Both Protestant and Catholic clergy--members of--preached the use of table forks and table knives would result in eternal damnation of the users, due to
vanity.
French intellectual Fernand Braudel points that out in one of his master tomes on
capitalism. You see, for centuries the kings and queens of Europe
ate with their hands. When table forks and table knives were first used
only the rich could afford them. In Europe they first started being used in Italy among the aristocrats.
(The Chinese used chop sticks I believe, but most humanity on earth used their hands.) \
So, as Fernand Braudel pointed out
luxury is relative, relative to what the rich can afford and no one else can. He also pointed out, that like table forks and table knives, eventually
all the poor acquire the goods once deemed luxury items, and once the poor can afford them they no longer are deemed luxury items.
Kind of makes people who regard themselves as "conservatives" and complain about the poor in America having cell phones and automobiles, look stupid, no?
Anyways, the Catholic Church has many people with
opinions. Including Popes. However, what remains actual Church official teaching is another matter. The Catholic Church puts out a
catechism which lays out the basic official teaching of the Church. Anyone can read it. Unless of course they illiterate.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Catechism of the Catholic Church
So, I'm not familiar with the "glasses lens"
officially declared sinful by the Catholic Church--particularly as you say "for the same reason" (same reason as what?)--that you speak of. By "glasses lens" I'm hazarding a guess you are referring to prescription lenses?
You may be right. I have no idea. I never heard of this. But I am familiar with the normative behavior of many people totally misunderstanding Catholicism entirely. At least Orthodox theologians and clergy understand Catholicism
very well and from that point make
informed and reasonable criticisms of Catholicism. Such as it being
too rationalistic (so is Protestantism and even more so the Orthodox would argue) and
too legalistic. I tend to agree with both criticisms.
What criticism I don't care for are those born out of pure ignorance and absolute misunderstanding. Partly why I don't consider myself a political conservative, or more precisely an American political conservative. (Not that I don't agree with conservatives on
some issues, nor can I identify with the Democrats and liberals of today. I'm closer to Jimmy Hoffa era Democrat but a bit more "radical" and libertarian on somethings.)
. Repeating it does nothing but demonstrate that you honestly feel it.
