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

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.

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.

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, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion

But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?

In addition to the books prohibited for their content, any books by "foreign agents" are prohibited too with the "foreign agent" designation assigned directly by the government, bypassing any court, to any minimally public person who disagrees with the government policies.

The new law also prohibits public demonstration (which beside movie theaters also includes websites with more than 100K users) of foreign movies not in agreement with the "traditional values of Russia" (which is whatever the government would declare as such).

Copernicus was himself a priest and heliocentrism per se was never the problem. Even Galileo got into trouble for making the specific claim that it had been proved that the sun was the centre of the universe.

Turns out that just moving the coordinate system origin from the Earth to the Sun (e.g. literally just a change of perspective) replaces any complicated explanation for those complex movement patterns that are visible from Earth with a much simpler explanation (but a simpler explanation alone doesn't mean yet that it's more correct than the complicated explanation - it's at best more likely until proven). It took until Newton and Einstein to really understand why planets move predictably around the sun and not entirely erratically (AFAIK Newton still believed the movement to be preserved by intervention of God - don't quote me on that though).

So the initial stance of the Catholic Church to insist on geocentrism wasn't "unscientific" in the same sense that today's Flat Earthers, astrologists or anti-vaxxers are - compared to those, the 16th century Catholic Church was hardcore rationalist. The church finally recognized heliocentrism in the mid 18th century (so at least they only waited until Newton's death and not Einstein's death lol).

But hey, what's a few centuries in the history of the Catholic Church ;)