SubscribeNew Vatican “Social Sins” Include Pollution
From those acolytes of Gaia at Reuters:
Vatican lists “new sins,” including pollution
Mon 10 Mar 2008
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation.
Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of “new” sins such as causing environmental blight.
The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican’s number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.
Asked what he believed were today’s “new sins,” he told the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.
“(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control,” he said…
Girotti, in an interview headlined “New Forms of Social Sin,” also listed “ecological” offences as modern evils.
In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.
Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively “green”.
It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.
Girotti, who is number two in the Vatican “Apostolic Penitentiary,” which deals with matter of conscience, also listed drug trafficking and social and economic injustices as modern sins.
But Girotti also bemoaned that fewer and fewer Catholics go to confession at all…
If we have to confess all of our “social sins” we would have no time for anything else. And how are they ever going to announce a new Pope?
Let’s hope something has been lost (or added) in translation.
Though it’s clear this is not your father’s Catholicism.
Related Articles:
- Climate Change To Be Taught In CA Schools
- China: "Culprit" US Created Global Warming
- Global Warming 'Will Kill Thousands' In UK
- Thank Gaia: Millions In China Without Power
- Bill Clinton: We Have To Slow Down Economy
- Worst Winter Storms In 50 Years Hit China
- 'Climate Change' Hysteric Busts Out Crying
- Climate Hysteria: "The Arctic Is Screaming"
- Sob Story: ABC's Victims Of Climate Change
- The Pope Sees 'Nothing Positive' In Iraq
- The Pope Kowtows A Little More To Muslims
- Pope Apologizes, Muslims Get Back To Work
- Shocker: The NYT Demands Pope Apologize
- Muslims Too Mad At Pope To Kill Each Other
- The Pope's Remarks Spark 'Muslim Outrage'
28 Responses to “New Vatican “Social Sins” Include Pollution”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Bless me father for I have sinned.
“When was your last confession my son?”
Oh last week, and since then I have driven a Suburban to work, Used more than one sheet of toilet paper per bathroom visit, turned on the lights in my home and even a television set.
And I was even so bad that I heated my home so the kids would quit shaking the pictures off the walls.
Last but not least, We cooked our food and took baths!
” You sick selfish bastard, Get out of this church”
March 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
DEZ;…”have driven a Suburban to work…”
My primary work truck is an F-350 diesel. I can hear it now……”For your pennance you must fill the tank at the local BP……” At $3.60 a gallon that’ll cause you to walk the straight-n-narrow!
SG is right. This isn’t the church I was raised in. I remember when we used to close out Sunday Mass with a prayer for the conversion of Russia…..but that was before we had all these other, more pressing matters to deal with.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race”
Yea his Motoons moment was what? Did the Pope buy ” Carbon credits” for his “freedom of speech” dissertation? Do Muslims ever buy “Carbon Credits” for their riots?
March 10th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Somehow I think Our Lord has more to worry about than if my cattle pass gas and if I drive into town for a burger.
I also doubt that however many Hail Mary’s and Our Father’s will make a CFB any brighter or less toxic.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Unfortunately the church is becoming more politically based and less Bible based. The last living remnant of Rome is staring at extinction if this trend continues. Just remember that God is eternal in-spite of the times.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The church has lost it’s traditional power base, and, looking at how the liberal left and democrats get their power through the propaganda and lies told to ignorant masses by a controlling media…..they are hopping on board. They know the global warming thing is pure crap….but there is huge unimaginable wealth to be made…and church coffers are at an all time low due to the indiscretions of a few priests….so of course they are jumping on the bandwagon.
They used to sell indulgences to ignorant masses…..now they will sell carbon credits instead. They dont give two damns about you or me….but they do care about money and power, and they long for the good old days when they had it.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
A few things:
1) Whenever the MSM talks about religion, you have to automatically deduct 150 IQ points because that’s the level of intelligence the reporter has (or the level you’re to have if you actually believe what they right). If they write about Catholicism, deduct 200 points.
