The 7 new mortal sins

[That_one_guy]

Pope Benedict has declared 7 new deadly sins.The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
As Catholics, is this going to help us rally to the front.Or will this just give us more stuff to talk about in confession?
The Church is well known for its stand drugs,abortion,pedophilia, and social injustice.What about pollution?Is the church going to go green?
What about genetic engineering?Does this include patented seeds?
And a myriad of other issues comes to mind.

 

[Starwynd]

The heck?

Do you have a link to the article?

 

[ericka1701]

I googled “Pope Benedict 7 new deadly sins”… there are actually quite a few news stories about this. The following link is just one of the results.

cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/03/13/new.sins/index.html

 

[patrick457]

I’d take this with a grain of salt. After all, when it comes to reporting religious matters, the media is known for its poor standard.

The Curt Jester even has a blog entry on this. So does Zadok the Roman. The clincher is, they’ve blogged about this eight to nine months ago. Why wasn’t the Catechism updated during the aforementioned period?

 

[LilyM]

Pope Benedict has declared 7 new deadly sins.The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
As Catholics, is this going to help us rally to the front.Or will this just give us more stuff to talk about in confession?
The Church is well known for its stand drugs,abortion,pedophilia, and social injustice.What about pollution?Is the church going to go green?
What about genetic engineering?Does this include patented seeds?
And a myriad of other issues comes to mind.

Most of these are already grave sins - you surely don’t think pedophilia, drug dealing or abortion only just became sinful recently?

 

[Smber2c]

As for “extreme weath”, that surely is relative to what you’re doing with it.

After all St. Louis, King of France, was surely quite wealthy and he’s a saint. I expect that the actual teaching on this would be that “with great power comes great responsibility”. People like Bill Gate and Warren Buffett aren’t simply good for choosing to help charity, but are obliged too.

Similarly; the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, (increasingly) China would be obliged to help those in need around the world. Though we shouldn’t limit our thinking to endlessly dumping food and meds at drop points. It could be training farmers and medical personel in their own populations - basically enabling them to help themselves.

I think the idea would be, it is a sin for the rich to is there being rich, indulging in every whim, and not give a darn about those in need. I don’t however think that possesing over a million, a billion, or whatever # of dollars would be sinful.

 

[EphelDuath]

Genetic modification of foods has saved a billion lives because of increased crop outputs. There’s no way that’s what the Holy Father was referring to; I think he’s talking about stuff like cloning.

 

[That_one_guy]

Genetic modification of foods has saved a billion lives because of increased crop outputs. There’s no way that’s what the Holy Father was referring to; I think he’s talking about stuff like cloning.

An interesting link for your viewing pleasure.
gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/christians-listen-to-modern-day.html

While I don’t think that the foods would hurt us,…the implication is that eventually we wont be able even have a garden in our back yards using the seeds from plants we already grew.We would have to buy new seeds every year.Frankly,this seems to be just another of humanity’s efforts to play God. Not only with humans, but, now with our food supply.

The eschatological implications are pretty plain.
And (to me) it is important to know these things are happening so that we don’t realize it too late.Like the proverbial frog in hot water…

 

[EphelDuath]

While I don’t think that the foods would hurt us,…the implication is that eventually we wont be able even have a garden in our back yards using the seeds from plants we already grew.We would have to buy new seeds every year.Frankly,this seems to be just another of humanity’s efforts to play God. Not only with humans, but, now with our food supply.

Preposterous. That means any technological advancement we make should be discarded because we’re trying to play God. This reasoning only applies to human engineering.

 

[That_one_guy]

Preposterous. That means any technological advancement we make should be discarded because we’re trying to play God. This reasoning only applies to human engineering.

We have a brilliant poster in another forum who would probably be able to better expound on the eschatological implications of genetically manipulating our food supply than I can.His handle is “spauline’”. Here is a link to the thread he posts the most on.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4534897#post4534897?rd=

I’m going to invite him over here,too.

 

[spauline]

i’m not an expert guys, but I think I agree with the person’s who commented in balance, which is to say, when the pope talks about the sin of genetic engineering, he is talking about human phenomena, which to say, to “genetically engineer human beings”, whether by cloning or messing with the natural processes.

In part, this stems from the immeasurable dignity of the human person. We are all priceless, even if we are born with handicaps. It is our materialistic world that values people only for what they can do materialistically for the world that is the central problem.

It is like saying that the mentally retarded or handicapped, or the invalid aged are somehow less worthy of life and not priceless.

What makes us priceless is our capacity to love God and neighbor, by knowing intimately in a spiritual sense and giving of oneself in love. Therefore, the sufferings of the terminally ill are not worthless. They can be united to Christ and help redeem humanity.

And I agree with the comments about, it is not a sin to be rich, in and of itself, but that with great material blessings, great responsibility is necessary, which is another way of saying, those with incomprehensible surplus of wealth are OBLIGATED, by the Divine Law of “thou shalt not steal” to use their wealth in significant means to alleviate the unfortunate status of those who lack the necessities.

And as indicated, prudence should be taken to, as it were, also help others arrive at self sufficiency.

