if we remember that people in other parts of the world, who might not be as aware of basic environmental common sense, are also asked to be mindful of their actions.

To everyone who thinks this whole statement of the bishop is worthless--how well are the Italians living up to being stewards of creation? How about in South Korea? How about Brazil? etc...

»→ dans0622

It does more than border on the absurd that I can't run out to let my truck warm up on a cold morning because I want to drive in comfort.  No, I'm not being silly because to some extent I'm wasting gas for comfort.

I don't really care much when the CC invents another sin except now they're trying to legitimize the hip new church of Al Gore.

Mother Gaia will be pleased. 

♣ a seal

CA,    To what extent

CA,

    To what extent is the CC inventing another sin?  You were given examples above.  Is littering its own special sin, or is it an application of sloth? Of pride?  Is arson not an application of wrath?  When a corporation deliberately bypasses or ignores environmental regulations for profit, is it not greed?  The ol' seven deadly are mighty applicable if you take the time to consider your actions WRT the rest of God's creation.  The CC is mindful of the fact that in an increasingly complex world, man begins to forget his sinful nature, or to dismiss it as "getting along" with life.  Stewardship of the Earth is not a new message from the Catholic Church, and neither is the failure to care for it a "new" sin.  Even if you don't buy into global warming, it should be recognized that, in this age of increasing technology and efficiency, greater damage can be done more quickly and more thoughtlessly to the world around us.  For a bishop to remind us of that is perfectly legitimate.  For the MSM and others to use it as a means to mock or demean the Church is perfectly atrocious.

 JoeBob

Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious

The Church wouldn't do that.

The Church wouldn't do that. If the leftist MSM is reporting anything, it should be scrutinized immediately. It's just another hit piece against the Church.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.