Case in point: a few months ago, the MSM was all breathless because Pope Benedict XVI wore green vestments while celebrating Mass. They said it showed his support of and solidarity with “green” issues. Only thing is…green is the standard liturgical color for the season of Ordinary Time (between Christmas and Lent and between the end of Easter and beginning of Advent). So, for hundreds of years prior to the birth of his eco-holiness Al Gore, priests and popes have worn green during Ordinary Time. And they will in the future (unless Catholicism is outlawed by the UN or something).
Just a few years ago when Benedict XVI was named Pope, the very same MSM couldn’t resist trying to tie him to the Hitler Youth and paint him a Nazi (if not directly, then at least a sympathizer). Which turned out to be not true (he was in the German army, but that was compulsory and he later deserted - at great personal risk).
2) Catholics have always been called to be good stewards of the earth. It is not some liberalization of Church doctrine that’s bringing this about, and it will not mean Catholics who drive SUVs will be criticized or force to confess their eco-sins.
Without meaning to sound like a liberal Catholic, the Church is always about social justice. And has always recognized the individual’s right to prosperity and personal wealth (we’re called to share it, but we’re not condemned for having it). The Church would never support any policy brought forth by the eco-nuts that was in any way, shape, or form unjust. They just wouldn’t.
And given the propensity of eco-nuts to favor such things as sterilization and abortions and a reduction (voluntary or otherwise) of the human population - it’s a non-starter within the Church.
Even though we are called to care for God’s creation, the teachings of the Church would never - I repeat, N-E-V-E-R…NEVER - put nature or animals in a place of more importance or priority than mankind. It. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
Each Pope needs to speak to the pressing issues of the day - JPII did it with communism and the Cold War. I believe what Benedict XVI is doing is preparing for a bigger battle between the eco-nuts and those who love individual freedoms.
I cannot vouch for what might happen in more liberal Catholic parishes. However, since they have no real desire to function in accordance with the Catechism and the Magisterium anyway, don’t be surprised for them to attack members of the parish who do have SUVs or dare to have six or seven “little polluters”. But they hold no authority over official Church teaching.
And - as I said above - it’s the media we’re talking about here. Deduct 200 IQ points and you’ll understand why this article was written.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:38 am
And in the same article they note that fewer and fewer Catholics are bothering with confession.
Wonder why….
March 11th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Uh oh, the rich will now burn in Hell simply for being rich.
From The Times of London:
So:
I guess you may as well get rich running an abortion mill or dealing drugs now; the Catholic Church says it’s all the same.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:43 am
“Vatican Adds Seven New Deadly Sins Including Damaging Environment and Drug Dealing”
Quick, call Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, I smell a sequel!!!!!!!
March 11th, 2008 at 5:54 am
I believe the Lords first command was “Go forth and multiply”, and we did. The Pope got a problem with that?
March 11th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I believe the Lords first command was “Go forth and multiply”, and we did. The Pope got a problem with that?
No. See my above.
Keep in mind that British “religious reporting” is on par with American tabloid reporting - sensationalized, overblown, and often wrong.
And for a better breakdown…go here: http://zadokromanus.blogspot.c.....rting.html
March 11th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Many of you here know me as a regular contributor to the S&L discussion. Many of you also know that I am a practicing Catholic.
That being said, my two previous attempts here to explain this hackneyed story (and the story BillK references above) have not been up to my usual standard and I feel further explanation is necessary because I see a lot of the MSM mentality toward religion promulgated in some of the posts here (and that’s not necessarily your fault – if you’re not Catholic and don’t know any Catholics, how are you supposed to know, right?)
So I sat down and wrote this up to help explain things.
First – let me reiterate the above. The MSM is the WORST when it comes to reporting things like religion – especially Catholicism. In a typical story, expect about 5% of the story to be wholly accurate. The rest is all wrong.
