Slashdot Mirror


Vatican Bans IOS Confession App

An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the hype that a lowly priest had approved the new confessional app hitting the app store, the truth has now revealed itself. According to today's Daily Mail, a spokesman for the Vatican, Federico Lombardi said: 'It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

323 comments

  1. Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic.. by intellitech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Confessions probably shouldn't be communicated over cellular data connections, anyway..

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  2. Not sure about that... by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


    FTA: The Vatican has warned that an app can never replace visiting a priest.

    Oh, I don't know. An app is much easier on the ass.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, how can a priest find out if your kids are diddle-worthy over the phone.

    2. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This appears to be a difficult decision.. Physically go to a priest to be touched, or let them come to you..

    3. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're holding the priest wrong.

    4. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "Father, did you know your raping of children is a sin? Says so right here in this app!"

    5. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh oh... here come the downmods. The Vatican must have the priests working overtime on /.

    6. Re:Not sure about that... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Facetime DUH!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Not sure about that... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Depends how you use the app.

    8. Re:Not sure about that... by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      Don't hold it like that.

    9. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha classic butt sex joke! A proud day for you and your family.

      You know, other people fuck little boys too. Like uncles. Can I call all your uncles little boy buttfuckers because some uncles do that? Ok, good. Oh what, your dad's an uncle too? You're mom gets fucked by the dick of a little boy buttfucker.

    10. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as soon as there's a well-documented, systematic, organized campaign by a vast number of the leaders in my family to not only ignore the buttfucking, but deny it when the buttfucking is caught and then ship off the boyfuckers to a brand new place to fuck brand new boys without ever a single care about whether criminal activity had taken place or a child had been psychologically traumatized. Then yeah, you'll be free to make your point.

      Until then, shut the fuck up.

    11. Re:Not sure about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You're a classic case of a butthurt Catholic.

      Enjoy your anal rape.

    12. Re:Not sure about that... by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are number of paedophiles at large, and I'm sure that a number of them are uncles. However... one would hope that the vast majority don't have a large multi-national organisation systematically covering their tracks for them. If it was a single case of child abuse that had been over-hyped by the media, then your ill-advised post may have had some merit. But we aren't talking about a single case, we are talking about 11000 or so allegations of child abuse spanning 5 decades or more - every single one of which the Catholic Church tried to cover up. Whilst I'm sure there are many priests that do not abuse children, they still belong to the very same organisation that adopted a policy of "forgiveness" that allowed it to continue for so long. Frankly that makes the church, it's priests, and the Vatican as guilty as the paedophiles themselves.

      So if someone accuses all catholic priests of child abuse, so be it. It's not actually that far from the truth....

    13. Re:Not sure about that... by syousef · · Score: 1

      FTA: The Vatican has warned that an app can never replace visiting a priest.

      Oh, I don't know. An app is much easier on the ass.

      Perhaps if you use an iPhone...but an iPad....ouch!!!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    14. Re:Not sure about that... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      All the serious Apple users are already well stretched there, so I don't think that would be a problem either :D

    15. Re:Not sure about that... by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      On the hole, it's a pretty good app.

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    16. Re:Not sure about that... by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      But only if you have the iPhone and not the soon to be released aPhone.

    17. Re:Not sure about that... by froggymana · · Score: 1

      Well, there is already an aPad

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  3. Dail Fail by teh31337one · · Score: 1

    Stopped reading there.

    1. Re:Dail Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a shame. It's the one story of theirs that I know of which actually makes sense, when taken in the context of asking for forgiveness from magical imaginary friend sky being so you go to magical imaginary kissy-huggy land instead of magical imaginary burn-alive-over-and-over land.

    2. Re:Dail Fail by teh31337one · · Score: 1

      It begs to ask the question: Why was I reading the summary?

  4. I guess the Vatican doesn't want by hsmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    To pay the 30% Apple tax on selling indulgences through IAP either - is it a consumable or a subscription?

    1. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Haha, very funny. The truth is, contrary to popular perception (especially from protestants), that indulgences aren't sold; in fact, they are acts of penance done to reduce the required stay in purgatory, not a money-making scheme. In fact, if they were a money-making scheme, they're one of the least effective ones in existence. Indulgences were given for reading your bible, for reciting prayers regularly, and many other things. The times when money was involved were occasions where you'd give alms (charity), which is not buying it outright. Assuming that charity is a good thing, and assuming that the Catholic Church is a good organization to give money to (considering it's God's very own church for Christ's sake, literally), why wouldn't it be praiseworthy from God himself that you helped his Church?

      Sources:
      http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
      http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
      Also, Google's your friend.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I thought Purgatory was no longer part of the dogma.

    3. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Assuming that charity is a good thing

      Ok...

      and assuming that the Catholic Church is a good organization to give money to (considering it's God's very own church for Christ's sake, literally)

      LOL. And on what authority is the Catholic Church claimed to be "God's very own church"? Why, that of the Catholic Church! And how do you know that the Catholic Church is authoritative? Well, it's "God's very own church", what more do you want?

      Giving to charities is a good thing. But doing a good thing for the wrong reason -- like because you believe that it will stop an omnipotent and loving deity from punishing somebody's ghost -- is not a good thing.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices. They remained for quite some time the only organization out there that didn't see anything wrong with the church shuffling pedophiles around to protect its own image.

      The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into. Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers. I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.

    5. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Haha, very funny. The truth is, contrary to popular perception (especially from protestants), that indulgences aren't sold; in fact, they are acts of penance done to reduce the required stay in purgatory, not a money-making scheme. In fact, if they were a money-making scheme, they're one of the least effective ones in existence. Indulgences were given for reading your bible, for reciting prayers regularly, and many other things.

      Newsflash: catholic.com provides literature supporting the catholic church. :P

      The truth is that in the past the Catholic church was a very corrupt and power hungry organization. Notice I'm giving the benefit of doubt to the present church.

      Indulgences were sold, AND the church purposely kept the bible away from the masses by keeping it in latin and in limited distribution. Johannes Gutenberg got in trouble with the church by publishing a readable translation of the Bible, and later Martin Luther inadvertently initiated the protestant reformation by publishing his "95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences" protesting the actions of the Archbishop's selling of indulgences to finance the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica.

      Just because the church spent centuries trying to justify indulgences doesn't negate the suspicions that protestants still hold against catholicism.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more in the line of killing the competition so they have time to complete their own confession app.

    7. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Either way they aren't legitimate Christian practices. The Catholic Church hasn't been "God's very own church" in hundreds of years. Also, the Catholic Church is hardly an unbiased source of information on Catholic practices.

      Well I'd love to see a historically accurate source that doesn't fall to common misconceptions. Of course the Catholic Church is biased; who isn't? I can assure you though that it is truthful and doesn't lie to protect itself.

      The whole practice of confession isn't one which is found in the Bible and leads one to believe that it somehow assists one in getting into heaven. The truth is that there is one gate keeper in the religion and it isn't somebody you're going to run into.

      First of all, you're forgetting where the Bible even comes from. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith, was never intended to be, and does not contradict the doctrine of purgatory, as the links I shared earlier stated rather clearly.

      Additionally Purgatory doesn't exist, it wasn't introduced until a really long time after the events of the Bible and frequently involved both masses being said and prayers.

      The original church fathers did, in fact, believe in Purgatory; the belief that it was "introduced" comes from a misunderstanding about how Catholic doctrines are approved. The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture. The Catholic Church has not "invented" a single doctrine, and every single one of them was believed by the original church fathers.

      I'm not really up on all things Catholic, but I have a hard time imagining that the Priests are saying all these masses completely gratis.

      Some priests take a vow of poverty, yes, but not all. Mostly, it's the church itself that needs the money for things like electricity, repairs, distributing materials, buildings, taxes if any, and whatnot. I don't see how donations to help the Church, assuming it's a decent place to give money of course, could possibly be a bad thing.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    8. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I'd love to respond to this obviously troll-ish post, but you fail to cite any sort of sources and spout the very same misconceptions that many people fall to. Saying, in a nutshell, "this is a fact" with no logical or historical basis besides common misconception is illogical. What do they call this, again? Oh, right: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    9. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Your Karma just ran over my Dogma

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    10. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I'm sure those links are totally unbiased and based strictly on verifiable, probably false facts.

      So this all seems very pointless unless the end game is to make money. Or, more directly, to control people in order to make money indirectly.

      You make up a set of rules for everyone to live by, then make up gifts that allow people to break those rules, and that they can receive those gifts by performing made up tasks to please a made up diety. I'm sure that keeps everyone very busy watching everyone else, and serves as a reminder of who holds what power over whom. Like making a dog jump through a hoop to get a biscuit. As long as the dog keeps wanting the biscuit, anyway.

      You wonder why some of us are a bit suspicious?

    11. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Nope, it very well is. Same with indulgences.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    12. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1
      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    13. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by wsxyz · · Score: 2

      The only dogma about Purgatory is that prayers for the dead are beneficial.

      Since it is also dogma that souls in Hell cannot be helped by prayer, and those in Heaven have no need of prayer, the dogma that prayers for the dead are beneficial demands that another state exist. This state is what the Church calls Purgatory. The exact nature of Purgatory is not defined by the Church.

      You may have been thinking of Limbo - the state of deceased unbaptized infants - which a few years ago was, with great fanfare, declared abolished by the press. In fact, the existence of Limbo was never a dogma of the Church, and the theological commission which studied the question of Limbo a few years ago did not conclude that there is no Limbo. It concluded that the Church does not know the fate of deceased unbaptized infants.

    14. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by loganljb · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're completely correct -- in that Google is your friend.

      According to wikipedia (I know, downmod me for using this as a source), abuse of the sale of indulgences was a major point of contention, and one of the reasons why Martin Luther started the protestant reformation. I can't imagine that wikipedia is any MORE biased on this subject than the official Catholic web site.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

    15. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      It's only trollish because you disagree.

      If you can't bring yourself to take my word for it, then please do your own research. There are history books at your local library, and you could follow your own advise and use Google. Just don't limit yourself to the catholic church for the information.

      I'm not going to post citations, and quite frankly I'm pretty startled that your view on historical facts are so skewed and incomplete. Look up "Johannes Gutenburg" and "Martin Luther". Why should I limit your research to links that I can provide?

      What you are asking me to do is equivalent to provide sources for the fact that water is wet.

      Saying, in a nutshell, "this is a fact" with no logical or historical basis besides common misconception is illogical. What do they call this, again? Oh, right: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it".

      I'm shocked on how ignorant you have kept yourself. For your own good, please go to a library or even better take a history class.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    16. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The times when money was involved were occasions where you'd give alms (charity), which is not buying it outright.

      And the charities were selected by whom?

      In other news, the Senator from MAFIAA just passed a law saying that consumers must purchase one Blu-Ray per month. Each citizen will be provided with one $5 voucher per month. You're free to buy any movie you like. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization :)

    17. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Illicon · · Score: 1

      The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture.

      So as long as an idea doesn't contradict tradition or scripture, we're all good with it?

    18. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular perception, the Catholic Church is not rich and only has a budget about the size of the Archdiocese of Chicago (and considering how the Catholic Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the entire world). The Catholic Church runs hospitals, schools, missions, and many other things that people benefit from daily; it's not for selfish gain at all. Donations are expected whether you sinned or not. It's no better to donate to any other organization, especially considering that Churches have expenses that have to be paid somehow. When you confess your sins, you're expected to be totally honest about it. If you aren't, and you continue to "break the rules", that's extremely sinful.

