Seven More Deadly Sins
March 12th 2008 09:17
Polluting, genetic engineering, obscene riches, taking drugs, abortion, paedophilia and causing social injustice join the original seven deadly sins defined by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century: pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and sloth.
If you ever thought Wikipedia wasn't up with the play, then note that the very recent announcement by the Vatican that there are now another seven deadly sins added to the longstanding original list is already on Wikipedia. It seems to me that this often maligned site gets better and better. And it also doesn't seem that long ago that it was only a baby on the scene. Crikey: I can remember it when it hardly contained anything at all!
The mix of sins – all of which are classed as mortal (that is, if you die without confessing them, you’ll go to Hell) – are focused on social issues, whereas the previous seven were focused on interpersonal relationships.
The problem is, they’re very broad, and it will take a fairly wise priest to judge whether what’s being confessed fits into one of these categories. (The previous seven weren’t much better in this respect.) How do you confess to polluting – and what level of pollution is classified as mortal and what isn’t? Genetic engineering: this is definitely a strange thing to put on a list of sins. Again, what degree of genetic engineering counts?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the Church that people doing these things - especially on a large scale - are wrongheaded, and sinful. It’s just that the words are so wide-ranging it’s hard to know who’s caught up in the web and who isn’t.
I mean, you can understand that someone owing several Las Vegas hotels is probably heading for obscene riches. That one perhaps isn’t quite so hard to gauge. And having an abortion is fairly plain and straightforward: you either have one or you don’t.
But ‘causing social injustice?’ How does someone gauge when they’re guilty of committing that? In fact, truth be told, most people in the Western world are probably guilty of it in some degree. Purposeful social injustice may count, but what about all the minor injustices everyone of us in involved with every day, in the way we shop, consume and so on?
For me, the list only opens a can of worms and doesn’t much help to define anything. At best it’s a list of what can be seen in general terms to be some of the worst aspects of human behaviour; how it works when it comes down to the individual level is another matter entirely.
If you ever thought Wikipedia wasn't up with the play, then note that the very recent announcement by the Vatican that there are now another seven deadly sins added to the longstanding original list is already on Wikipedia. It seems to me that this often maligned site gets better and better. And it also doesn't seem that long ago that it was only a baby on the scene. Crikey: I can remember it when it hardly contained anything at all!
The mix of sins – all of which are classed as mortal (that is, if you die without confessing them, you’ll go to Hell) – are focused on social issues, whereas the previous seven were focused on interpersonal relationships.
The problem is, they’re very broad, and it will take a fairly wise priest to judge whether what’s being confessed fits into one of these categories. (The previous seven weren’t much better in this respect.) How do you confess to polluting – and what level of pollution is classified as mortal and what isn’t? Genetic engineering: this is definitely a strange thing to put on a list of sins. Again, what degree of genetic engineering counts?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the Church that people doing these things - especially on a large scale - are wrongheaded, and sinful. It’s just that the words are so wide-ranging it’s hard to know who’s caught up in the web and who isn’t.
Photo by jmg944
But ‘causing social injustice?’ How does someone gauge when they’re guilty of committing that? In fact, truth be told, most people in the Western world are probably guilty of it in some degree. Purposeful social injustice may count, but what about all the minor injustices everyone of us in involved with every day, in the way we shop, consume and so on?
For me, the list only opens a can of worms and doesn’t much help to define anything. At best it’s a list of what can be seen in general terms to be some of the worst aspects of human behaviour; how it works when it comes down to the individual level is another matter entirely.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The Church once again shows why it has completely lost any relevance it may have once had.
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
I guess you could call it ironic in regard to paedophilia, and certainly the church has taken a while to deal with the issue amongst its own. I would think that in part this naming of paedophilia as one of the 'new' sins is in response to the evil that the church has discovered in its midst.
Obscene riches? If you're thinking of the Vatican and all its riches, then you have to consider that it's not that easy to turn historic monuments into cash....! Furthermore, the Catholic church, like most Christian denominations, covers a huge range of incomes, from wealth to poverty, and one of the issues it always has is how to spread that more evenly.
Of course, no one who isn't a Catholic ever does anything hypocritical, like accumulating enormous wealth or picking on litle boys....!