Ah, the Catholic church is back in the news. A list of "new", really bad sins. It seems that fewer people than ever are "confessing" their sins, one of the sacraments of the Catholic church. Rather than seeing itself as increasingly irrelevant the church is trying to "win" back some customers. Laying a little more guilt on the people in hopes of increasing their power (and their financial base)?

Not a bad list, mind you, if one is interested in knowing the church's position. I too am against people "inflicting poverty" or polluting the environment (does flicking a cigarette butt out your car window count as a mortal sin now?)

Anyway, here's the full story:

Fewer confessions and new sins
By David Willey
BBC News, Rome

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

Those newly risking eternal punishment include drug pushers, the obscenely wealthy, and scientists who manipulate human genes. So "thou shalt not carry out morally dubious scientific experiments" or "thou shalt not pollute the earth" might one day be added to the Ten Commandments.

MODERN EVILS
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell".
The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession - or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.

According to a survey carried out here 10 years ago by the Catholic University, 60% of Italians have stopped going to confession altogether. The situation has certainly not improved during the past decade.

Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. The priest absolves them in God's name.

Talking to course members at the end of the seminar organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican department in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners, Pope Benedict added his own personal voice of disquiet.

"We are losing the notion of sin," he said. "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm," he added. The Pope confesses his sins regularly once a week.

Greatest sins of our times

In an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Girotti said he thought the most dangerous areas for committing new types of sins lay in the fields of bio-ethics and ecology.

He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".

ORIGINAL DEADLY SINS
Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Lust
Anger
Greed
Sloth

Father Gerald O'Collins, former professor of moral theology at the Papal University in Rome, and teacher of many of the Catholic Church's current top Cardinals and Bishops, welcomed the new catalogue of modern sins.
"I think the major point is that priests who are hearing confessions are not sufficiently attuned to some of the real evils in our world," he told the BBC News website. "They need to be more aware today of the social face of sin - the inequalities at the social level. They think of sin too much on an individual level.

"I think priests who hear confession should have a deeper sense of the violence and injustice of such problems - and the fact that people collaborate simply by doing nothing. One of the original deadly sins is sloth - disengagement and not getting involved," Father O'Collins said. The Jesuit professor now teaches at St Mary's University in Twickenham.

"It was interesting that these remarks came from the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary," he said. "I can't remember a time when it was so concerned about issues such as environmental pollution and social injustice. It's a new way of thinking."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7287071.stm

Published: 2008/03/10 16:06:51 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

"He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as 'exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church'."

Sure. Do as we say, not as we do? Sounds a bit like the Republicans, all about telling other people how to live with little concern for their own "sins". Fuck em both I say.

I see President Bushleaguer is still swinging away. It is unsurprising that he continues down the same path; from a political aspect, I guess, it could be viewed as a "good" thing. McCain has basically sworn allegiance to the Bushwhacky policies so with Bush "sticking to his guns", or rather, his waterboard, there will be no doubt as to what we can expect from a McCain presidency. I'm hoping that the Democratic candidate runs as far from the Bush/McCain position as possible. (This is why I'm not enthusiastic about Hillary).

I will have more comments after this, from BBC News:

Bush vetoes interrogation limits
US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".
He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Water-boarding is condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments.

It is an interrogation method that puts the detainee in fear of drowning.

Track record

Speaking in his weekly radio address, Mr Bush did not mention water-boarding specifically.

"The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied," he said.

CIA 'ENHANCED INTERROGATION' TECHNIQUES
Water-boarding: prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning
Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water
Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor
Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury
Source: Described to ABC News by un-named CIA agents in 2005


"Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists."

He added: "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe."

Correspondents say the slim margin by which the bill was passed means it is unlikely that the Democratic-controlled Congress could gather enough votes to overturn Mr Bush's veto.

The bill would have restricted Central Intelligence Agency officials to using the 19 interrogation techniques outlined by the US army field manual.

It would ban the CIA from using not only water-boarding, but sensory deprivation and other harsh coercive methods on prisoners.

The CIA recently publicly admitted using water-boarding on three people, including high-profile al-Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but not for the past five years.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7285290.stm

Published: 2008/03/08 15:39:56 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

"He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took 'away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror'."

