No Bible at the Vatican Site: A win or Amoris Laetitia?

Readability

No Bible at the Vatican Site: A win or Amoris Laetitia?

Since the day I acci­dently dis­cov­ered that the Vat­i­can pulled the Bible from their web site I’ve been rack­ing my brain for a log­i­cal rea­son why in the inter­net age Rome would decide that Sacred Scrip­ture had no place at Vat­i­can online and would instead choose to send peo­ple search­ing for scrip­ture to the sites of local author­i­ties. There are in fact argu­ments one can make for the change

One can sug­gest that it’s a lot less work to send peo­ple else­where han­dle a dozen dif­fer­ent lan­guages on the site, except of course that they site already existed. One can argue that the Holy See doesn’t want to endorse one “offi­cial” ver­sion when there are sev­eral good trans­la­tions there but that could be han­dled by a ban­ner dis­claimer. One might even sug­gest that it solves the prob­lem of the Psalms which were put up with only a sin­gle link mean­ing that you had to either start at Psalm 1 and go for­ward or Psalm 150 and work back­ward which while it would be a pain to fix could not be more than a cou­ple of days work at the most for even the least com­pe­tent pro­gram­mer. One could even claim this is part of the shep­herds get­ting closer to the sheep by push­ing traf­fic to the sites of local

Unfor­tu­nately there is one log­i­cal con­clu­sion that given the divi­sions that have rocked the church since Amoris Laeti­tia makes the most log­i­cal sense.

Say you are the Bish­ops of Malta have decided to inter­pret the con­tro­ver­sial parts of Amoris Laeti­tia as loosely as pos­si­ble when it comes to admit­ting those prac­tic­ing unre­pen­tant Mor­tal Sin to com­mu­nion when scrip­ture incon­ve­niently says this

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remem­brance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after sup­per, say­ing, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remem­brance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you pro­claim the death of the Lord until he comes.

There­fore who­ever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A per­son should exam­ine him­self, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For any­one who eats and drinks with­out dis­cern­ing the body, eats and drinks judg­ment on himself.

1 Corinthi­ans 11:2329 (via USCCB Site)

Rather than try­ing to make spe­cious argu­ment to counter 2000 years of tra­di­tion and a clear trans­la­tion on the Vat­i­can Site might it not be eas­ier to elim­i­nate such a pas­sage online, foot­note it to rede­fine it while one com­mis­sions a dif­fer­ent trans­la­tion that rephrases these incon­ve­nient pas­sages to push toward your flock. It might take some time and cost some money but once it’s done then you can claim that what was once uni­ver­sally con­sid­ered mor­tally sin­ful is no big deal and point to “scrip­ture” to prove it. You might even get to the point where those point­ing out Mor­tal Sin and con­sid­er­ing it unac­cept­able behav­ior would be accused them­selves of sin­ful­ness for doing so.

Of course a Bishop or an Epis­co­pal Con­fer­ence doing such a thing would be endan­ger­ing not other the souls of their parish­ioners but their own souls as Christ emphat­i­cally states in Matthew:

Who­ever causes one of these lit­tle ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be bet­ter for him to have a great mill­stone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

If your hand or foot causes you to sin,* cut it off and throw it away. It is bet­ter for you to enter into life maimed or crip­pled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eter­nal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is bet­ter for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

Matthew 18:69 via USCCB

Then again the Bish­ops in ques­tion can always decide to re-​interpret that pas­sage too

Now you might say “DaT­e­chGuy that’s just para­noia.” I’d like to think you’re right but I’m old enough to remem­ber that it was just 20 years ago here in Amer­ica that peo­ple from Nancy Pelosi to Bill Clin­ton were insist­ing that any­one sug­gest­ing legal­iz­ing Civil Unions would lead to Gay Mar­riage was crazy and less than tens years ago that any­one sug­gest­ing gay mar­riage would lead to laws where you can be pun­ished for not allow­ing peo­ple with a penis to use the ladies room would be a nut. And I would fur­ther remind peo­ple that there are not only many priests who are pub­licly push­ing to rede­fine sin but we have the exam­ple of the col­lapse of churches like the Epis­co­pal church of the US to know what redefin­ing sin leads to for a church.

Hor­ri­ble Exit Ques­tion: Does the Vat­i­can and Pope Fran­cis con­sider this pos­si­bil­ity a bug or a fea­ture of leav­ing the Bible off the Vat­i­can site.

Since the day I accidently discovered that the Vatican pulled the Bible from their web site I’ve been racking my brain for a logical reason why in the internet age Rome would decide that Sacred Scripture had no place at Vatican online and would instead choose to send people searching for scripture to the sites of local authorities.  There are in fact arguments one can make for the change

One can suggest that it’s a lot less work to send people elsewhere  handle a dozen different languages on the site, except of course that they site already existed. One can argue that the Holy See doesn’t want to endorse one “official” version when there are several good translations there but that could be handled by a banner disclaimer.  One might even suggest that it solves the problem of the Psalms which were put up with only a single link meaning that you had to either start at Psalm 1 and go forward or Psalm 150 and work backward which while it would be a pain to fix could not be more than a couple of days work at the most for even the least competent programmer.  One could even claim this is part of the shepherds getting closer to the sheep by pushing traffic to the sites of local

Unfortunately there is one logical conclusion that given the divisions that have rocked the church since Amoris Laetitia makes the most logical sense.

Say you are the Bishops of Malta have decided to interpret the controversial parts of Amoris Laetitia as loosely as possible when it comes to admitting those practicing unrepentant Mortal Sin to communion when scripture inconveniently says this

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.  

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (via USCCB Site)

Rather than trying to make specious argument to counter 2000 years of tradition and a clear translation on the Vatican Site might it not be easier to eliminate such a passage online, footnote it to redefine it while one commissions a different translation that rephrases these inconvenient passages to push toward your flock.  It might take some time and cost some money but once it’s done then you can claim that what was once universally considered mortally sinful is no big deal and point to “scripture” to prove it.  You might even get to the point where those pointing out Mortal Sin and considering it unacceptable behavior would be accused themselves of sinfulness for doing so.

Of course a Bishop or an Episcopal Conference doing such a thing would be endangering not other the souls of their parishioners but their own souls as Christ emphatically states in Matthew:

Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

If your hand or foot causes you to sin,* cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

Matthew 18:6-9 via USCCB

Then again the Bishops in question can always decide to re-interpret that passage too

Now you might say “DaTechGuy that’s just paranoia.”  I’d like to think you’re right but I’m old enough to remember that it was just 20 years ago here in America that people from Nancy Pelosi to Bill Clinton were insisting that anyone suggesting legalizing Civil Unions would lead to Gay Marriage was crazy and less than tens years ago that anyone suggesting gay marriage would lead to laws where you can be punished for not allowing people with a penis to use the ladies room would be a nut.  And I would further remind people that there are not only many priests who are publicly pushing to redefine sin but we have the example of the collapse of churches like the Episcopal church of the US to know what redefining sin leads to for a church.

Horrible Exit Question:   Does the Vatican and Pope Francis consider this possibility a bug or a feature of leaving the Bible off the Vatican site.