Now, on to the meat of things.
I’ll start with the Church’s teaching on free will. Mankind was endowed with free will as a gift from God and it gives us the freedom to choose whether or not we’ll follow God’s commandments, and strive for a relationship with Him. Along those lines, we Catholics (and a majority of other Christian denominations) have the choice whether we will spend eternity with God (and act accordingly) or if we will spend eternity separated from God (which is the *true* definition of Hell – the fire and brimstone are illustrative, but the ultimate punishment of hell is to live devoid of God).
To that end, we all sin. The Catholic Church teaches there are two types of sin – venial and mortal. Mortal sins are the biggies – the ones that require 1) a will and the intention to cause harm to another (i.e. murder, rape, abortion) and 2) a will and intention to knowingly break God’s commandments (adultery, worshipping false gods, etc.). Mortal sin breaks that relationship from God completely. Catholics who *KNOWINGLY* live in a state of mortal sin and die will spend eternity separated from God.
Venial sins are minor sins that don’t fully sever that relationship with God, but damage it. Lying, cheating, petty theft, etc. can be classified as venial sins.
On top of that we have sins of COMMISSION and sins of OMISSION. Sins of commission are sins where you – with full intent and willful knowledge – commit a sin. Sins of omission are sins where you fail to act. For example, assisting someone in obtaining an abortion or not working to prevent someone you know from committing murder. Commission and omission happens with both mortal and venial sins.
The Catholic Church also teaches there are the seven virtues that man is meant to imitate: prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope, and love. These virtues, and all of Catholic teaching, is not about “rule breaking” but about relationships – of man and God, man and man, man and environment.
To that end and from the beginning of mankind, we’ve been called to be stewards of the earth. Adam and Eve were the first keepers of the Garden of Eden and – to that extent – we’re all called to do our part to help the planet.
That being said, the Catholic Church does not and never will buy into passing fads. I think we can all agree that environmentalism has become a secular religion and Al Gore is the messiah. It is a fad and the radical ideas some environmentalists have come up with (Sheryl Crowe’s “two square” limit, for example) fly in the face of reason and justice.
I think this blog post from Mark Shea (http://tinyurl.com/ypkw63) will help explain:
So now to a few of the comments here.
I believe the Lords first command was “Go forth and multiply”, and we did. The Pope got a problem with that?
One of the most fundamental teachings of the Church is the importance of children and families. Always has been. The Vatican and the Pope won’t now – nor will they ever – do things like support one-child policies or the eco-nuts who sterilize and abort for the sake of not creating “little polluters”.
I guess you may as well get rich running an abortion mill or dealing drugs now; the Catholic Church says it’s all the same.
Having money is not a sin, either. Being excessively greedy is, but the Church’s position is to teach about charity and let the sinner (through that free will thing I mentioned earlier) decide whether or not to face the consequences of greed. To lump that in with abortion and drug dealing is erroneous.
They used to sell indulgences to ignorant masses…..now they will sell carbon credits instead. They don’t give two damns about you or me….but they do care about money and power, and they long for the good old days when they had it.
I don’t know what your experience with Catholicism has been, sj, but clearly you ran into a bad crowd. There are Catholics – extremely liberal and extremely conservative – who abuse, misuse, misinterpret and outright dislike the honest teaching of the Catholic Church.
With an issue like environmentalism, liberal Catholics will leap up and scream, “Social justice!”. As I said above, these are the selfsame folk who – a few years ago – were frantic because Pope Benedict XVI was going to return the Church to the “dark ages” and was really a Nazi. On the flipside of that coin, extremely conservative Catholics (I’m talking the Rad Trads and sede vacantes, a/k/a schismatics http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1751950 here) will look at this and figure that the Church has become the liberal nightmare they think it is.
When, in reality, neither group has a grasp on the *true* Church and what she really teaches.