      Assuming that the Catholic Church is the divine organization that it claims to be, and being shown that it isn't a selfish scam, there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving alms.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    19. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      The church purposely kept the bible away from the masses by keeping it in latin and in limited distribution.

      The Church forbade the reading of unapproved translations of the Bible, knowing that it would be possible for poorly educated or malicious translators to mislead Catholic with erroneous translations of the Bible. The first approved Catholic bible in English was published in 1582, before the King James translation was even started. Before this time, yes one would have to learn Latin to read the Bible, but before this time, most people who could read at a sufficiently advanced level to be able to read the Bible could also read Latin anyway.

      Johannes Gutenberg got in trouble with the church by publishing a readable translation of the Bible

      Gutenberg published a Latin Bible.

    20. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      First of all, Catholic.com is not "the official catholic website", it is merely and approved source of information. Secondly, if you go down to the "Abuses" section of that Wikipedia, you can see exactly what abuses were committed and how the Church attempted to stop them. You can't stop counterfeit indulgences completely, just like you can't stop counterfeit iPhones. Abuses in indulgences disprove the theory behind them about as much as counterfeit iPhones disprove the potential usefulness of the real ones.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    21. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Thank you for actually making some sense as opposed to most of the trolls here! Everything you've said is true and to-the-point. :)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    22. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Gutenberg published a Latin Bible.

      Whoops! Thanks for catching that.

      Gutenberg got in trouble for having a heated discussion with two archbishops this is why he was exiled (it may something to do with debts he accrued). Gutenberg's invention led to the mass dissemination of the Bible, but not necessarily Gutenberg himself. In fact, Gutenberg made money printing indulgences for the church (I found this factoid while double checking for this post).

      It was Martin Luther that translated the Bible from latin to the native language of the people (german), and inspired the translation for the KJV of the Bible.

      Sorry about the confusion, I ran into the risk of doing that when I mention both men in the same post :P

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    23. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Look up "Johannes Gutenburg" and "Martin Luther".

      Gutenberg published a Latin Bible, the Vulgate. He's the main reason we have the printing press, and the first officially approved English Bible was completed in 1582, the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was published 31 years before the King James Version that is so widely read today by protestants.

      Also, Martin Luther had a skewed view on indulgences. Virtually every single indulgence abuse was no different than selling a counterfeit iPhone; it isn't the real thing and it didn't do what they said it did. Martin Luther mainly opposed indulgences because they contradicted what he personally thought the Christian faith should be, completely regardless of abuses that make no difference in the validity of the theory behind them.

      Your point is?

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    24. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Other than correcting an error that I've made and expounding on the church's version of why they forbade the dissemination of the Bible, I don't see him actually making a counter point. I still find it amusing that you think that I'm the troll.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    25. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, small correction: 29 years, not 31. I did the math in my head wrong. My apologies.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    26. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      The mere approval of a doctrine as official does not mean that it was "invented". It means that there is enough evidence to show that it does not contradict tradition, including scripture.

      So as long as an idea doesn't contradict tradition or scripture, we're all good with it?

      Of course. And don't misunderstand what I said: by "doesn't contradict tradition", I mean that it is an accepted Catholic belief that the original Church Fathers believed, OR it can be shown to logically follow from those beliefs. For example, "limbo", while not an official Catholic doctrine, is a belief that logically descends from belief in purgatory (depending on who you ask).

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    27. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by loganljb · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Of course indulgences were sold -- under the guise of 'charitable contributions'. If you are told that a contribution to charity can reduce your sentence in jail, and that the charity that you're supposed to contribute to is owned, operated, and controlled by the warden, isn't that basically selling a reduced jail sentence?

      Indulgences were sold for the construction of St. Peter's basilica. The church investigated, and downplayed the role of the priest at the top of the chain -- instead, those that played up the idea to the poor were blamed. Those involved were not 'counterfeiting' anything, they were just misrepresenting what was needed for an indulgence (a prayer was just as good as money). However, the idea of giving indulgences to rebuild the basilica certainly started at the top, and is 'selling' no matter how you look at it.

    28. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Congratulations you read a post from wsxyz correcting my post, and my response to him! He did it by stating historical facts and not by linking blogs from questionable sources.

      Good for you, you found a way to look like you learned something without all that hard work of actually picking up a book.

      By the way, that post didn't dispute the contents of my post, just that I wrongly attributed to Gutenberg what Luther had done.

      Your point is?

      That you need to educate yourself...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    29. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Indulgences were sold, AND the church purposely kept the bible away from the masses by keeping it in latin and in limited distribution. Johannes Gutenberg got in trouble with the church by publishing a readable translation of the Bible

      Gutenberg published the only approved Bible at the time, the Vulgate. And, just so you know, the Douay-Rheims translation of the bible, which is in English, was published by the Catholic Church before the King James Version was published. The only excuse they have relating to "keeping the Bible from the People" is that there was no printing press until Gutenberg invented it!

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    30. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The times when money was involved were occasions where you'd give alms (charity), which is not buying it outright. Assuming that charity is a good thing, and assuming that the Catholic Church is a good organization to give money to (considering it's God's very own church for Christ's sake, literally), why wouldn't it be praiseworthy from God himself that you helped his Church?

      It's interesting that the people who tell you to give money are the ones accepting your money, but yeah, you're totally correct, that's totally different than selling indulgences.

      Giving to charity is not a get-out-of-purgatory-free card, as it was used back in the day, and no amount of white washing history or using modern apologetics is going to change that.

    31. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by tengwar · · Score: 1

      First of all, you're forgetting where the Bible even comes from [catholicapologetics.info]. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith, was never intended to be...

      The church existed before the New Testament was written - yes. However that does not mean that the Roman church was responsible for its production, or the that the various writers agreed with the emerging traditions of Rome. The gospel of Matthew, for instance, appears to have been written by and for Jewish Christians, and in ch 15 (part of the Sermon on the Mount) clearly states that all of the existing Law still applies to Christians - a view diametrically opposed to that of Paul (Peter appears to have swithered on this question, according to Acts).

    32. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Gutenberg published the only approved Bible at the time, the Vulgate. And, just so you know, the Douay-Rheims translation of the bible, which is in English, was published by the Catholic Church before the King James Version was published. The only excuse they have relating to "keeping the Bible from the People" is that there was no printing press until Gutenberg invented it!

      Just so you know, english isn't the only language.

      Martin Luther published his translation of the New Testament in german in 1522 and the Old Testament followed in 1534. This is before Douay-Rheims translation of the New Testament in 1582 (60 years after Martin Luther's translation) and the Old Testament in two volumes in 1609 and 1610 (76 years after Martin Luther's translation).

      Douay-Rheims is not even the first english translation of the latin Vulgate. That honor goes to John Wycliffe and what came known as Wycliffe's Bible that began circulation in 1382 (which is 228 years before Douay-Rheims). Having no printing press isn't a good excuse. John Wycliffe and his followers hand scribed each copy of their bible. John Wycliffe is considered the "morning star of the reformation".

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    33. Re:I guess the Vatican doesn't want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering that Churches have expenses that have to be paid somehow

      No they don't, just close the church.

  5. Where does the Pope go to the washroom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The VatiCan

  6. Not Banned by ThePCJedi · · Score: 5, Informative

    To be more specific the app is not banned, but it's purpose has been clarified.

    It is an app designed to help prepare people for confession, they only say no to the idea of this replacing the act of confessing to a priest.

    1. Re:Not Banned by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, thank goodness the proper magical bullshit has been protected. Imagine doing your weird cult-like activity incorrectly! Thank you Vatican overseers!

    2. Re:Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to LARP, the Catholics want to pray, both require you to play by the rules for anyone to have any fun.

      So kindly stop ripping on one of the oldest and most popular LARPs in history.

    3. Re:Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you posting on /. when you should be finishing up washing my car?

    4. Re:Not Banned by BlortHorc · · Score: 0

      Right, thank goodness the proper magical bullshit has been protected. Imagine doing your weird cult-like activity incorrectly! Thank you Vatican overseers!

      I wish more people would explain to people that their deeply held beliefs are nothing but the end result of upbringing and a dysfunction in their brains. I really do. Would save me having to say the same thing to them over and over.

      To quote radiohead, "just cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there"

      To be clear: that sense of a higher being you have, that is physiological. Once upon a time it had a significant evolutionary benefit to our distant ancestors. Now it has less benefit than our primate sense of vertigo. Nonetheless, neither effect is going to stop you reproducing, so your misbegotten notions can be passed on to your (is hyper-naive too cruel? No? Excellent) hyper-naive progeny.

      And to be doubly clear, obviously none of this is directed at the parent poster, who though clearly an ass, is definitely my kind of ass :)

    5. Re:Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you share their beliefs or not, that amount of condescension is simply rude.

    6. Re:Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cult implies a small group, Christians are not.

      More accurately the cult are the people on Slashdot that worship Science as their God.

      No judgment here, but words have meanings, try to understand them.

    7. Re:Not Banned by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Whether you share their beliefs or not, that amount of condescension is simply rude.

      Saying that is itself quite revealing (also: 1 & 2)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Not Banned by sznupi · · Score: 1

      To be fair, saying "Now it has less benefit than our primate sense of vertigo" is very premature, at the least ... it's all about winning the evolutionary race (of whatever form, in whatever medium), in the end.
      And actually, I suspect it might be even helpful at some point - not a lot of other reasons to really push for space colonization, other than "to claim the gift of deity-of-the-hour".

      Surprising amounts of hidden truth, too ;> (can we even fully break free, anyway?)

      PS. BTW, it's very revealing to possibly experience, at earlier stages of life, a form of curious syndrome ... which largely disappeared around the same time as when drugs targeting its underlying condition have done its job and were discontinued. The specific condition being, according to neurologists, very under-diagnosed (no, it's nothing like stereotypes; my relatively noticeable form was about fainting too easily, in conditions which are "normally" contributing anyway - high temperature, exhausting exercise, oxygen deprivation - the last, funnily enough, typically in churches!...sounds familiar?) - and suspected in quite a few religious figures.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Not Banned by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I'd put this in with a giant list of "apps" the function of which is easily implementable by a web site. Would anyone be discussing this if it were a website that "doesn't replace 'traditional,' in-person confession, but walks one through the process, even suggesting sins you may wish to confess."? It's expected that services that have traditionally presented information in written form, whether on signs, pamphlets, or something else now use websites for the same purpose.

    10. Re:Not Banned by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Web 3.0 ~= "apps"?

      Of course, nobody is discussing this in analogue form, when it is a part of those small books every kid gets over here (around the time of the First Communion), which include basics of catechism, prayers, checklists, guidelines, mood setting reading; also for sacraments.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    11. Re:Not Banned by tkprit · · Score: 1

      Heh, it's scary, but I sorta think that God maybe [sorta] IS math and algorithms and physics. God, the GUT (grand unified...). (I hope that doesn't put me down a circle in Purgatory; I just find math beautiful and like looking into the eye of God.)

    12. Re:Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, the clarification by the Vatican promotes the app as stated here Confession App Developer Agrees 100% With Vatican Clarification:

      Father Lombardi acknowledged that in a world in which many people use information technology as a support for reading and accessing texts for prayer, it is not out of the question that "someone might reflect on confession preparation using digital instruments as aids, as was done in the past with texts and questions written on paper, which helped to examine one's conscience."

      This "could be useful," for the examination of conscience, he said, as long as the person knows that "it is absolutely not a substitute for the sacrament."

    13. Re:Not Banned by Yooden_Vranx · · Score: 1

      Its purpose was always clear by reading the text of the articles--that it is a guide for preparation for the sacrament. The sensational headlines in the press are a problem, just as they are in this one too.

