Forgive me, Father, for my heifer has broken wind
Catholics around the world rejoiced earlier this week when Bishop Gianfranco Girotti riffed on the new, growth areas of sinful behavior -- the “social sins” -- in l'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s official newspaper. (Their sports coverage and restaurant reviews are superb, by the way). If you’re like me, you’re of the mind that redefining the scope of sin has gotta be the feel-good story of this, or any, year. And, as a former Catholic and current sinner, I feel like I’m in a good position to break down some of the highlights for you.
Among other things, we’re cautioned that genetic manipulations are a no-no. That one’s not too surprising, given that you generally can’t put the Catholic Church and Science in the same room without one of them making catty remarks about the other’s chubby ankles. Though this new admonition regarding genetic manipulation does raise the intriguing question of whether certain classes of radiation can commit a sin by inducing genetic “manipulations.” Or if the act of spontaneous genetic mutation constitutes a sin. Which would mean that inanimate, soulless entities are capable of sin and, therefore, required to confess. This would be a watershed moment for the Catholic Church, as it would greatly expand the roster of people and things that would need to seek salvation on a weekly basis. This is a good thing. Because my experience with the Church taught me that if you take sin and guilt off the table, Catholics wouldn’t have an awful lot to talk about on Sundays.
Bishop Girotti also mentions pollution as a sin, which I guess means that a cow sins every time she farts. Personally, I find the Vatican’s stance unclear on the issue of pollution and if cows are now required to go to confession as well. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario in which a talking, flatulent devout Catholic cow farts but doesn’t feel bad about having done so. Since she’s serious about her faith, she then confesses this sin to a priest. (For the moment, don’t worry about whether one could fit a grown cow into a confessional booth). But since she’s not sorry about having farted, her expression of remorse is really quite false. Which means that’s she’s lied. Which is another sin. And, for all I know, being a non-human talking animal might constitute a sin as well. So, would she be better off breaking wind and not telling anyone about it? Or should she fart and then falsely express remorse? And, what about the cow’s owner? Is he or she partially responsible for owning an animal that’s contributing to air pollution? Could a bishop resolve this sort of conundrum for me, or do I need to go straight to the top (i.e., pope@vatican.org)?
If you haven’t caught on by now, what I’m driving at is that sin is an awfully complicated thing. It’s good that we have guidance on these sorts of matters. And, while you might have picked up on my subtle hints that the Church and I do not see eye to eye on some matters, I do in all seriousness applaud the religious suits for beginning to emphasize large scale social responsibility on some matters like pollution. It’s not a total win, of course. The Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, for instance, is an example of complete disregard for social responsibility and public health, and reflects a stunningly poor understanding of what happens when basic math, human nature, and limited global resources collide. For the moment, however, I’ll take what I can get. But, I’d be lying if I claimed I didn’t want an answer to my flatulent heifer question.