The most fundamental teachings of the Church have never changed. This most recent statement by the Vatican is not adding more “rules” to the book – it’s merely applying Catholic teaching to contemporary issues. Because the Church is neither liberal nor conservative (even if it meets with one position more than the other). It transcends all that.
Apologies for such a long post. But I hope it helps clarify the inane nature of this article, and brings about a better understanding of the Church’s true teachings on things like environmentalism and wealth.
I run into a lot of misconception about Catholicism on the web and in discussion threads like this and all I’m trying to do is help undo some of the mess the MSM has created. They wouldn’t know Catholicism if it jumped up and bit them on the ass (pardon my language) and it’s exhausting to see the prattle they publish and consider it “news”.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
englishqueen01;….Whew!..;o}
Thanks! I suspect you and I are of the same generation although I might be a little older. My religious practice is intensely personal so when I feel some cleric is tinkering with the basics, I trust to my own conscience and press on. As you say, my relationship is with God, and the old “Baltimore Catechism” did a pretty fair job of grounding my beliefs in right, wrong, and the quest for eternity. If you’re not familiar with the “Baltimore”, my guess as to your age was incorrect. Anyway, all the scandals accusations, etc. leveled at the Catholic Church, rightly-so and otherwise, don’t diminish the role of the church in saving souls. But it is up to each of us to save our own. Anyway, you are very well-read and your post refreshingly well-stated.
P.S. Yes, the church was at one time in the business of selling indulgences as a fund-raiser…a regrettable practice, and certainly less well-regarded than bingo. ;-}
March 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
If you’re not familiar with the “Baltimore”, my guess as to your age was incorrect.
JohnMG:
I have heard of the Baltimore. However, I converted to Catholicism in 2005 and am 25 years old so I’m not as familiar with it as you.
Anyway, all the scandals accusations, etc. leveled at the Catholic Church, rightly-so and otherwise, don’t diminish the role of the church in saving souls.
No, they don’t. The people - the priests, bishops, Pope and laity that comprise the body of the Church are sinful and human. They make mistakes - some even vile mistakes (like the sex-abuse scandal). That does not however, detract from the teaching of the Church. Those who commit sin in her name (especially priests and bishops) do so abusively to the roles they play within the Church.
Thanks for the kind words.
March 11th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I should never guess at a lady’s age. Aside from being impolite it can prove embarassing. I’m sixty-two years old, my wife of 40 years will be the same soon. She, too, is a convert, albeit just shortly before we married. She has taught for 29 years in a parochial school and has her religious teaching certification. Your knowledge is on par with her own. Once again, you present yourself well and with authority.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
JohnMG:
You are a true gentleman. Although, I’m still comfortable sharing my age unprompted. My conversion came six months before my wedding (although I’d given deep consideration to converting when I was still in high school). I went through a rather nasty period where I was pretty liberal and religiously apathetic, and then I joined my husband’s (then fiance’s) parish.
Thank you for the kind words. I teach in my parish’s religious ed program and am considering a book on apologetics for my Master’s thesis, so it behooves me to really know my faith. Besides, when I converted, I made the decision to accept the Church’s teachings fully - or not at all.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
EQ,
I’m a Catholic, too. Been one since the day I was born. My son is an alter boy in our local church. Knowing the current Pope is a German, and the German’s are very Green, caused me to make my flippant remark. I did not mean to belittle our Catholic faith.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:34 am
I did not mean to belittle our Catholic faith.
And I believe you. It’s just frustrating when the media:
1) Has absolutely no use for Catholicism on a normal day. Quite frankly, I’m surprised we haven’t had one of the typical pre-Easter stories about how our faith is JUST. SO. WRONG. Like the “gospel” according to Judas; or the story about St. Paul really not being converted, but just being an epileptic who ran into some nasty ball lightning; or that Jesus didn’t walk on water, but on ice; or James Cameron’s “documentary” on how Jesus wasn’t really resurrected, because Titanic man found his family grave, etc. Add to that the tripe someone like Joy Behar from “The View” says (i.e.: the saints were all psychotic) or Bill Maher (we are schizophrenic and drink the blood of a “space god”)
While I know you probably already know this, it’s quite clear the MSM thinks us a bunch of backwater Neanderthals (and they apologize to the Neanderthals).