  7. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Informative

    The app wasn't to make confessions anyway, but to assist Catholics in the confession process. From the original article: "So, how does the app work? It leads you through an 'Examination of Conscience' to help you figure out what your real sins are -- and not just by retreading your run of the mill 10 Commandments. The sinful suggestions the app offers are inventive and even age appropriate."

    I've read elsewhere that one of the priests who designed it, had a parishioner show up in the confession box with it, and used the app during confession to help remind him of his transgressions.

    So this is just grandstanding by the Papacy. The app was never meant to replace "personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor." This is like saying Google Maps is bad because it somehow replaces the actual travel you're intending to take. Uh, no.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  8. I kinda misread that by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    I didn't know that Viacom was running the church now

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:I kinda misread that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw Verizon and I wondered why they would even care.

  9. Don't See Why Not by Greyfox · · Score: 0

    You could do a dial-a-priest thing while driving the kids to soccer practice in your SUV! That's pretty much wasted time anyway! If you made it a 900 number, you could consider the $2 a minute part of your penance! Then your priest would have no cause to object when you put them on hold to talk to your hair dresser, and the Vatican could rake in some much needed cash since their funds have been so depleted from world-wide sexual abuse lawsuits! After 2000 years, isn't it time to consider actively monitizing the religion?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Don't See Why Not by conway316 · · Score: 1

      I believe they tried that before, using indulgences. It didn't end well. In fact, it led to the splintering of Christianity.

    2. Re:Don't See Why Not by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      You could just have a number to text to and have the indulgence added onto your bill. Soon we will have cyberprotestants.

  10. You're correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Catholic, I can tell you this simply replaces or augments the cheat sheet you'll find in many (American anyway) confessionals. It usually has all of the prayers, a basic script where you fill in the blanks, etc. Of course the priest can take the confession in a different direction, but this app doesn't do anything the paper sheet didn't before.

  11. Bans? by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean excommunicates?

    1. Re:Bans? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      No. You're holding it wrong.

  12. The Penance Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The iPhone app was never meant to replace the Sacrament. It is a tool to help people prepare, do it, and pray. I don't agree with using a digital device while in confession or saving information even temporarily on devices when it comes to my sins.

    There is a free application for Android devices that is similar called PenanceProject. It helps users do an examination of conscience before the Sacrament and to pray afterwards.

    You can get the application here: https://market.android.com/details?id=appinventor.ai_jamorrow.PenanceProject

    To find out more about The Penance Project and why Catholics confess please visit: http://www.thepenanceproject.

    1. Re:The Penance Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with using a digital device while in confession or saving information even temporarily on devices when it comes to my sins.

      I don't have a problem with having something to help you through the confession process, be it digital or paper or whatever, but writing down a list of your sins on an Internet-connected device seems like a bad idea.

    2. Re:The Penance Project by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Heh, imagine the ad revenue which could be obtained from having data like this...

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  13. Wrong, Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The app in question was created to help people through the process of Confession. It's a little daunting if you haven't done it in a while. Trust me, as a chronic on-again-off-again Catholic, I know. I have he app. It just takes the place of old catechism books I would use to brush up on Confession before going.

    The article says that no app can ever replace going to a priest. That's not what this app attempts to do. The conclusion that the app is banned is drawn from faulty logic. There is no ban. Who ever wrote the article has absolutely no idea what either side of this is talking about.

    1. Re:Wrong, Not Banned by joelito_pr · · Score: 0

      The app in question was created to help people through the process of Confession. It's a little daunting if you haven't done it in a while. Trust me, as a chronic on-again-off-again Catholic, I know. I have he app. It just takes the place of old catechism books I would use to brush up on Confession before going.

      Do you get unbaptized and baptized every time? How about confirmation? Do you have your local bishop on Facebook or something?

    2. Re:Wrong, Not Banned by syousef · · Score: 0

      The app in question was created to help people through the process of Confession. It's a little daunting if you haven't done it in a while.

      So it should be. Walking up to a complete stranger and empowering them with sensitive information about your wrongdoings is bone headed. An excellent way for the clergy to keep control of their...sheep.

      Who ever wrote the article has absolutely no idea what either side of this is talking about.

      The article did exactly what it was meant to do - advertise the app and have people defend it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Wrong, Not Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      religion is stupid
      you're stupid

    4. Re:Wrong, Not Banned by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So it should be. Walking up to a complete stranger and empowering them with sensitive information about your wrongdoings is bone headed. An excellent way for the clergy to keep control of their...sheep.

      You know that most practicing Catholics would know their priest personally, right? They'd probably see him more often than you do most of your friends.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:Wrong, Not Banned by syousef · · Score: 1

      So it should be. Walking up to a complete stranger and empowering them with sensitive information about your wrongdoings is bone headed. An excellent way for the clergy to keep control of their...sheep.

      You know that most practicing Catholics would know their priest personally, right? They'd probably see him more often than you do most of your friends.

      You've seen the posts on this topic, right? Not everyone is a regular practising Catholic. And besides, seeing a man go through the rituals doesn't mean you know him.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  14. Re:Um... by emurphy42 · · Score: 0

    Source

    "Confession: A Roman Catholic App" sells for $1.99 on iTunes. It is designed to guide Catholics to confession by allowing users to check whether their behavior conforms with the church.

    The Indiana-based development company called Little iApps said the app was designed to be used in the confessional and not a replacement for confession with a priest.

    Father Kevin Regan of St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C. told FOX 5 News he not only thinks the app is a good idea, he downloaded it himself.

    "It's an aid and I was thinking about this much like Yelp. It doesn't change the personal relationship it just helps you get there a little quicker. It gives you the menu of the place, but you still have to go there to eat the food. In the same way in confession, you still have to be there to have that personal encounter," Father Regan said.

  15. What do you mean? by xednieht · · Score: 1, Funny

    "under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone"

    What about a burning bush????? I suppose that's an approved holy communication device?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:What do you mean? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Only if a deity lit the fire.

    2. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a burning bush????? I suppose that's an approved holy communication device?

      Only if it t

    3. Re:What do you mean? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Damn. All these years and all those arson charges have all been for nothing.

          [looks somberly at the gas cans and lighters]

          What to do... what to do...

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This dude got smote!!!

    5. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could just agree you are a deity -- problem solved?

    6. Re:What do you mean? by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about a burning bush?????

      I think you're supposed to confess that to your gynecologist.

    7. Re:What do you mean? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But only after we nail him to a tree.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:What do you mean? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What to do... what to do...

      What you need, son, is some thermite. Column of fire and all that. Forget the stupid bush league stuff.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:What do you mean? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      And fork the Futhark?

    10. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its times like these that make me wish I had mod points.

    11. Re:What do you mean? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Since when did anyone confess by a burning bush? God spoke to Moses through the bush, never did Moses confess His sins through said bush.

      I don't understand why Catholics think they have to confess to a person anyways. Forgiveness comes from God, through the blood of Jesus, and only He can dish out forgiveness of sin. Therefore, logic dictates that you should dictate your sins directly to God / Jesus.

    12. Re:What do you mean? by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      Since when did anyone confess by a burning bush? God spoke to Moses through the bush, never did Moses confess His sins through said bush.

      I don't understand why Catholics think they have to confess to a person anyways. Forgiveness comes from God, through the blood of Jesus, and only He can dish out forgiveness of sin. Therefore, logic dictates that you should dictate your sins directly to God / Jesus.

      Sure, but the priest is there in persona Christi, essentially there to provide a human, interactable representative. Kinda like how judges are representatives on behalf of Justice. And I'm just gonna leave that analogy right there.

      More clearly: In theory, you're confessing your sins direct, with an authority figure there to confirm that your sins are forgiven (pending any necessary remedial action), therefore providing comfortable certainty. Perhaps similar to how the church, as I recall, essentially teaches that jesus has no "hands but yours", and is therefore, I suppose, working through all of us. (You can take that as you will.) In this case, he's availing himself of an opportunity to work through a priest.

    13. Re:What do you mean? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      or if it had a sony battery inside...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:What do you mean? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      blood of jesus?

      do you HEAR yourself talk?

      what would you think of someone saying the tears of Ra would be the only way to 'god'. they have no more or less validity than your jesus blood.

      religion might have been enough to keep you blind before the world got connected; now, you're supposed to realize that all these little local religions can't all be right and in fact, all are wrong (in an absolute sense).

      sky daddy talk is for the intellectually immature, both on the part of societies and individuals.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hindues believe that a piece/essense/glimer of God exists in all living things. So just lite the darn thing on behalf of God. If it doesn't burn... pray that you live forever cause right now is about as good as it gets.

    16. Re:What do you mean? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Been there, done that, left a molten hole in the sidewalk. Lately though, folks tend to stick the "terrorist" label on those events. Terrorist? No, I was celebrating the 4th of July dammit.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:What do you mean? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      It's certainly possible for Yahweh to use any device he desires to communicate with people, whether burning bush, telegram, iPhone or anything else. He doesn't need a human priest, but the Catholic Church likes to think it's more important than it is.

    18. Re:What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, this is a religious discussion about religious matters - the title of the article on /. article should have said that. If you are going to come in here and start ranting about people discussing said discussion, than you are clearly either trolling or posting flamebait, and I expect your comment will be rated as such.

      In the mean time, look at getting some psychological help for your anger issues.

  16. Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Tridus · · Score: 5, Informative

    This app doesn't do confession. It never did. That was some creation by an incredibly simplistic media headline which was always wrong.

    The app helps you figure out what your sins are, and can keep track of what you've previously confessed.

    So all they're saying now is that the app can't do something that it never did in the first place. Umm, goodie?

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Chapter80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wish I had mod points to mod you up.

      "Vatican bans IOS Confession App" headline is totally misleading (and actually incorrect).

      They didn't ban the app. They said that the app is to be used to as you said - to help you determine what to confess. Which is exactly what the app was designed for, and what their earlier announcement said.

      No change. No story here. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    2. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> The app helps you figure out what your sins are

      I'll need something a little more powerful than an iPhone for that.

    3. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital sin tracker... now *that* sounds like an interesting malware target...

    4. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you want to mod up the guy that says that the Vatican didn't RTFA? There are plenty of other threads where the poster's comment is more aligned with your view.

    5. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by PatHMV · · Score: 2

      Except that the Vatican DIDN'T say that this app is bad or impermissible. That's TFA's conclusion from the Vatican's statement, not what the Vatican actually said. The Vatican did not, as best I can tell from TFA, condemn this app. It said only that it's not possible to confess by iPhone. Since this app does not allow for confession by iPhone, the Vatican has not condemned it. They didn't mention the app by name. They didn't say that [app name] can't be used.

    6. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by OctaviusIII · · Score: 2

      At long last the Vatican actually says something with clarity and timeliness. Maybe they finally hired a communications director. So I'm quite glad they came out and made sure that this was clarified. The whole thing about contraceptives for medical purposes wasn't new but the Vatican had never been explicit about clarifying things, so we all went apeshit at the announcement. Good of them to get in front of the curve on something for once.

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
    7. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The app helps you figure out what your sins are, and can keep track of what you've previously confessed.

      Best. Facebook app. Ever. [pops some popcorn and starts reading].

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And this is somehow different than confession in general? It's a purely Catholic construct that you can go do your confession and whatever the Priest tells you and you're good to go. The reality as far as Christian religion goes is that it's God not some church official that makes those decisions and anybody that believes that the Pope is capable of granting such powers is sorely mistaken.

      One of the main reasons why we have Protestants is that the Pope tends to be full of it on a lot of issues. You can't earn your way into Heaven, anybody who claims otherwise isn't to be trusted.

