If you are keeping track, the traditional seven deadly sins are Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed, Sloth. Their counterparts, the seven holy virtues, are Chastity, Abstinence, Temperance, Diligence, Patience, Kindness and Humility. Now this from the Vatican:
Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences, said ... that priests must take account of "new sins which have appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process of globalisation." Whereas sin in the past was thought of as being an individual matter, it now had "social resonance."
"You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos," he said.
Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or "the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few."
He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women," and pedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church."
Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I prefer the old list. Notice that the original seven are dispositions, inclinations, predilections .. whatever the right word. The so-called "new sins," by contrast, are the external expressions of those internal infirmities. As technology has advanced, the capacity to do harm has increased, but the severity of the sin is not measured by the effect of the action. Is Claude Frollo less sinful because Phoebus does not die from the stabbing?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/26966130
Links to weblogs that reference "New Sins":
1. Posted by Christine on March 10, 2008 @ 13:36 | Permalink
Doesn't the list of deadly sins cover these by-products? (greed or sloth could lead one to corrupt the environment; greed or pride could lead one to carry out morally debatable genetic experiments). The beauty of the original list is that really only God can judge whether one indulges in those intentions.
2. Posted by Elizabeth on March 10, 2008 @ 14:43 | Permalink
Bishop Girotti as head ot the Apostolic Penitentary is responsible for providing guidance on the sacrament of confession to priests and individual Catholics. Such guidance would include whether an action is a sin and therefore, something that a Catholic needs to confess to a priest and obtain absolution. His comments are offered in the spirit of educating lay Catholics, who may (or may not) be able to recognize how certain modern activities are outgrowths of more general categories of sins, such as the seven deadly sins (which never encompassed the full range of things that the Catholic Church considers sinful). It is then up to the lay Catholic to decide if they need to go to confession. Most Catholics would consider the "new sins" merely a development of the Catholic Church's teachings on the old sins to cover current circumstances.
By the way, Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. published a good book in 2005 entitled A Church that Can and Cannot Change, which deals with developments or changes in the Catholic Church's teachings.
3. Posted by Martin on March 10, 2008 @ 20:25 | Permalink
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…
4. Posted by Gordon Smith on March 10, 2008 @ 21:08 | Permalink
Elizabeth: "Most Catholics would consider the 'new sins' merely a development of the Catholic Church's teachings on the old sins to cover current circumstances."
That makes sense. I picked up on this only because I was tasked with teaching a lesson on sin next week in church, and it seems to me that people have two very distinct views of "sin." Those two views were well illustrated in the story.
5. Posted by NonVoxPop on March 10, 2008 @ 22:50 | Permalink
Gordon: Teaching on sin is a tall order: good luck.
When you say that most people have (one of?) two views, what would you say those views are? I'm guessing "sin as the human condition" v. "sin as an (in)action" (as Girotti was enumerating)?
I suppose a better question would be (instead of what peoples views are) what is sin, really, if anything at all?
6. Posted by Gordon Smith on March 10, 2008 @ 23:27 | Permalink
NVP, Exactly right on the two views. Perhaps there are more than two, but I am not a religious scholar. Fortunately, my main task is to promote discussion, not to actually convey wisdom!
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Jake on The Oil Mark
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- laborprof lpb on Bailout, Uni
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Brandon P. on BYU v. Utah
- David on What makes a
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- Vic on Fleischer 1,
- Michael on BYU v. Utah
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