2) Then the Pope says something - about environmentalism, about the war in Iraq - and suddenly…ta da!…the Catholic Church is somewhat relevant! Listen to the Pope, kiddies, ’cause he wants you to recycle or you’re going to hell! Like the green vestments thing I mentioned above, the MSM has no problem misrepresenting the facts in order to further their agenda.
So stuff like this ticks me off and it reinforces many of the misconceptions people have about the Church - even well-meaning conservatives and Protestants who are leery of all things “papist” or “Roman.”
I’m not upset with anyone here (never was); just miffed that the MSM would write such a half-assed story and pass it off as news.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:32 am
englishqueen01;…….”You are a true gentleman……”
Careful with that “gentleman” stuff. You’ll tarnish my image. DEZ says I’ve got a little smart a** in me, and I’d like to keep it that way. :o}
March 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Careful with that “gentleman” stuff. You’ll tarnish my image. DEZ says I’ve got a little smart a** in me, and I’d like to keep it that way. :o}
The two are not mutually exclusive… ;-)
March 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“The MSM is the WORST when it comes to reporting things like religion…”
Great post Englishqueen, what a perfect explanation. The MSM should steer clear of subjects and issues that they can’t comprehend!
“DEZ says I’ve got a little smart a** in me, and I’d like to keep it that way.”
Yeah JohnMG, it takes one to know one. ;-)
March 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“DEZ says I’ve got a little smart a** in me, and I’d like to keep it that way.”
“Yeah JohnMG, it takes one to know one. ;-)”
I can hardly argue with either point. ;-}
March 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
englishqueen01, I’ve seen a few different priests on television now, and not one has phrased things in terms of greed, which the Catholic Church has always been against.
They’ve all simply used the phrase “excessively wealth” - “excessive” apparently being left to the eye of the beholder.
Also on the list is “promoting social inequity.”
I suspect these days that would include being against socialized health care.
One good thing about the Catholic Church is to date they have been largely un-PC and have represented an unwavering moral compass, especially in the era of “cafeteria Catholics” who have no problem picking and choosing doctrine from the Catechism at will. Examples include those “Catholics” who support the ordination of women, those who believe the Church is wrong on homosexuality, and most amazingly, “Catholics” like Ted Kennedy and Bill Ritter of Colorado who are blatantly pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood.
Yet adding “excessive wealth” and “promoting social inequity” to the list are the very squishy PC-type of concepts most have been hoping would not infect the Catholic Church.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:07 am
BillK:
Don’t you think the media has selected priests who best suit their views? Believe me, you will run the spectrum of priests and the more liberal ones are usually hand-picked by the media to profess the views of the church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church nowhere says “excessive wealth” is a sin. To wit, this passage:
makes the argument that for one’s work, one must be fairly compensated - even if that means being wealthy.
With regards to socialized medicine, no doubt more liberal Catholics would be bang along side. Unfortunately, these liberal Catholics are pretty much in a perpetual state of sin given their support of things that contradict Church teaching.
However - as we’ve all seen - there are grossly unjust practices such as withholding treatment from the obese and the elderly. There is also strong evidence to support socialized medicine would fly in the face of the Church’s teaching on contraception - either forcing birth control, sterilization, or abortions on women deemed to have “too many” children.
So no, the Church is not “for” socialized medicine. We are called to find a way to help others with basic needs, but the answer is not socialism or communism. Besides, both of those ideologies have been rabidly anti-Church in the past, so why would the Church support something that would lead to the death of her believers? We all know 170 million people died at the hands of such regimes in the 20th century. And we know that Pope John Paul II was one of the biggest opponents of communism, working for the resistance before he became a priest.