      Personally, I don't believe in this stuff, but if you're going to practice a religion you should at least try to practice something that reflects the teachers.

    9. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Plus, I bet Facebook could make a killing selling this information to advertisers!

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    10. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> The app helps you figure out what your sins are

      I'll need something a little more powerful than an iPhone for that.

      Would a judgemental diety at the end of times be powerful enough for you? There, problem solved.

    11. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your Imaginary Super-Friend doesn't cut it. Sorry.

    12. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0208/Confession-app-for-iPhone-approved-by-Catholic-Church

      They approved it as a way to organize yourself. I hate sensationalist headlines. I'm glad some people pay attention.

    13. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by syousef · · Score: 1

      That was some creation by an incredibly simplistic media headline which was always wrong.

      The article did exactly what it was meant to do - advertise the app and have people defend it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    14. Re:Even the Vatican doesn't RTFA by Yooden_Vranx · · Score: 1

      You're knocking down some classic strawmen here. One of the reasons we have Protestants is that people don't like what they _think_ the Catholic Church teaches and don't take the time to learn what they do. So, the digest version of Catholic beliefs on the things above: Yes, it is God that forgives. Yesterday, today and always. But in John 20:22-23 Jesus gives his Church the power of binding and loosing sins. No, we cannot earn our way into Heaven. Claiming to be Christian but not showing any fruit is a dead faith, but salvation is a free gift. If you believe people's ways are in error and you're going to try to illuminate them, you should understand what the religion they practice teaches.

  17. Misleading Title!!! by tkprit · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Vatican didn't BAN anything! A spokesperson for the Vatican said it wasn't supposed to be used for call-in confessions — which it was never DESIGNED to do in the first place; it's not even possible to do that!

    RTFA!

    a spokesman for the Vacitan, Federico Lombardi said: ‘It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor.’It cannot be replaced by a computer application’. ‘I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to "confess by iPhone".’

    The guy is STATING THE OBVIOUS because the app has been sensationalized, hello! /. is better than this!

    1. Re:Misleading Title!!! by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      /. is better than this!

      [citation needed]

      You must be new here.

      The cake is a lie.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    2. Re:Misleading Title!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello! /. is better than this!

      No. No, it's not.
      I would say "you're new around here," but your /. ID# is so low that I imagine you must know CommanderTaco personally. Maybe you just haven't visited the site for a decade or so? Welcome back!

    3. Re:Misleading Title!!! by IANAAC · · Score: 2

      hello! /. is better than this!

      Um, actually, no it's not. Slashdot ROUTINELY puts up sensationalist and outright wrong headlines.

    4. Re:Misleading Title!!! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      ‘I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to "confess by iPhone".’

      The guy is STATING THE OBVIOUS because the app has been sensationalized, hello! /. is better than this!

      I don't think it's that obvious, and I bet there's not a programmer on Slashdot who didn't immediately start thinking of counterexamples. "What if I'm an astronaut and my spaceship is about to burn up on re-entry and I want to confess? What if I'm that guy in 127 hours and I need to confess before the gangrene sits in. What if I was on my way to the confessional when I got trapped in a blizzard and need to call one in?"

      "Under no circumstances"? This guy doesn't write unit tests for a living.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Misleading Title!!! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Under these exigent circumstances, it may be possible to confess via a two-way communication device (though I'm not sure an iPhone, or any cellular phone, will work from space). But that doesn't make it an "iPhone" - just a "phone". It's still not an app.

      Yes, under truly dire circumstances, confessing without a priest may be allowed. But it's still not an app.

    6. Re:Misleading Title!!! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Edge scenarios don't change much, as far as desirable conduct of sacrament goes. Heck, I can hypothetically perform a perfectly valid baptism, if in dire circumstances ... even though I should be excommunicated by Vatican many times by now.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Misleading Title!!! by bjackson1 · · Score: 1

      Sacramentally speaking, there is no way to confess via iphone, just as it was clarified in the 1800s about telephone and telegram. Sins can be forgiven by confession, or if in neccisity you are perfectly contrite (i.e. contrite because the sin offended God, not because you are sorry because of the consequences) then your sin is forgiven you by God, and you are still required to go to confession if your spaceship doesn't burn up.

      In the end grace and the sacraments are a mystery (the Easterns/Orthodox call them Sacred Mysteries which I think is an apt title) and God's grace is limitless so we would not believe that God would withold saving a person from Hell because his spaceship was burning up/died in house fire/etc if the person had intentions to go to confession and/or was perfectly contrite, etc.

      (When the minister sees fit to grant absolution, then he pronounces the words of the form (supra) over the penitent. It is commonly taught that the penitent must be physically present; consequently, absolution by telegraph has been declared invalid, and when questioned in regard to absolution by the telephone the Sacred Congregation (1 July, 1884) answered Nihil respondendum.)

    8. Re:Misleading Title!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet there's not a programmer on Slashdot who didn't immediately start thinking of counterexamples. "What if I'm an astronaut and...

      This is why nobody believes programmers. You blow all your credibility with "What if I'm an astronaut...?" and then you expect us to believe you when you say something is going to take 4x the management estimate.

    9. Re:Misleading Title!!! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The guy is STATING THE OBVIOUS because the app has been sensationalized, hello! /. is better than this!

      I don't think it's that obvious, and I bet there's not a programmer on Slashdot who didn't immediately start thinking of counterexamples.

      But they didn't do it because they are programmers They did it because of the geek hubris that they know better than anyone else, even when they know nothing about the problem domain.
       
      Your farcial 'counterexamples' show just how deep your misunderstanding is. The first line of 'code' in every example is "is there direct personal contact via the app between penitents and their confessor". The answer in every example is "no". The result of every counterexample is "test fails". The statement "it is impossible to confess via the app" is a true one under all circumstances.
       
      But you fail to understand this because you've failed to understand the problem domain. Worse yet, you didn't even try. Still worse, you don't even realize your ignorance even exists.
       

      "Under no circumstances"? This guy doesn't write unit tests for a living.

      And you're neither a priest nor even remotely familiar with Catholic doctrine.

    10. Re:Misleading Title!!! by syousef · · Score: 1

      The guy is STATING THE OBVIOUS because the app has been sensationalized, hello! /. is better than this!

      New here?

      The article did exactly what it was meant to do - advertise the app and have people defend it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  18. Re:Um... by TDyl · · Score: 0

    When I was a Christian (years ago before I met the great Gods Computerus, Codingux and Interneticon) I was taught at Sunday school that the only intercessor needed between man and God was Christ - it was a personal relationship without the interference of Mary, Rome, Pope or priest. Maybe they still only allow Roman Catholics to use latin bibles?

    --
    Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
  19. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't really think the Vatican cares much about what the app really does. I think they are more concerned by the hype that came around it. I just heard about this from friends and coworkers and they all were lead to think (from their own sources I suppose) that the app was actually used for confessing and getting absolved through it.

    So put the blame about this misunderstanding on whoever you want, the Vatican just wanted to make clear they have not and will never allow such a thing.

  20. Agreed by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    I actually agree with this, to an extent. Religion aside, my understanding (as an atheist) is that confession is supposed to be an admission of guilt, and reflects an internal acceptance of the church's morality. I'm not saying that morality is particularly right, but I digress. I think the actual visit with another person is a vital part of that admission and acceptance. With a quick look through any online forum, it's quite clear that people are inclined to be aggressive and dishonest if they think they are anonymous.

    Remove the personal contact, and sincerity vanishes as well.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Agreed by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think the actual visit with another person is a vital part of that admission and acceptance.

      It's not a vital part - under Church doctrine, it's required.

  21. Close, but still not correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't confess to an App is right, but confessing to another human is still not the right way.

    1. Re:Close, but still not correct by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is that they confess to the god, and that the priest acts as a mediator.

    2. Re:Close, but still not correct by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And God tells the Priest what the penalty should be? The Catholics believe a lot of really strange things which are thoroughly un-Christian, but that's up there with Purgatory. If you've sinned, which doctrine would indicate you have, there's one way of making that right, and it's not Confession.

      For a denomination which claims to represent all Christians they seem to have a particularly poor grasp on theology.

    3. Re:Close, but still not correct by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      a useless mediator.

      Honestly, if you are confessing sins that you need to figure out WHAT to confess then your religion is the wrong one and you need to get out now.

      Dont kill, dont steal, dont rape, dont lie. REALLY fricking simple here. any other "sins" are simply made up crap to get he church more cash or more control over you.

      feel like you are unworthy and need a bigger sin list? here add these to your pile ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
      Everything else is bullshit. Just like how marriage is "for god" IT's not. it's for government, Hand-fasting was the most common form of marriage for 90% of human history, but here comes government that can make a buck and now you have to get "married" and the church gloms on and makes it another requirement to build sin upon.

      As a Christian I am appalled at how utterly bastardized my religion has become. Christianity = Being a love hippie. Turn the other cheek, forgive everyone, you know those teachings of Christ? Jesus was a hippie.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Close, but still not correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turning the other cheek is an act of non--violent defiance rather than bowing in submission to the one who struck you. Think Ghandi/MLK for good examples of doing this in modern times. A priest as mediator is not useless for confession. By the act of confessing you unburden yourself from hiding the sin and by confessing through a man who has heard other confessions/been trained in taking confessions, he can suggest penance for your sins. If you confess to God alone, you are limited by your own understanding in finding the proper penance and will always have the worry that you are intentionally misinterpreting what God wants for a penance because it seems too hard or too easy.

    5. Re:Close, but still not correct by tkprit · · Score: 1

      penance is not a "penalty", but a means of righting yourself. [This might be wrong to repeat but] my penances have included apologizing to people I've inadvertently wronged, cleaning the church (if I was being slothful), reading a certain psalm every night where applicable, avoiding Perez Hilton for a week — all to humble myself and heal. Ie, Confession helps you make things right. The priest can help someone see clearly HOW they've wronged so one's behavior can change (through self-knowledge and prayer).

  22. They gave it a shot but. by ddd0004 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They couldn't get past the l33tspeak and SMS language

    for9!ve m3 fath3r f0r I h@ve s!nn3d,OMG LOL
    !'ve l00k3d 4t pr0n and OMG th!s ch!ck w@s hawt!!
    l8r noob

  23. Try Again by JBL2 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the FBI would be more interested...

  24. Gotta fix that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their maker. It cannot be replaced by a priest. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess through a mere mortal, regardless of what drivel they profess."

  25. For once I agree with the Vatican by grahamlord86 · · Score: 1

    I disliked this idea from the start. I'm no catholic, but I can see well enough what confession is for, and a big part of it is the symbolist action of going to a church...

  26. Article so wrong on so many counts by ildon · · Score: 2

    It's so wrong it's wrong about being wrong. The app was never intended to replace confession to begin with. It was to assist people in doing an examination of conscience so they could be better prepared for their real confession with the priest. At no point was this app ever intended to *replace* confession. It's like a study guide to help you prepare for an exam, not an exam itself. However, much of the news media saw "Confession App" and often did zero research on the subject and was just like "LOL ROBOTS REPLACING PRIESTS". I will say that NPR at least got the story correct, but I saw a lot of other news outlets that did not at all.

    In fact, the Vatican saying that an iPhone app cannot replace confession with a priest is exactly the same as the app's creator's belief. The Vatican is not banning the app at all, and their statement is likely more a reaction to the aforementioned news media and idiotic public who didn't even try to figure out what the app's purpose was rather than an indictment of the app itself.