He refuses to address the ethics of the program, just continues to insist that "we" "need" to do this or the terrorists will "win". In my opinion, of course, the terrorists "win" when we adopt their tactics. There is exactly zero chance that "they" can ever "defeat" us in any conventional "war", nor can they ever possibly bring about "death to America". But we can. Every we time we ignore our Constitution, every we time we sink to a new low out of fear or hatred, every time we come closer to being what they are we come that much closer to bringing about the death of the American ideal.

"'The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied,' he said. 'Instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists.'"

That's right, smirky. It isn't just about "waterboarding". It's about right and wrong. "America" stands for human rights, universal human rights. No? The Bushies would even say that they agree. They mouth the words but evidently they don't connect the words to any particular course of actions. Well if any of the actions described above are not blatant violations of basic human rights I would like for someone to explain to me which ones, and how they are not. And before you even attempt to make the case that "these people" are not entitled to human rights (because they're not human, I guess?), please remember that they are not "terrorists", they are alleged terrorists. A somewhat crucial difference.

If anybody gets the chance to ask John McCain a question for me, please ask him (assuming he supports the Bush on this too) if he thinks the "rope trick" should be allowed. And why or why not. I would love to hear his answer.

Peace,

OK I owe a post on Favre's retirement. Coming soon. First there's this (from a couple days ago):

Iran blames US for Iraq 'terror' On the first-ever visit to Iraq by an Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the US of bringing terrorism to the region.
He also called on Washington to change its standpoint towards Iran and said it had to understand that the Iraqi people did not like America.
A BBC correspondent says many Iraqis see the visit as the culmination of a process of normalisation in ties.
The two countries fought a war when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980.
The BBC's Jim Muir adds that Mr Ahmadinejad has not been welcomed by all Iraqis, since some agree with the Americans' view that Iran supports extremist militias in Iraq and is to blame for much of the trouble there.
US weapons call
Mr Ahmadinejad, who arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, made his remark about the US and terrorism after US accusations that Iran was supporting militants.

[Iraq] does not want the US
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Six years ago, there were no terrorists in our region," he said after talks with Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, head of Iraq's largest Shia Muslim political bloc, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri).
"As soon as the others landed in this country and the region, we witnessed their arrival and presence."
Earlier, at a news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, the Iranian president said it was not Tehran's fault that Iraq "does not want the US".
On Saturday, US President George W Bush, speaking at his ranch in Texas, called on Iran to "quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing our citizens".
The Iranian leader is due to end his visit on Monday. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said a number of agreements will be signed.
'New page'
Iraqi leaders extended a warm welcome to the Iranian president, who flew into Baghdad airport and travelled into the city centre by car.
US forces are not involved in security for the visit and did not provide helicopters.
After talks with President Talabani, Mr Ahmadinejad said the visit had opened a "new page" in Iran-Iraq relations.
Prime Minister Maliki said his talks with Mr Ahmadinejad had been "friendly, positive and full of trust".
Despite the reconciliation between Baghdad and Tehran, many analysts believe that in the long term, the two countries are destined to be rivals for regional power.
During the long war between them in the 1980s, many of the prominent Shia now in positions of power in Iraq fled to Iran as Saddam Hussein cracked down on internal dissent.
The US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime allowed them to return from exile.
Trade is now growing between the two countries and tourism, in the form of Iranian pilgrims visiting major Shia shrines in Iraq, is booming.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7274199.stm

Published: 2008/03/03 00:46:50 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Granted this needs to be taken only for what it's worth. Ahmadinejad doesn't impress me as someone to be trusted either.
How about the quote from Herr Bush, 'US President George W Bush, speaking at his ranch in Texas, called on Iran to "quit sending in sophisticated equipment that's killing our citizens"'.

Our citizens? Does he mean our soldiers? That's an interesting way to put it. Perhaps he means the Blackwater thugs? Could he mean the Iraqi people? (yeah, right).

Anyway, does it seem to anyone else like this would be a very good time to get the hell out of there and let them work it out for themselves?

If the Bush Admin. wants to take credit for getting Iran and Iraq onto speaking terms then let them (of course they don't, they want them divided). In any case, out, out I say!

