Vatican declares polluting and genetic engineering deadly sins
The Roman Catholic Church has updated and modernized their list of deadly sins (aka "mortal sins"). These are the really really bad ones. If you die with deadly sins unabsolved you're running a high risk of eternal damnation. And believe you me, that is not so good.
The Telegraph's headline, "Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican":
Failing to recycle plastic bags could find you spending eternity in Hell, the Vatican said after drawing up a list of seven deadly sins for our times.The seven, which include polluting the environment, were announced by Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, a close ally of the Pope and the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Roman Curia's main court.
The "sins of yesteryear" - sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride - have a "rather individualistic dimension", he told the Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper.The new seven deadly, or mortal, sins are designed to make worshippers realise that their vices have an effect on others as well.
What about swearing? But as sins go I guess that's only venial.
Comments
I’ve just blogged on this myself (http://layscience.net/?q=node/70), dismantling each of the “sins” in turn. Even if I were a Christian, I don’t see how you can follow a set of statements that - when you analyze them - are basically meaningless…
Posted by: Martin | March 11, 2008 3:22 AM
Responding to the previous commenter. Dismantling them? Why? What for? Is it mocking(ref. Andrew) and dismantling (ref. Martin) the proper approach? Do you have to drag into it your personal bias? People in the world around you, do not think alike, and a great deal of them, heed the catholic church's decrees. If that brings any change in people's attitudes, no matter how little, is more than welcome. Is it necessary to bring forth intellectual prowess to prove them meaningless or mock them in a show of superior-me like the Telegraph article you link to? For me all, and above all 'obscene wealth' and 'cause to poverty' are particularly significant.
Of course, I have doubts whether they actually mean it, whether they are only words. But nevertheless a step to the right direction. Sorry for the tone of the note. My emotions carried me away. No hard feelings.
Posted by: sk5otia | March 11, 2008 1:31 PM
Re: sk5otia
It's precisely because people around the world heed the Catholic Church's decrees, that we as the public have a responsibility to critically analyze what they're saying. You may believe god is infallible, but priests certainly aren't.
In a way, even though I blog from a science/atheist viewpoint, Christians should be on my side on this one. Releasing ill-thought decrees packaged as "7 new sins" is something that I would see as disrespectful to Christian theology if I were a Christian, I'd imagine.
Also, the point I'm making is a genuine one that you as a Christian and I as a humanist should be debating - it's very easy to say "pollution is bad", "too much wealth is bad", "causing poverty is bad", but what do these things actually mean in practical terms? It's not just a case of being facetious, it's something that I would hope Christians reading this release should give a lot of serious thought to.
Posted by: Martin | March 11, 2008 11:06 PM
Re: Martin
Let us regard this as an experiment. As it is the case, the current state of the world, irrespective of whether, me and you, agree or disagree on its flavour, the fact is, that there are out there a great deal of individuals that hold an enormous variety of thoughts, different from mine or yours. These thoughts and beliefs as a whole, give the state of the world its current flavour. What I am saying, and to that I do not assume a christian or humanist standpoint but as a human individual concerned about the state of the world, and I realise that my opinions are just one of many and they wouldn't matter anyhow, but there are institutions, to which if someone agrees with or not is irrelevant, that have much wider influence than many, and if that influence is pointed to a direction someone feels it is beneficial to the state of the world, it is welcome.
It is not a concern, the details of the justification. Catholic church's reasons for justifying that change (i.e. sins, confession) not even the moral complications for the church's followers, or how this would be implemented by the catholic church. What it is 'concernable' is the perceived influence in the attitudes of a great many people towards a state in the world where human individuals can gain their rightful place.
Posted by: sk5otia | March 13, 2008 2:28 PM
You began by saying: "Dismantling them? Why? What for?"
I then stated that because people will take these seriously, the church has a responsibility to those people, and we as the public have a responsibility to hold them to account.
You replied, effectively:
People have different ideas. Some people might welcome the approach of an influential group on these matters. Clarification doesn't matter.
If a government official or scientist made a bunch of vague, broad-reaching statements like these, they would be critically analysed. I fail to see why the Vatican - which has a record of having disasterous influence in areas such as contraception in Africa thanks precisely to statements like these - should not also have its output subjected to the same, rigorous study.
And if the Vatican merely wanted to make a statement of policy, why didn't it do so, instead of creating a big P.R. fuss about "seven new sins"?
Posted by: Martin | March 13, 2008 3:13 PM
As usual, the main stream media completely bungles anything related to religion.
"Vatican Didn't Publish List of 7 Modern Misdeeds"
http://zenit.org/article-22029?l=english
Posted by: Chris | March 24, 2008 12:33 PM