    1. Re:Article so wrong on so many counts by iontyre · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Much the same as what I said. Just more of the hundreds of years of utter misrepresentation of the Church and its teachings. Incredible.

      --
      VASIMR to Mars!
  27. Vacitan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to editing? Slashdot is the new digg.

  28. Well, that explains my "Grip of Death" experience by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    I was confessing with my iPhone app, and suddenly, I felt God's "Grip of Death". My connection was dropped, and I dropped my iPhone, as well. I guess I'll have to convert to another religion. Are Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism locked, or unlocked? How long are the minimum contracts with the carrier?

    That piss-poor joke aside, I'm not religious myself. But I could imagine that religious folks wouldn't mind religious learning apps on their iPhones. Like quotes of the day from the Holy books?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  29. Probably completely misleading hype by shentino · · Score: 1

    From what I gather the app does nothing more than act as a "confession for dummies" in that it guides you through the process, among other things suggesting potentially confessable sins.

    1. Re:Probably completely misleading hype by grub · · Score: 0

      "confession for dummies"

      That's redundant.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  30. Dependent on the Church by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man. But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Dependent on the Church by LastGunslinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, we went over this between 400 and 500 years ago. It was called the Reformation.

    2. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so the final moves of Steve Jobs plan became clear...

    3. Re:Dependent on the Church by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      Never says anything about "directly", nor does it say you can't have someone help you through the process, which is what the sacrament is.

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
    4. Re:Dependent on the Church by Schwhat · · Score: 0

      The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man. But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.

      Actually you missed the recent memo. Our God now is Steve Jobs. Confessing to the iPhone is normal practice now.

    5. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again, James 5:16

    6. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "clearly states" I take it you mean "with the exception of the following passages"?

      Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

      This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

      Some say that any power given to the apostles died with them. Not so. Some powers must have, such as the ability to write Scripture. But the powers necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down from generation to generation. If they ceased, the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." It would take much time. And he promised them assistance: "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt. 28:19–20).

      If the disciples believed that Christ instituted the power to sacramentally forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the apostles’ successors—the bishops—and Christians of later years to act as though such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. If, on the other hand, the sacramental forgiveness of sins was what Fundamentalists term it, an "invention," and if it was something foisted upon the young Church by ecclesiastical or political leaders, we’d expect to find records of protest. In fact, in early Christian writings we find no sign of protests concerning sacramental forgiveness of sins. Quite the contrary. We find confessing to a priest was accepted as part of the original deposit of faith handed down from the apostles.

    7. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your Bible have John:20 (particularly verses 22,23) ?

      Since priests, etc. are not mind readers, they have no idea what your sins are to make a determination of
      loosing them or binding them.

    8. Re:Dependent on the Church by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Sigh... The app was *never* approved as a replacement for visiting a Priest to forgive sins. It was only seen as something that can *help* you to want to ask for forgiveness. Also, contrary to protestant belief, the Bible (which is not intended to be the sole rule of faith, by the way, considering where we got it from) does not, in fact, contradict this Catholic practice:

      Source 1
      Source 2

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    9. Re:Dependent on the Church by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.

      Lets ignore the attribution of intent to the Church here and get to the readily verifiable fact part of this claim, the part about removing dependence: since all the app does is provided guidance for the penitent participating in the rite according to the normal Catholic norms -- it does not replace the confessor -- the app, in fact, does not do this. The misrepresentation of what the app does (and the mispresentation of the Vatican statement as "banning the app") are gross distortions of facts which are readily apparent from even casual examination, and as is all to common on Slashdot you've gone galloping off with these misrepresentations because they are align with your prejudices with regard to the institutions involved.

    10. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://xkcd.com/386/

    11. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man.

      Right on! Well... except James 5:16 says to confess your sins to one another. And in John 20:21-23 the apostles are told whose sins they forgive are forgiven and whose sins they don't forgive aren't forgiven. I'm not sure how they apostles (or perhaps their successors) were to forgive (or not forgive) sins if they weren't told of them. I'm pretty sure that James and John are still part of the Bible.

      But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.

      Right on! Well... except that's not what the app does. The app is essentially an "examination of conscience" to prepare you for confession.

    12. Re:Dependent on the Church by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Martin Luther FTW!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Dependent on the Church by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yup yet it seems that doing it right is not profitable.. so all the reformists are taking up the old path once again and adding in "value added" features to generate more cash flow.

      Christianity in it's correct sense is not profitable. Churches have to twist it to make it profitable.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Dependent on the Church by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I think so, I keep getting distracted by the Songs of Salomon.... those are HOT!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:Dependent on the Church by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It depends somewhat on which Protestant group you're talking about. The English Reformation was all about where Henry VIII could put his wing-wang and didn't focus all that much on the issue of confession. The Calvinists were very clear that it didn't matter how you confessed, you had no control over whether you were saved or not.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Dependent on the Church by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      Jesus advises us to seek help from another and provide help to another this way we both are healed.

      James 5:16 does not explicitly give the power to hear confessions to priests or the church.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    17. Re:Dependent on the Church by wsxyz · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Dependent on the Church by LastGunslinger · · Score: 1

      I don't know at what point in the English Reformation confession was done away with, but I know modern Anglicans and Episcopalians don't confess sins to a priest.

    19. Re:Dependent on the Church by sirius90 · · Score: 1

      Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
      - John 20:21-23 (NIV)
      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:21-23&version=NIV

      Biblical passage conferring the power to forgive or retain sins to the apostles.

    20. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, when the apostles were still actively preaching, the congregation was expected to confess aloud. To everyone. Everyone in the body of the Church (big C) which you've offended (not just God). The secret confessions to a priest were added later (after the addition of, well, priests), not so much out of respect for privacy as because it's a more efficient use of everyone's time.

    21. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James 5:16 Confess your sins one to another ...

      Not a "priesthood". From the broader context, some have argued that this means to the elders of the church, but this interpretation is not really accurate as it does not really mean "one to another" in this interpretation. It is a verse encouraging Christians to rely on each other in confession and prayer (at least in some circumstances).

      Another verse (Mat 6:6) mentions "praying in a closet" -- i.e., in complete privacy -- direct appeal to God.

      So, depending upon you confessional needs, pray directly to God or with another Christian. Roman Catholic error was making this an exclusive for priesthood. Personally, I fail to see how an iPhone app helps anyone, but to each his own.

    22. Re:Dependent on the Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it just be forwarding the confession to /dev/null then?

    23. Re:Dependent on the Church by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Meh, it was more along the lines of a compromise: "I'll endorse your religion and protect you from the nasty inquisitors, if you'll let me have a divorce". The founders of the Church of England were very much concerned about reformation issues - it was just its titular head that wasn't.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    24. Re:Dependent on the Church by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Yup yet it seems that doing it right is not profitable.. so all the reformists are taking up the old path once again

      Which reformists are those? Don't know much about reformed churches in the US, but I haven't heard anything about reversion to clerical confession here.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    25. Re:Dependent on the Church by ajmilton · · Score: 0

      No, they do it as a community, at most Eucharists. Episcopal/Anglican confession hasn't been done away with. Just format-shifted.

    26. Re:Dependent on the Church by Yooden_Vranx · · Score: 1

      The Bible clearly documents Jesus giving his Church the power of binding and loosing sins in John 20:22-23. You are mistaken both about what the Church teaches and about what this app was meant to do. It was never meant to replace confession to a priest.

  31. Vacitan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vacitan? Are they affiliated with the Vatican?

  32. ignorant people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How stupid are people? The app was NEVER a replacement for confession. Only the likes of CNN and people dumb enough to believe them thought so. The Vatican has not BANNED the app. They merely stated was was obvious to intelligent people; the app is for PREPARATION.

    The app never was a replacement for confession. Only idiots and liars spread that around.

  33. For that matter by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 0

    Where does it say in the Bible to confess to the priest? Oh yah it doesn't, its something they made up, probably has something to do with money and having control over the population. It is easier to get whatever it is you want if you can blackmail everyone.

    1. Re:For that matter by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Religious Dogma...

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:For that matter by RKThoadan · · Score: 2

      It doesn't mention priests but James 5:16 is quite explicit about confessing to another person:

      "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

      I'd say that confession in general is a slowly rising trend among Protestants. The Lutheran church has always believed in it, although it's not as emphasized as it is in Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican/Episcopal churches. It's beginning to be supported among more typically Evangelical churches as well, although the most common suggestion there is to confess to your spouse or a church Elder. Most Evangelical ministers aren't too comfortable with it yet, but many are making a point of getting training (often from Catholics or Lutherans) in that, and agree that it really does require that training to be effective.

    3. Re:For that matter by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Where does it say in the Bible to confess to the priest? Oh yah it doesn't

      Where does it say in the doctrines of the Catholic Church that the faith is based on the Bible alone. "Oh yah", as you say, it doesn't: sola scriptura is a pillar of the Protestant Reformation not held by any of the ancient Christian Churches (the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian Churches), all of whom hold that Scripture and Tradition are pillars of faith.

      Being surprised that people who aren't Protestants don't adhere to key doctrines of the Protestant reformation is, well, somewhat silly.

    4. Re:For that matter by sirius90 · · Score: 1

      Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.
      - John 20:21-23 (NIV)
      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:21-23&version=NIV

      Biblical passage conferring the power to forgive or retain sins to the apostles.

  34. Re:Um... by conway316 · · Score: 1

    yeah, Protestants seem to have missed the whole "If you forgive them, they shall be forgiven. If you hold them bound, they shall be held bound." thing that Jesus said to Peter.

  35. Nobody cares what the app is really for... by kylemonger · · Score: 1

    ... because if it isn't this app it will be one of the 200 other ones that iOS developers are busily writing now that they know there's money in it. People are already willing to have intimate relationship with digital entities, avatars of real persons, and people who exist completely in their own imaginations. Why wouldn't they also be willing to confess to some app that talks soothingly to them on their cellphone? The Church is correct to be afraid and I'm interested to see what happens next.

  36. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't an app for that?

  37. Confessing to priest not same as going on Maury by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Part of the point of confessing is that it keeps you from doing crazy shit because you know u have to tell the priest that crap eventually. It can help keep you on the straight and narrow.

    An iOS app however would feel more like you're announcing stuff to the world and getting attention from an anonymous fan or fans. It's totally different and has the opposite effect.

    The Catholic church, though they may be wrong about the existence of a sky God, is correct on this one.

    1. Re:Confessing to priest not same as going on Maury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I confess to 4chan.

  38. BS! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0

    Yes, and you can only talk to a priest seeing as it is illegal to talk to god directly, and this will cost you xxx per week in our coffers for the privilege of doing so, and ....oh yeah....no abortion and no sexual protection allowed......thank you for your time here at Vatican city.

    1. Re:BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean I actually have to take responsibility for the life I brought into the world? How awful. Risking the baby's life in the course of treating the mother for some life threatening illness is a matter of risking one to save another, but what can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent? Abortion comes down to a fundamental difference in axioms. If you believe the fetus is a person, then it cannot be justified. If you believe that it is not a person until born/3rd trimester, etc., restrictions on abortion before that point cannot be justified.

      What is there to protect sexually in a monogamous marriage? The church views sex outside of marriage to be sinful. If sex is only had during marriage, where does the STD risk come from? One could acquire the STD from some other blood contamination, but realistically if you are living your entire life with someone, they will be exposed to the STD at some point anyway, so what is the point in focusing on protection during sex in particular?