I read this yesterday. I will try to see the movie referenced.:

On the Sunday following Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney told the truth. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said regarding plans to pursue the perpetrators of that attack: “We have to work the dark side, if you will. We’re going to spend time in the shadows.” The grim, deadly consequences of his promise have, in the intervening six years, become the shame of our nation and have outraged millions around the world. President George Bush and Cheney, many argue, have overseen a massive global campaign of kidnapping, illegal detentions, harsh interrogations, torture and kangaroo courts where the accused face the death penalty, confronted by secret evidence obtained by torture, without legal representation.

Cheney’s shadows saw a moment of sunlight recently, as Alex Gibney won the Academy Award for the Best Documentary Feature for his film “Taxi to the Dark Side.” The film traces the final days of a young Afghan man, Dilawar (many Afghans use just one name), who was arrested in 2001 by the U.S. military and brought to the hellish prison at Bagram Air Base. Five days later, Dilawar was dead, beaten and tortured to death by the United States military. Gibney obtained remarkable eyewitness accounts of Dilawar’s demise from the very low-level soldiers who beat him to death. We see the simple village that was his lifelong home and hear from people there how Dilawar had volunteered to drive the taxi, which was an important source of income for the village.

Dilawar had never spent the night away from home. His first sleepover was spent with arms shackled overhead, subjected to sleep and water deprivation, receiving regular beatings, including harsh knee kicks to the legs that would render his legs “pulpified.” He had been fingered as a participant in a rocket attack on the Americans, by some Afghans who were later proved to be the attackers themselves. Gibney uses the tragic story of Dilawar to open up a searing and compelling indictment of U.S. torture policy from Bush and Cheney, through Donald Rumsfeld and the author of the infamous “torture memo,” now-University of California Berkeley law professor John Yoo.

The Oscar ceremony was bereft of serious mention of the war, until Gibney rose to accept his award. He said: “Thank you very much, Academy. Here’s to all doc filmmakers. And, truth is, I think my dear wife Anne was kind of hoping I’d make a romantic comedy, but honestly, after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, that simply wasn’t possible. This is dedicated to two people who are no longer with us: Dilawar, the young Afghan taxi driver, and my father, a Navy interrogator who urged me to make this film because of his fury about what was being done to the rule of law. Let’s hope we can turn this country around, move away from the dark side and back to the light. Thank you very much.”

“Taxi to the Dark Side” can be seen in movie theaters, and the Oscar will surely help open it up to more audiences. Gibney got a surprise, though, from the Discovery Channel, the television network that had bought the TV rights to the film. He told me: “Well, it turns out that the Discovery Channel isn’t so interested in discovery. I was told a little bit before my Academy Award nomination that they had no intention of airing the film, that new management had come in and they were about to go through a public offering, so it was probably too controversial for that. They didn’t want to cause any waves. It turns out Discovery turns out to be the see-no-evil/hear-no-evil channel.”

The Discovery Channel is owned by John Malone, the conservative mogul who owns Liberty Media, one of the largest media corporations on the planet. Malone is famous for his complex business deals that involve spinning off media properties with stock offerings that net him millions. He also has just gotten approval to swap his extensive stock holdings in News Corp., Rupert Murdoch’s empire, for control of Murdoch’s DirecTV satellite television system. When Discovery told Gibney they would not be airing “Taxi to the Dark Side,” Malone and Murdoch were awaiting approval for the DirecTV deal from the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission. (It was approved on Monday, the day after the Oscars.)

HBO managed to buy the television rights to “Taxi to the Dark Side,” so the film will find its way to those households that subscribe to premium TV channels. As Discovery wrote to a critical member of the public, “In its first pay-TV window, HBO will debut the film in September 2008. We are proud that ‘Taxi to the Dark Side’ will make its basic cable debut in 2009 on Investigation Discovery.” So Discovery will show “Taxi” on one of its smaller side channels, after the election, after its business with the Bush administration is wrapped up.

In the meantime, films like “Taxi to the Dark Side” and Phil Donahue’s excellent Iraq war documentary, “Body of War,” have to fight for distribution. Let’s hope that Gibney’s Oscar will help open the theaters and the TV airwaves to these truly consciousness-raising films to turn this country away from the dark side and back to the light.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

Pretty sad, no? U.S.A! U.S.A.!

An interesting read: http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/62/franklin62art.htm