![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Here's the new additions:
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
Discuss, please.
Comments
I'd have to say that some of them make some sense, altough since I'm not Catholic, I can't comment much.
Seven (New) Deadly Sins? Or Not?
As an example of how the media sometimes can get a story wrong, or at least confuse things unnecessarily, witness the story from the March 8 issue of L'Osservatore Romano, which included an entirely sensible interview with Bishop Gianfranco Girotto, an official at the Apostolic Penitentiary, on the subject of social sin. Contrasting an older understanding of sin as more individualistic in nature, Bishop Girotto noted that sin "today...has an impact and resonance that is above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization." He pointed to a number of "social sins" (by now a familiar term to Catholics accustomed to hearing it applied to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism). Among those he mentioned were economic injustice, environmental irresponsibility, accumulation of excessive wealth and genetic experimentation with unforeseen consequences.
The media's reporting, however, transmogrified this into something different. "Seven New Deadly Sins," wrote the Times Online, mistaking the main point of the interview, which was that these new social sins were in fact different in nature for those more individualist "deadly sins," which focused more on regulating a variety of human passions. "Vatican Lists New Sinful Behavior," wrote the Associated Press, as if accumulating excessive wealth hadn't been already condemned by the church for centuries, and, before that by--well, Jesus for one.
The Vatican's intent seemed to be less about adding to the traditional "deadly" sins (lust, anger, sloth, pride, avarice, gluttony, envy) than reminding the world that sin has a social dimension, and that participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect.
In other words, if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.
James Martin, SJ
They are not "deadly" sins (whatever that means)?
I stand corrected.
So what was the point of all the hoopla from the Vatican then?
I think.
And what do they mean by excessive wealth? Who defines excess and against what standard?