  39. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wouldn't say it's "grandstanding by the Papacy". There was a lot of misinformation going around about the app - a lot of news stories that were flat wrong - and setting the record straight officially and unambiguously makes sense. (I'm hardly a fan of the Catholic Church, but they're not guilty of quite everything they're accused of. :) )

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  40. Reminds Me of a Story by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Many years ago, I new woman, who was raise Catholic, sorta, but never went to Church as an adult -- except to go to confession. Instead of confessing, she made up stories to get the priest hot. She claimed that some of them would get off listening to her.

    1. Re:Reminds Me of a Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      An elderly man goes into confession and says to the priest, "Father, I'm 80 years old, married, have four kids and 11 grandchildren, and last night I had an affair. I made love to two 21 year old girls. Both of them. Twice."

      The priest said: "Well, my son, when was the last time you were in confession?"

      "Never Father, I'm Jewish."

      "So then, why are you telling me?"

      "Are you kidding? I'm telling everybody!"

    2. Re:Reminds Me of a Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Narcissistic exhibitionism, they call that. I'm sure you helped her get psychiatric help for it. Right?

      And you do realize that if she got off on making stuff up, she probably spread a lot of false humiliating stories about you, and how much you worshipped her every footstep and believed everything she said. Right?

    3. Re:Reminds Me of a Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "she made up stories to get the priest hot" != "she got off on making up stories"

    4. Re:Reminds Me of a Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, and you believed it? I think she was getting off manipulating you.

  41. post reformation doesn't count by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 2

    yeah, they're different now, but that's one of the reasons the Protestants even exist.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:post reformation doesn't count by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      yeah, they're different now, but that's one of the reasons the Protestants even exist.

      Did you even read the articled I linked to? The point I'm trying to make is that they were never different. The only major differences in the Catholic Church between now and then is the number of officially approved doctrines, political power, and how we now use native translations in places like America (New American Bible, for example). Indulgences were exactly as I, and those articles, said; to say otherwise would be grossly historically inaccurate. Opposition to purgatory and many of the Catholic Church's other doctrines by protestants is, in almost all cases, based on some misunderstanding; in this case, it's that indulgences "forgive sins" or can be "bought", which are completely false and always have been false. There were abuses, of course, but those didn't count as official indulgences and they sure don't disprove indulgences altogether.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Interestingly enough, another other reason was the fact you needed a priest to intercede for you with the creator.
      The idea you could pray directly to God was blasphemy back then.

      And I think that is their major objection. Once more, the personal interaction with a priest is no longer needed in the process.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:post reformation doesn't count by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the articled I linked to? The point I'm trying to make is that they were never different. The only major differences in the Catholic Church between now and then is the number of officially approved doctrines, political power, and how we now use native translations in places like America (New American Bible, for example).

      I'm sure a large number of dead spaniards and anabaptists would disagree with you.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:post reformation doesn't count by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      And yet, I'm the only one with citations here. Not only is there a lot of evidence that I've stated here to the contrary, but it's so incredibly easy to find that there is no logical reason to believe you, especially considering your lack of citations of any sort, and are merely repeating the same lies and misconceptions that are said so often that they're almost accepted as fact.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    5. Re:post reformation doesn't count by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      There were abuses, of course, but those didn't count as official indulgences and they sure don't disprove indulgences altogether.

      The problem was not Church doctrine, but these abuses, and some parts of Church doctrine that allowed them to continue. The fact that a priest must be involved in confession is good when dealing with honest people, but if an organization is infiltrated with a few percent of corrupt priests it becomes a big problem.

      Similar with the hierarchical construction of power. A few corrupt cardinals could do damage to thousands of people.

      We can see the issue with the child sex abuse scandals. Priests appear to be no more likely to diddle child parishioners that leaders of any church, but the power structure kept incidents secret for decades, and wrong-headed cardinals were moving them from church to church. The end result was a huge scandal where decades of stories are released all at once. It is the type of thing that lead to the reformation (decades of abuse hidden, and moved, then let out).

      Dante, a Catholic, put a Cardinal in hell. It was corruption that caused the reformation, and it was rampant, and the structure of those above always being right allowed it to spread in a time when there was no instant communication.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:post reformation doesn't count by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Catholic.com on the Inquisition
      Fr. Joe on the Inquisition and then some
      I am going to be totally honest here and say that I don't 100% trust these articles. Note that these articles were written in 2004 and 1998, respectively. While some citations and statistics may be inaccurate or even wrong, it's no worse than many protestant citations. The articles are at least worth considering, however, and make some very valid points.

      Also, Google's your friend.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    7. Re:post reformation doesn't count by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough

      Interestingly enough is right. The ONLY reason Christianity was able to take root is because it spoke to the lowly peasant. Meaning, anyone can speak directly to God, never requiring a priest as an immediacy. And so it spread - the religion for the layman. The same thing happened with Islam. You only need priests to teach, guide, and console such that you can one day do the same. Hell, they worship idols despite it being one of the most basic and fundamental tenets not to do so. And that's one of many endless reasons why the Catholic Church is the world's largest cult. They are not true to their own, most basic doctrine.

      And in exchange for your official, sanctimonious lies, you get to tithe, tithe, tithe, so the Pope can have yet another gold spoon.

    8. Re:post reformation doesn't count by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, another other reason was the fact you needed a priest to intercede for you with the creator. The idea you could pray directly to God was blasphemy back then.

      This is completely untrue. In fact, even the most ignorant and uneducated Catholics have always been taught the Our Father, which is a prayer directly to God.

    9. Re:post reformation doesn't count by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      I would not doubt that some priests did, in fact, purport to grant indulgences in exchange for cash (notwithstanding the fact that only the Pope can grant indulgences) but the sale of access to the sacraments and to indulgences has always been condemned by the Church. Most outside observers seem to have a difficult time separating the actions of individuals in the Church (including priests, and even popes) from the official teachings of the Church.

    10. Re:post reformation doesn't count by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      And in exchange for your official, sanctimonious lies, you get to tithe, tithe, tithe, so the Pope can have yet another gold spoon.

      Yet another common misconception. The Catholic Church is not rich at all; it needs money just like any organization to pay bills, pay wages, build buildings, distribute materials, and so on. How is it a crime to help fund it, especially since the Vatican's budget is only about the size of the Archdiocese of Chicago?

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    11. Re:post reformation doesn't count by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Yet another common misconception.

      Not a misconception at all. Running a "country" inside your own "castle" and surrounding peasantry within their "city" is certainly not free. And the trappings of the church are hardly free nor any less decadent.

      Get back to us when the Vatican and the endless, decadent cathedrals don't exist at the expense of the poor who often remain poor specifically because they tithe to the church and follow the church's doctrine (which is, how to create and maintain your own ignorant, poor, loyal, peasantry).

      Its much like the major production houses - on paper they are all poppers but reality is quite different. And isn't it especially ironic that their own book preaches they must pay taxes - and yet they don't.

    12. Re:post reformation doesn't count by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I was raised as a Lutheran, going to church every week, and then some. I can't say whether praying to God directly was considered "blashpemy back then", but I can testify that one of the objections about the Roman Catholic church at the time of reformation was the claim that you needed a priest to intercede between God and the lowly peasant sinners, which was rejected by the protestants.

      As far as indulgences go, if they were not being paid for by coin, why did Luther think to write a dissertation trying to convince the Roman church to stop the practice?

      Here's a quote from Wikipedia, you can go there and check out the citations yourself:

      On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to Albrecht, protesting the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences," which came to be known as The Ninety-Five Theses. Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly "searching, rather than doctrinaire."[2] Hillerbrand writes that there is nevertheless an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses, particularly in Thesis 86, which asks: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?"[2]

      Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory [also attested as 'into heaven'] springs."[3] He insisted that, since forgiveness was God's alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.

      To correct the Vatican spokeman: It is essential to understand that penance requires a personal dialogue between penitents and their creator. . . . I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it necessary to confess through an interlocuter like a priest.

    13. Re:post reformation doesn't count by tkprit · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm not bible-toting, but the idea of confessing THROUGH a priest is that (1) you're not keeping secrets (everything will come to light), and (2) you get a holy man to pray for you in your distresses (def. Biblical, again, can't remember where, but would look up if you wanted). Plus, the priest gives you penance (saying prayers privately, reading Psalms, etc) so you can correct your errant thoughts/behaviors — a lot like a shrink today, just without the meds (and the BILLS!)

      When priest absolves, he does so in name of the Lord, not his own name. It's very humble; he doesn't play God, but rather acts like counselor, and WON'T absolve if you aren't penitent/sorry. And PLENTY of other denoms have their priest figures say similar things. My sister's Lutheran church has auricular confessions; no confessionals, and it's more like "chat time" face to face, but it's 'counsel'. The RCCs just do so more formally; it's written down (look at 10Cs, 7 deadlies, etc) so you can give a full confession. To benefit YOURSELF; it's no skin of God's back IIRC. And the thought is, the better YOU become, the better the WORLD becomes (you treat people better; they're influenced by your mercy; etc).

      Luther didn't nix confessions; and there WERE issues in his day re: indulgences (and probably still today), but that's always been the case in Temple and Churches (cf the Gospel). In fact, I'd go so far to say that other denoms and even secular orgs suggest that GIVING CASH will get you out of some hot water. Not that it makes 'indulgences' (RCC or otherwise) right, but it does make it common. Imho. I get really turned off by those religious channels promising 'miracles' then asking for cash in the same breath. Heck, I get turned off by police fund asking for money (like, if I don't, they'll take time getting to house @ a 911 call???). So ITA re: the way indulgences were being used in Luther's day; it was a rip-off. But I bet a lot of us do "indulgences" without calling it such, whether it be for the here/now or the hereafter.

      XOXO

    14. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Here is your reference, a priest is required to perform confession. From the 2nd Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.

      It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6

      It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the love of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: "Go; first be reconciled to your brother."

      1486 The forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism is conferred by a particular sacrament called the sacrament of conversion, confession, penance, or reconciliation.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    15. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      If that was not clear enough, you can read the argument here:

      http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    16. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      And yet, as I have posted elsewhere, it is very clear that you must be absolved by a priest.

      http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

      Note that the information contained in this link is declared NIHIL OBSTAT by the Censor Librorum, and given IMPRIMATUR by the Bishop of San Diego.

      It is not a random comment from "teh interwebs".

      What has been recognized, and no longer considered blasphemy, is that those outside the Catholic Church (for example, Protestants) could be forgiven by God directly.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    17. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      In re-reading my comment, it may seem that I am referring to all prayer. I am not. I am referring to pray to obtain, very specifically, confession and absolution. That is, after all, what the app is about.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    18. Re:post reformation doesn't count by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Until the Vatican II, the RCC did not accept any path to Salvation save through the Church. If you were not Catholic, you were "going to hell."

      Thus, the word "blasphemy", a "sin against faith" as described by St. Aquinas, fits as a description of an act that is heresy. To wit: "Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree."

      Perhaps the word "heresy" would have been clearer. Heresy is the idea, blasphemy is the act.

      Thank God (ahem) we live in a country where such things can be discussed and there is no State sponsored religion to come knocking at my door.

       

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    19. Re:post reformation doesn't count by wsxyz · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Church teaches that any person can receive forgiveness directly from God by making an act of perfect contrition. But this is difficult, because it requires complete detachment from sin and contrition springing solely from love of God and hatred of sin and not for other reasons, such as fear of punishment or desire for reward. Sacramental confession is the ordinary means of forgiveness afforded to the human race. The Catholic priest continues the ministry of Christ on Earth and forgives sins explicitly and verbally just as Christ himself did. Jesus Christ conferred this power directly upon His Apostles with the words "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." There is no reason to believe that Jesus Christ would confer this power on his Apostles if it were unnecessary or of no value. Accordingly it is a necessary power. Being necessary, this power was conferred also upon the successors of the Apostles, and their successors, the ordained Priesthood of the Church.

