The Seven... er... Fourteen Deadly Sins

[Alan Dunkin]

We're familiar with the original seven deadly sins of course, all having watched Se7en:

Lust
Wrath
Gluttony
Sloth
Greed
Pride
Envy

Now given the wisdom of the Vatican attempting to enter the modern age, they've given us seven new deadly sins, though frankly not as simplistic (and I don't think we'll be seeing Fou14een anytime soon):

1. “Bioethical” violations such as birth control

2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

--- Alan

[Lum]

Ironically not committing NeoSin 1 is a cause of NeoSins 5 and 7.

[MarchHare]

And the Vatican itself is certainly guilty of #6.

[Ben Sones]

It's funny that the Vatican doesn't realize that most of their new list is actually covered by their old list.

[Nick Walter]

It's funny that the Vatican doesn't realize that most of their new list is actually covered by their old list.

Oh I'm sure they realize it. But the vatican likes to make sure that everyone is aware of just how the issues and challenges of society today should be viewed through the lens of church dogma. It helps clarify any gray areas. They are helpful like that.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yeah, it's just Lust, Pride, Gluttony, Greed, Greed, Greed, Greed. They should have just given each sin its own color-coded alert chart and put us at High Greed Alert.

[Glenn]

And the Vatican itself is certainly guilty of #6.Do you see hypocrisy anywhere on either list? No you do not.

[Aeon221]

This new pope is too busy. He needs to chill out and ride the pope mobile.

[Johan O]

To a large degree the new sins are sins of actions rather than attitude. And I have some trouble coming up with new cardinal virtues they can be paired of with. 5 and 6 suggests that socialsim might be a new cardinal virtue.

[Rollory]

In the press conference thingy where these were announced, somebody asked Archbishop-thing about the Church's sex scandals, to which he answered "that's not really a problem, it's blown way out of proportion by the media".

Haven't learned a thing.

[Bob Violence]

These aren't new deadly sins (which, as Johan pointed out, are sinful attitudes that lead to sinful behavior, not sinful actions in themselves). They're new mortal sins -- a distinct category for actions which require confession and penitence unless you plan on bringing fireproof underwear to the next world.

So in summary, some relatively low-level Vatican official pointed out that there's stuff like economic inequality and genetic manipulation that don't register as mortal sins for most people, and some dimmer bulbs in the media took these as new deadly sins alongside Gluttony, Greed, et al., which isn't the case. You can say they shouldn't be expected to keep track of wacky distinctions like that, but reporters shouldn't bother with the religion beat unless they're willing to delve into arbitrary areas of theology.

For context, the announcement came after a weeklong conference on confession, mainly sparked by the fact that most Catholics don't bother with it anymore. Wonder why.

[Rollory]

These aren't new deadly sins (which, as Johan pointed out, are sinful attitudes that lead to sinful behavior, not sinful actions in themselves). They're new mortal sins -- a distinct category for actions which require confession and penitence unless you plan on bringing fireproof underwear to the next world.

All of which is entirely meaningless given that the things described are not in fact inherently evil in any sense - whenever you flip on a light switch you're contributing to pollution, "genetic manipulation" to fix poor eyesight can no more be against God's will than wearing glasses is, and I could go on - or even well-defined.

[Charles]

They just aren't as cool without one word representations.

On the up side, I have some work to do to break the new ones. Although I suppose I've already committed most of them in a passive fashion due to my lifestyle.

What's great is that if you break them apart, you could say things like shopping at walmart constitutes both 5 6 and 7. Of course, I'm sure everyone will gloss over that.

[Bob Violence]

All of which is entirely meaningless given that the things described are not in fact inherently evil in any sense - whenever you flip on a light switch you're contributing to pollution, "genetic manipulation" to fix poor eyesight can no more be against God's will than wearing glasses is, and I could go on - or even well-defined.

No more or less meaningless than the Seven Deadly Sins, which might be a useful categorization in some way but is pretty arbitrary and ill-defined too. I'm glad they're bringing this to the media's attention (income inequality and the like more than genetic manipulation, anyway), but this is mostly a novelty on the same level as an official announcement that 5,632,746,963,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin -- the fact that much of it collapses under rigid, humanist ethical scrutiny goes rather without saying, I think.

[Nick Walter]

You realize that we're talking about the Catholic Church's view on the matter, right? (And yes, the Catholic Church's view is that genetic manipulation is inherently sinful regardless of purpose -- stupid, but that's the way it goes.) I mean, we could easily dismiss the entire thread from the OP on if we're extending discussion beyond Church teaching. It's not as if the Seven Deadly Sins were any less arbitrary or more well-defined.

I think you aren't giving the church enough credit. They do a fairly good job of logically extending their loony principles and assumptions into a sensible set of directives. Sensible to anyone who accepts the same principles anyway. There is plenty of reason to their madness if one looks for it.

[Damien Falgoust]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/michaeldouglaswallstreetcolor.JPG

"Allow me to retort..."