See Matthew 25:31-46 regarding social equity, or the story of Lazarus and the rich man (in Matthew 18, I believe).
I guess the argument of social equity is best defined by this saying: “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.”
The Church would not support social programs that encourage laziness, entitlement, and greed because those are sins. They call on everyone to work to his or her fullest capacity, and for programs that give people the tools to be self-sufficient and self-reliant.
The problem is, you get people on both ends of the spectrum. You get liberals who think requiring the recipients of aid to better themselves in any way (i.e., get a job) is discriminatory and racist. On the far right end, you get people who believe ALL poor people “deserve” to be that way and should get no help - even if they’re completely destitute and trying to get ahead.
As I said above - the Church’s official position is between and above all that. Help those who need it, but call on those asking for help to do something for themselves.
My parish is in the Downtown Milwaukee area. We get a lot of homeless persons asking for money and handouts. Rather than encouraging that behavior, we are told to direct them to the Cathedral’s food pantry for assistance. Many go, but we know of at least two who were so belligerent and rude that they were asked not to return until they got their act together.
So - no, the Catholic Church does not give, give, give and expect nothing in return.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:51 am
eq01, you’re right that it doesn’t appear in the Catechism, but neither do any of the other points in the statement issued this week.
To quote the Los Angeles Times, which is quoting Vatican official Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti:
Of course Pope Benedict has proven himself to be a good Friend of AlGore as well:
Would God have created an Earth so fragile that Man could destroy its environment? Apparently the Pope believes so.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:37 am
The Catholic church is not alone in the thinking that encourages these kinds of distortions of doctrine as filtered through the MSM. Liberal and mainstream Protestantism is rife with crypto-Marxist clergy and agenda-activist laypeople for whom congregations and denominations are little more than convenient networks through which to spread their ideological contagions. Even many evangelicals have begun paying lip-service to social gospel mantras as a means of “triangulating” their otherwise “conservative” (i.e. Biblical and Constitutional) positions. Pastors of every theological stripe are susceptible to parroting their professorial idols/mentors/peers in academia. Good rule of thumb, IMHO: Trust your Bible more than your minister. And trust a minister with experience in business or a trade over one whose only other job prior to filling a pulpit was being a grad student (advice I’ll stand by in spite of whatever ire it arouses).
As for the whole concept of “social sins:” It’s the “Little Red Hen” story in reverse:
“Some people are poor. Which of you makes too much money?” asked the Little Red Reverend.
“Not I,” said the retail clerk, mentally comparing himself to his manager. “Not I,” said the line foreman, comparing himself to the factory owner. “Not I,” said the surgeon, comparing himself to an oil company CEO he golfed with once.
“Then I bless each of you,” said the Little Red Reverend. “But some of the world is fouled. Which of you here is has been polluting?”
“Not I,” said the retail manager who drove a Prius, silently praying for God to condemn the automaker, not him, for the deadly toxins in the battery. “Not I,” said the factory owner, mentally comparing himself with heavier manufacturers. “Not I,” said the oil company CEO, mentally comparing his company to another with a worse reputation.
“Then I bless each of you,” said the Little Red Reverend. “But man has tampered with God’s creation. Which of you is complicit in bioethical shortcomings?”
“Not I,” said everyone, most of whom had not the foggiest idea what he was talking about.
“Then go with God’s blessing,” said the Little Red Reverend. And the envious retail clerk, the angry line foreman, the prideful surgeon, the gluttonous manager, the lustful factory owner, the greedy CEO and the generally slothful everyone else left the service feeling righteous and holy without ever becoming either one.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’m a little perplexed by this. The Southern Baptists are divided over this too. Mostly by age. The elders don’t believe it and the young “skulls full of mush” do. I suppose it could be the influence of education/indoctrination by government run public shools and liberal universities. This could also account for Christian rock and the loosening of morals.
The marxist plan of slow erosion of society by design seems to be working.