  42. Rules by ChasmCoder · · Score: 1

    This is called, "Writing The Rules As You Go". For that matter, why, if you are sincere about repenting of a "Sin" should you need an intermediary in the first place? App or otherwise? That sort of went away with the Old Testament.

  43. Forgive me father, for iHave sinned. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Forgive me father, for iHave sinned.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Forgive me father, for iHave sinned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My time is yours. Could you be more... specific? Yes, I understand. Let us be thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy.

    2. Re:Forgive me father, for iHave sinned. by imgumbydamnit · · Score: 1

      THX 1138. Judging by the comment score, over the heads of, or before the time of most of this crowd.

      --
      To err is human. To arr is pirate.
  44. Re:Um... by operagost · · Score: 1

    No, but you've hit the problem on the head. The RC church needs to maintain its "lock in". Instead of having a personal relationship with the Father through the Son, we have various middlemen. Catholics are trained to confess their sins to a priest, who then instructs them to mostly repeat canned prayers to Mary. I'm actually not that opposed to having priest continue the use of the confessional: if some people need to confide their wrongdoing with a trusted role model, that's excellent. But redemption still comes from God, and repentance comes from real works and change, not from repeating canned prayers or praying to deceased humans.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  45. Can be used against you? by AjaxIII · · Score: 1

    This makes me wonder, since the police can take your phone and peruse through it all they want if it is on your person, could "Keeping track of what you have confessed about" be used as an admittance of guilt by Law Enforcement? I know nothing about the specifics the app has, but IE police take your phone and see an entry Confessed about ..."Murder" on 01/18/2011 and raise an eyebrow. Or even that you went to confession shortly after a crime took place you were suspected about, and use it against you.

  46. Ambiguity? by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

    "I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

    So doing it with an Android is OK then?

  47. It took the Vatican 359 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It took the Vatican 359 years to admit that Galileo was right about the earth moving around the sun. How long will it take the Vatican to recognize that the age of the electron is here and will replace many more ideas of how we view things in our modern society. The Vatican better start to recognize these changes or it will become a relic of the past.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-.html

  48. Control freaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This wouldn't have happened on MeeGo or even Android! Apple, the more you clench your fist, the more users will slip-- wait, what?

  49. in soviet america... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The app helps you figure out what your sins are, and can keep track of what you've previously confessed."

    am I the only one who see this as a profoundly BAD idea given that courts have upheld forensic searches of phones for unrelated arrests?

    whatever your view(s) on religion this seems like a disaster waiting to happen...

    1. Re:in soviet america... by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      While it could indeed be subject to search and discovery since there is nothing protecting your phone in the same way that a priest cannot be compelled to report everything that is reported to them, there are a lot of rules involved what should be confessed (i.e. how long it's been since your last confession, how many times you cussed, etc) that such an application could be useful for if one was really concerned about that level of detail. However, that's also the sort of information that wouldn't be interesting for any one in law enforcement as such things are usually not illegal.

  50. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

    You're right.

    I guess this squashes my idea for a "My Virtual Pope" app. At least we can still buy Pope on a Rope... oh wait, it's no longer available.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  51. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

    You are right. I should not have included the "grandstanding" remark. My apologies. I initially interpreted the official statement as attacking this specific app, but that's not what is going on here.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  52. Finally, an app by twoears · · Score: 1

    to make iPhone owners repent!

  53. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just heard about this from friends and coworkers and they all were lead to think (from their own sources I suppose) that the app was actually used for confessing and getting absolved through it.

    That would require them to use in-app purchasing, and give Apple 30% of each indulgence.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  54. uk rags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when will slashdot learn to take everything from the uk's daily mail and express with a pinch of salt?

  55. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I guess this squashes my idea for a "My Virtual Pope" app.

    Or the unrelated, My Virtual Pap Test app - sigh.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  56. iConfess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iConfess: That would have been the perfect app name! Or maybe even iHaveSinned!

  57. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The app doesn't really perform the same function as a priest, which is justifying the existence of the Church to the congregation while fantasizing about the choir boys.

  58. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    You do... but only on the Pentecostal version. you admit your sins to it and then slap your self in the forehead with the phone as it says "in the name of jeee....sus..." loudly...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  59. Slashdot is better? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    hello! /. is better than this!

    This is demonstrably false. Slashdot is exactly as bad as this, the proof is that this news article is, in fact, posted on Slashdot.

  60. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by RudeIota · · Score: 1

    So this is just grandstanding by the Papacy

    This is probably less grandstanding and more of just ignorance. It's clear by the statement that Mr. Lombardi didn't understand the intention of the app. If the Vatican understood that the intention is not to confess to the device but to use it as a tool to aid "real" confessions, then maybe their opinion would be different.

    On the other hand, it is probably difficult for anyone to come to that conclusion with news headlines reading, "Can the iPhone forgive your sins?" and "Make confessions through your iPhone" etc...

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  61. Re:Well, that explains my "Grip of Death" experien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't God gripping you, that was AT&T.

  62. Wrong headline, app was never substitute by technomom · · Score: 1

    This is one of those cases where everyone read a headline, misinterpreted this, and then went on to make false statements regarding the story.

    1. The app was meant to be an AID to confession. It was never meant to replace confession itself. The app NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM.
    2. The Vatican isn't Banning the app, it's saying that the app was never meant to replace confession, see #1.

    So, to summarize. The premise that the app was intended to replace confession is false and the other premise that the Vatican banned the app is false.

    This Slashdot story, therefore, is a noop.

  63. no, I considered the source by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    And then I went to other places, and verified that the abuses of indulgences by the Catholic Church were one of the triggers of Reformation.

    Here's one!.

    And yes, I do consider Wikipedia to be more reliable than the Catholics. One of these organizations keeps claiming an invisible man is telling me what to do, and coincidentally enough it involves a tithe to the Church!

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:no, I considered the source by supersloshy · · Score: 0

      And then I went to other places, and verified that the abuses of indulgences by the Catholic Church were one of the triggers of Reformation.

      Here's one!.

      The very source you linked to shows how the Church repressed some abuses. And as I said before, yes there were abuses. The mere existence of people abusing indulgences does not disprove the theory behind them; it's like saying that Creationists disprove Evolution because they misstate facts about it, or like saying that iPhones/iPods aren't useful because there are so many counterfeit ones on the market. Counterfeit indulgences change absolutely nothing about the ones that are actually meaningful.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  64. Re:Um... by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

    Not that it matters to me, but this would suggest that if you were in a location with no priests you would be damned with nothing you could do about it. Sounds like a very loving god.

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  65. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been many attempts in the past to make email, website, and other "virtual" confessionals. The Catholic Church has always said that these are not valid forms of Reconciliation.

  66. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by v1 · · Score: 1

    If you want to take a colder view of the issue, you have to see that there's no donation box outside the iphone. I'd imagine anything that stops people from coming to church physically would be discouraged.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  67. Re:It took the Vatican 359 years by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Ahh but they denounced him within his lifetime. This is sort of their MO isn't it? Quick to denounce, glacially slow at admitting that they shouldn't have. Actually amusing epitaph on this... I looked up this issue, and, not too long before the church admitted its mistake in Galileo, Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was actually defending the churches original position!

    From Wikipedia:

    On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome,[126] Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today".[127] Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."[127] The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views."[127]

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  68. Call me... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 0

    'It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

    Call me when the Vatican says something in the lines of: "It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and God. It cannot be replaced by talking to another human being. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess in a church."

    One can only dream of such things...

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  69. conflict of laws by timothy · · Score: 1

    "... under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

    Oh?

    http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2011/02/08/us-bishop-sanctions-cell-phone-in-confession/

    I guess they'll have to go before the Supreme Court to resolve the issue ...

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  70. In APP ropriate by Cartman's+Mom · · Score: 1

    Makes sense...iPhones made for texting young boys, not confessing "sins".

  71. Re:Um... by conway316 · · Score: 1

    Uh, no. That quote bears no resemblance to the scenario you described. I am curious how you got from A to B though.

  72. CISCO ACL's? by jpedlow · · Score: 1
    IOS Confession:

    Forgive me father, for I have sinned, I'm still running 12.1 on my 7206. And my ACL's look like a massacre.

    I've seen the light, the lord told me to switch to procurve. Hallelujah

  73. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    There's no donation box by the confessional in the church either.

  74. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0

    The only real sin is still believing in god in the 21th century.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  75. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

    But their is guilt telling you to come in Sunday and give during service.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  76. I love it when ppl tell others what to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god does not believe in what the Vatican tells me to do.

    Actually, come to think of it, I don't believe in god anyways so fuck what that Vatican says.

  77. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of it as express boarding for heaven. If you've already been cleared, the line is much shorter to get in.

  78. I'm diappointed in everyone here... by unitron · · Score: 1

    In neither this story nor the previous one announcing the app has anyone mentioned Father Guido Sarducci.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    1. Re:I'm diappointed in everyone here... by BlortHorc · · Score: 1

      In neither this story nor the previous one announcing the app has anyone mentioned Father Guido Sarducci.

      You move so slow, they said; "tiny steps".

  79. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by iter8 · · Score: 1

    This sounds great. I have been looking for some new sins. This might give me some ideas. It sounds like a wonderful source of original sins.

  80. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Miseph · · Score: 2

    When did it become the twenty firth century? Are there going to be 19 clones of Colin Firth also running about making mediocre films and inexplicably moistening ladies' undergarments or something?

    Aside from that, your blind prejudice is no better than any other. Sadly, I can't think of any good quips to the effect of "don't be a hypocrite" that aren't derived from some religious text from the top of my head, but I think you get the idea.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  81. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Amen.

  82. Wow, so many catholics by BlortHorc · · Score: 1

    Who knew the church who murdered free thinkers as heretics and forced Galelio to recant when he was demonstrably correct had a soft spot? Oh, right, I remember. No one. Religion is an anachronism. The sooner the poor benighted souls either accept they have nothing to do with scientific advancement and get with the programme, or simply die, the better for all. Religion is a disease. The quest for understanding is the cure.

  83. Re:Um... by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    I was taught at Sunday school that the only intercessor needed between man and God was Christ - it was a personal relationship without the interference of Mary, Rome, Pope or priest.

    I wonder if anyone in your church at that time ever asked a friend to pray for them. If so, were they banished from the church for presuming to usurp the role of intercessor?

  84. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    The essence of confession is not "stating your sins", it's all about regretting them deeply and truthfully. How can you say you truly regret a sin if you can't recall it without help of an app?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  85. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by technomom · · Score: 1

    Your friends are morons.

    The app never made that claim.

  86. Re:Um... by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    Instead of having a personal relationship with the Father through the Son, we have various middlemen. Catholics are trained to confess their sins to a priest, who then instructs them to mostly repeat canned prayers to Mary.

    In Catholic theology, the true minister of confession is Jesus Christ. When you confess to a priest, you confess to Christ through the priest. The priest is empowered by Christ to give absolution as He said to His apostles "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

    The penances given are a token, to show contrition and the desire to be reconciled.

    Redemption still comes from God, and repentance comes from real works and change

    This is Catholic theology.

    not from repeating canned prayers or praying to deceased humans.

    Prayers to the dead are not a source of redemption. Catholics do not ask the saints to forgive their sins. They ask the saints to pray for them.

  87. Re:Um... by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

    Really? Because that quote suggests one can only be forgiven by someone ordained with the power to forgive. If no such person exists in your location, how would you be forgiven?