Hence, for a person with great richness to hoard the wealth to himself and live in exagerrated luxury, while so many millions suffer tragically would be mortal sin, in of the Divine call to stewardship of one’s material blessings.

That is, at least how i would look at it. But most of this has already been pointed out by others.

About the environment, we are to take care of creation. However, tree hugging responsibilities are not as grave as the protection of the unborn. Hence, to play environmental concerns as having greater weight than abortion is, I think, out of balance by Church standards. Which is to say, “thou shalt not steal” (which indirectly involves the stewardship of creation) is a less grevious command than “thou shalt not kill.”

Therefore, liberals are wrong if they think environmental issues are more important than protecting the unborn.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Preposterous. That means any technological advancement we make should be discarded because we’re trying to play God. This reasoning only applies to human engineering.

I don’t think it has only to do with human engineering. There are vatican documents that show a concern with genetic engineering in agriculture. Scientists have been able to combine the genes of different species. It seems that this sort of behavior should naturally make a God-fearing man cringe. Humans have been altering and improving agriculture for thousands of years, but there are lines that have been crossed lately which certainly makes it seem that some are trying to “play God”.

 

[Corki]

Pope Benedict has declared 7 new deadly sins.The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
As Catholics, is this going to help us rally to the front.Or will this just give us more stuff to talk about in confession?
The Church is well known for its stand drugs,abortion,pedophilia, and social injustice.What about pollution?Is the church going to go green?
What about genetic engineering?Does this include patented seeds?
And a myriad of other issues comes to mind.

From the linked article:

In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s official newspaper, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti said priests must take into account “new sins which have appeared on the horizon of humanity as corollary to the unstoppable process of globalization.”

So, not the Pope, but a monsignor who works at the Vatican. All of the above are grave matter and therefore (depending on the other 2 conditions) possibly mortal sins.

Virtually all of this is already covered in other documents such as the Catechism and the Church’s various documents on social justice.

:yawn:

 

[cathybramble]

I don’t think it has only to do with human engineering. There are vatican documents that show a concern with genetic engineering in agriculture. Scientists have been able to combine the genes of different species. It seems that this sort of behavior should naturally make a God-fearing man cringe. Humans have been altering and improving agriculture for thousands of years, but there are lines that have been crossed lately which certainly makes it seem that some are trying to “play God”.

i think, in the case of patenting plant seeds and so forth, there is a real danger in allowing some large corporation to control the world’s food supply.

pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm

 

[cathybramble]

As for “extreme weath”, that surely is relative to what you’re doing with it.

After all St. Louis, King of France, was surely quite wealthy and he’s a saint. I expect that the actual teaching on this would be that “with great power comes great responsibility”. People like Bill Gate and Warren Buffett aren’t simply good for choosing to help charity, but are obliged too.

Similarly; the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, (increasingly) China would be obliged to help those in need around the world. Though we shouldn’t limit our thinking to endlessly dumping food and meds at drop points. It could be training farmers and medical personel in their own populations - basically enabling them to help themselves.

I think the idea would be, it is a sin for the rich to is there being rich, indulging in every whim, and not give a darn about those in need. I don’t however think that possesing over a million, a billion, or whatever # of dollars would be sinful.

i was just told in another thread, that it’s morally wrong to have a dog and spend money feeding it, when the money could be used to feed people.

but this is a fun place, i love the wide range of opinions here

 

[Et_Cetera]

What is considered obscenely rich?

 

[Lujack]

I don’t think it has only to do with human engineering. There are vatican documents that show a concern with genetic engineering in agriculture. Scientists have been able to combine the genes of different species. It seems that this sort of behavior should naturally make a God-fearing man cringe. Humans have been altering and improving agriculture for thousands of years, but there are lines that have been crossed lately which certainly makes it seem that some are trying to “play God”.

The very existence of corn is through genetic engineering.

The immorality of genetically engineering humans includes “low-tech” methods of doing so such as eugenics and sterilization. The moral problem here is with the end, not necessarily the means. There is nothing wrong with selectively breeding cattle, or horses, but to treat humans as breeding stock is wrong. The hateful and hated miscegenation laws, social Darwinism, and eugenics are sins in a way that the creation of dog breeds are not.

 

[That_one_guy]

What is considered obscenely rich?

Matthew 19
20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”

21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”

26And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

I’m not sure about obscenely rich.But, I do know that people have an obscene attachment to their worldly possessions.How many packrats do you know?With an old playstation collecting dust because they have an x-box.But,they don’t want to give up the playstation because it’s still good.Why not donate that to the poor?and countless other examples I am sure you can think of yourself?
:newidea:

 

[Ed_Rand]

The very existence of corn is through genetic engineering.

There is a big difference between what farmers have been doing for thousands of years and what scientists have been doing in the last few decades.

 

[Lujack]

There is a big difference between what farmers have been doing for thousands of years and what scientists have been doing in the last few decades.

It is still deliberate genetic engineering; the methods are merely different.

On the other hand, deliberate human genetic engineering was never acceptable, no matter how low-tech the methods were.