In a similar vein, one of my colleagues a few years ago after undergoing workplace sexual harrassment training said "oh learned a couple of new ones"

At the time I hoped he wasn't serious, sometimes it's hard to tell.

> Makes me think that if this list was still published it would have a sort of Father Ted effect and act as a list of books you’d definitely want to read.

The Wikipedia article on the Index note that a related list (the _Index Expurgatorius_, which was at the time published separately but later had its function incorporated within the _Index Librorum Prohibitum_, and listed books subject to similar restrictions as the main index but only conditionally pending correction of specified errors) was called out for something like that use -- in 1627.

If you bothered to actually read the Bible, you would learn that speaking can indeed be a sin in certain contexts. For example, 1 Timothy 2:12

In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966.

Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.

Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.

For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.

And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!

To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.

They still don't allow condoms to be used. They are the bullshit.

> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.

the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.

indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.

the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this

which is to say,

reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church

thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church

speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church

and boy howdy those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, reading them is a sin

The fact that it wasn't incorporated into civil law didn't mean no one cared about it (also, there were a number of states that didn't formally adopt the Vatican index, but which had their own similar list, and, where they were Catholic states, they often largely mirrored the Vatican list with some local changes.)