    --
    Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
  88. Holy Ghost in the Machine by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    What no Holy Ghost in the Machine?

  89. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    Are you speaking of some sort of inner feeling of guilt for not having given money? Because the priest in the confessional certainly isn't going to tell you to be sure to bring your wallet to Mass.

  90. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    The only real sin is still believing in god in the 21th century.

    No the real sin is that racism and bigotry still exists in the 21st century. How about you grow up already and live you own damn life? Nobody is holding a gun to your head to believe in god. Your "freedoms" end at the end of your nose.

    Or to put it in terms that you might understand, your rights are not superior to the rights of another. Just as I cannot force you to shut up or change your mind about god, in the same way, you cannot force another person to shut up about god or stop believing. You could live a much happier life if you let other people live in peace.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  91. Maybe they are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all they did get the whole, earth is the center of the universe thing wrong. Maybe god doesn't care how you confess as long as you do it.

  92. No God No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

  93. Not banned, and no change. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Anybody who's been paying any attention to this already knows that the app was *never* meant to replace a priest; it was always meant as an aid to the traditional confessional. The Vatican is simply repeating this for the tl;dr folks who skipped over that part.

    1. Re:Not banned, and no change. by tboulay · · Score: 1

      I hope it wasn't meant to replace a priest.. the rectangular shape of the iphone would be mighty uncomfortable, .. I mean, sure it has vibrate, but still.

  94. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by v1 · · Score: 1

    There's no donation box by the confessional in the church either.

    Ahh but there's a box by each and every door to the building I bet.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  95. wow.. just wow. by tboulay · · Score: 1

    Talking to a smartphone? .. the vatican won't have it .. if it's not telepathic, and it's not done to an invisible 2000 year old zombie Jewish carpenter it just isn't religion.

  96. An app would not satisfy a voyeuristic priest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not surprised the Vatican doesn't like it - after all they don't like anything much.
    They want the priest to be physically there, to remind people that they have 'sinned' in some way, and to apply the usual coercion and fearmongering, for which the catholic church has long been famous.
    Since many (most?) priests also are crazed, voyeuristic perverts, they also enjoy listening to this stuff. Would you want to confess to one of these filthy pathetic old men?
    How many child molesting priests have not yet been caught? In an organisation as secretive, and self-protective as the catholic church, the conviction rate must be very low. The recent scandals seem likely to only be the tip of the iceberg.
    One of the biggest sins of mankind is to tolerate religion, as if it is not a form of mental illness. We should acknowledge religion for what it is - a mass mental illness; a cult of sick old perverted men on a power trip, who like to perv over, and manipulate the mentally ill. To me, this all seems very sick indeed. Religion disgusts me.

  97. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    And can you imagine my surprise when I found out a CPAP machine had nothing to do with that?

    Picture this, I was at a friends house. He his mother (all 80 year old of her) came over and started talking about a CPAP table she needed moved. I was curious to why they had a one (a Pap-smear table) at their house. She said it was little machine and offered to show me how it worked. They talked like it was nothing and I started getting weird'd out. In fact, I was downright disturbed until they told me it was for sleep apnea and asked me what I thought it was. In case you haven't figured it out, I thought it was a gynecologist table for giving pap smears.

    Talk about awkward.

  98. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Exactly where did he suggest you stop believing in god? You could read his statement many ways. Maybe he thinks such belief is stupid. More likely he believes that such beliefs are harmful to humanity as a whole. I've certainly seen nothing that would convince me otherwise. But that doesn't mean that I think it would be a good idea to prohibit religion or perform forced deprogramming of the religious. If a cure for religion were available in pill form, I would try to make it widely available, but like any treatment for mental illness, it shouldn't be forced unless the believer is a danger to himself or to others.

    And I don't know where you're living, but in this country I see a lot of believers that would force belief at gunpoint if they were allowed to do so. That would include about half of the House of Representatives.

  99. on again, off again by klapaucjusz · · Score: 1

    as a chronic on-again-off-again Catholic

    I understand. I have the same problem with smoking.

  100. Thats not what I heard the app did????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read about the app and it was to be used as a tool to help them before the confession to suggest things to confess. Sounds like someone (maybe its me) is giving out bad information about the app.

  101. Confess to Whom? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    I've been out of the religion scene for a long long time. However, I do seem to recall that there was only person to whom your sins were to be confessed to, that Christ fellow that the entire religion is allegedly centered around.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  102. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by mysidia · · Score: 1

    So put the blame about this misunderstanding on whoever you want, the Vatican just wanted to make clear they have not and will never allow such a thing.

    Perhaps the Vatican was afraid they'd come out with a version 2.0 that would include a "virtual confession" between the confessor and a virtual priest in a chat room, using voice recognition and AI; OR an appointment for a videophone conversation with a priest?

  103. all in due time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! ya never know ... give the church 10,000 years and they might warm up to the idea.

  104. Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The app maker could see a taste of this, and that's not how indulgences work! Now if the Vatican put out an app....

  105. Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it still OK to confess your sins here on slashdot?

  106. But an Android can be a confessor, can't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you can have an Android confessor - perfect solution for problem of lack of priests (consistent with Darwinian removal of priestly genes from the gene pool).

  107. James 5:16 says exactly the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man.

    "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." (James 5:16 NIV, emphasis added).

    That says the direct opposite of what you're saying, unless you believe that "each other" somehow refers to God? But then the rest of the verse would make no sense whatsoever. I guess you could just discard the entire book of James, though, but you can hardly call such a position "Biblical."

    I checked the other translations, too, including Young's Literal Translation and the original Koine Greek text. The same message appears everywhere.

    I do not know of any Scripture to support your position. If there is any, please quote it.

  108. Re:Um... by conway316 · · Score: 1

    Maybe by God? The actual forgiveness still comes from God. God just says that he will give his forgiveness to those who are forgiven by certain people (ordained priests who are able to validly perform the sacrament). So the only way to be certain in this lifetime that our sins are forgiven is to receive forgiveness from these people. That does not exclude the possibility of forgiveness by God if one doesn't, but you will only find out if you are forgiven after death, when it is too late to change anything.

  109. Who cares about the Vatacan, what about Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about the Vatacan thinks, did Apple approve it for the AppStore? I mean, it doesn't matter what the Pope thinks, if Apple doesn't approve it, it's not in the AppStore. And I have to think that it's like a sin, to have to jailbrake your phone so you can have a confession app. It is a moral dilemma

  110. The vatican's real motive: by Marful · · Score: 1

    "It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

    What he really means is that by controlling how you interact with god they can control you. Because the clergy are of course soooo holy that only they can speak for god.BR>
    Where exactly in the bible does it call for a penitent to confess to a confessor, I seem to recall Jesus going around saying that you don't need a clergy person to connect you with god...

    1. Re:The vatican's real motive: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."

      What he really means is that by controlling how you interact with god they can control you. Because the clergy are of course soooo holy that only they can speak for god.BR>
        Where exactly in the bible does it call for a penitent to confess to a confessor, I seem to recall Jesus going around saying that you don't need a clergy person to connect you with god...

      But Jesus was a Jew not a Catholic or a Christian.

  111. What about general absolution? by GayBliss · · Score: 1

    The Catholic church has general absolution masses that substitute for the confessional. You just have to show up, think about your sins, pray, and you're done. No speaking to a priest is required, and he wipes clean everyone's sins at the same time. Is this any different than doing it by iPhone? The priest can just wave his hands once in a while and wipe out the sins of everyone using the app.

  112. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

    they all were lead to think (from their own sources I suppose) that the app was actually used for confessing and getting absolved through it

    I could script that, and then go out and have all the fun I wanted!

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  113. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Not even using FaceTime?

  114. Excellent Marketing! by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    I wonder what I could do to get the Vatican to ban my app?

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  115. Typical misrepresentation of Catholic statements.. by iontyre · · Score: 1

    Once again, as always, Catholic comments are being totally misconstrued by the media. No one ever said the app was a replacement for confession. The so called 'lowly' priest was saying the app could be an effective tool to help PREPARE for confession. The Vatican does not say anywhere the app is BANNED like the title of this story, they simply are reinterating that the app is not a replacement for confession.

    Come on, this is supposed to be a site full of smart people, you can't get this right?

    --
    VASIMR to Mars!
  116. How dissapointing... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    Darn. I was really looking forward to reading some of these confessions on WikiLeaks.

  117. It should allow text confessions by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    I understand that the app was never intended to allow for confession over the iphone, and that the Vatican banned that possibility.
    But it would indeed be possible to construct a confessional 2-way "chat room" between confessor and penitent, and there's no reason in my mind why they should not allow it - it could be written to allow the dialogue that the Vatican claims is necessary. I believe that it's inevitable, and that the Vatican will eventually create an offshore call center staffed with priests who "hear" confessions via some text system.

    Bl355 me f4ther, 4 i hv 5Innd.

  118. The only thing stupider than a catholic is... by ismism · · Score: 0

    ...a republican.

  119. I guess I get the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that the church is not quite ready to be that into technology. In a way, I understand. The point of confession is to speak with someone and relieve yourself of your sins.

  120. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? Really? His comparison was hateful. He can believe or not believe whatever he wishes but why did he go out of the way to post in a story that he does not care about? Why did you bother to post? Do you go around attacking the beliefs of other people in "real" life? No? Then why post here?

    Your use of hyperbole reveals your bias.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  121. Article title inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The app wasn't banned, and was never intended to be used for confession. The article should be titled, Vatican explains confusion around iPhone app. That would be a boring title though, and reason being is it's boring news.

  122. That's not so surprising ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... since buying an iPhone equals to selling your soul.

  123. Modern Times by Dumbaz · · Score: 1

    As if an iPhone could replace a face-to-face confession. Also: That aint Falco!

  124. Reaching God, by Proxy by jman.org · · Score: 0
    The Vatican states iPhones are not qualified to hear confession.

    Two possible reasons:
    • They're afraid of the competition
    • No one has stepped up to write the iPedophile app.
  125. I'm surprised he didn't mention Simony by andrewagill · · Score: 1

    Simony would seem to be the greatest objection here. Someone is charging $1.99 for a sacrament? That's never been anywhere near acceptable in Catholic teaching.

  126. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    "The sinful suggestions the app offers are inventive and even age appropriate."

    Great, now there's an app to suggest which sin you should commit today!

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  127. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? Confessions are about as relevant as Catholicism.. And Catholicism is almost as relevant as the Pope and his child raping chronies. Which is about as relevant as what my dog ate for breakfast.

    In other words, nobody cares what the Pope thinks about an iPhone app... or anything else for that matter.

  128. Re:Um... by operagost · · Score: 1

    Pope Leo XIII declared Mary as "mediatrix" and "co-Redemptress".

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  129. Bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title states that the Vatican bans the app, but nowhere on the article does it mention a ban; only a comment on a possible misuse of the app.
    I will have to look elsewhere to find out the details of the ban, if there actually wa one in fact issued :(

  130. Holy IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, isnt it obvious that in order for god to forgive you you need to line up the neural aether pathways via proximity to the holy hotspot conduit??
    You can't just send in confessions and expect it to "work". Hello?? That would be CRAZY!

  131. Re:Probably a good move, regardless of Vat's logic by azcoyote · · Score: 1

    Not grandstanding, only because the Vatican didn't ban it. This is just a complete misreading of Fr. Lombardi's words. He said it isn't possible to confess by iphone, not that this iphone app purports to allow e-confession and therefore is banned. He was only correcting misconceptions about the app. The app is still allowed, and is not approved by a mere priest but by a bishop, and is not made by priests but by 3 laymen.

    --
    Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.