New Deadly Sins!
Seemingly being bored - I mean, how long can you talk about the fact that many Priests of your Church are pedophiles? - the Catholic Church has come up with a brand new list of modern deadly sins. Never before have I been so happy not to be (raised) a Catholic. Lets take a look at the list, if this doesn’t make you laugh out loud I don’t know what does:
1. Ruining (or polluting) the environment - one wonders whether we don’t do that just by, you know, living
2. Carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments (or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos)
3. Using or dealing in drugs (one wonders whether ‘drugs’ includes alcohol and tobacco, and painkillers, and if not why not)
4. Social injustice (which caused poverty or the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few; which is quite an ironic thing for the Catholic Church - of all organizations in the world - to say)
5. Abortion
6. Paedophilia (obviously a top concern of the Church)
Strangely, the Pope said that many Catholics no longer do ‘confession’ as disciplined as they once did.
Uhhh, paedophilia wasn’t a sin BEFORE????? I’m not an expert, but isn’t that covered by
????
Wow, they really should have run that by a catholic scientist before publishing it. They literally have no clue that genetic manipulation (which BY DEFINITION alter DNA) is done routinely in labs all over the world. Even if you were to make the assumption that they mean genetic manipulation of humans, that still leaves the question of genetic therapy. Are Catholics not to engage in it or study it? What about treatments that take advantage of advances in ESC research, can they use them?
On the other hand this may not matter much, since a broad majority of scientists don’t believe in a personal god, and those numbers go up radically for elite scientists. Note: Those numbers are old and cover only the US, it’s believed that the actual numbers have gone up since then and appear to be much higher in Europe.
Cheap shots by the media in general, and then by you, Michael. What’s wrong with the Church examining sin the modern world in this context- that there is social sin which can cause serious harm to our relationship with God, in addition to individual sins reflecting our relationships with God and close family and neighbors?
Claudia: this isn’t a list of "NEW SINS" as the media is reporting it. It has to do with the Church’s distinction between venial sin and mortal sin, and a reexamination of that concept in the context of modern life.
Frankly, all of the mocking in many of the media stories, and your uninformed comments, are why people should mind their own business if they aren’t truly interested in learning about the teachings of the Church.
Christine, I actually made some good points. And with wealth, one could say: is the Church saying capitalism is bad? What’s ‘excessive’? Who decides that? Is it about the money one has or what one does with it? Then we have the other ’sins’ on which I made valid points, and Claudia added a very important point.
Those aren’t cheapshots, they’re comments and questions, basically arguing that these new deadly sins aren’t, umh, bullet proof.
And, finally, I admit to having made some fun at the expense of the Church. But hey, Christians won’t riot over that, right? Dealing with criticism, etc., right?
Oh, please. Of course there are degrees of wealth, degrees of polluting, etc. That’s the same for everything else- excess can be bad, while the thing itself isn’t evil itself.
If you want to know the answers to how the Church views those things, then read the HUGE amount of thoughtful, insightful theology that has come out over the last few decades, like the great encyclicals by this pope and the last one.
And if Claudia is interested in the bioethical debates and the guidelines that the Church has formed on that, then she can find that too.
If you aren’t really interested though, then MYOB instead of scoffing at a silly Readers’ Digest version that is being presented by the secular media.
Umh:
Or not.
Take a deep breath Christine
No one is attacking the Church. We’re all having some fun, yes, but quite within what’s civil I’d say.
As for bullet proof, what the heck does that mean? Are the Ten Commandments "bullet proof"? Should children respect their parents if the parents are abusive, for example? Is killing another human being always murder? This is why your arguments are just silly- you aren’t bothering to understand that the way it’s being phrased isn’t a black/white condemnation of the actions without a deeper understanding or context.
If you don’t mind, I think that we’re free to write about whatever it is we want to write about, especially if we don’t cross the line of civility (which we didn’t in this case, if you can’t take some jokes, but also honest criticism, that’s your problem).
Again, take a deep breath. "No one is attacking the Church. We’re all having some fun, yes, but quite within what’s civil I’d say."
Dealing with criticism sometimes means that we reserve the right to tell people that they’re behaving like a$$es though, right? You have the right to criticize, and I have the right to critique your criticism. No one’s threatening to riot here.
"Mind your own business."
When people mildly criticize your Church, it’s best to respond with a little bit less anger.
Learned that lesson (the hard way) myself.
The idea wasn’t to insult any Catholics - which is why it was quite a clean post IMO. Again, having some fun, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Michael, it is offensive to Catholics though, that people bring up the pedophilia scandals again and again. Most of us were quite pained going through that, and while we don’t defend (obviously) the abuse itself NOR the Church’s handling of it, we consider it bad form for this to be used to pummel the Church at every opportunity. People seem to forget, or choose not to notice, for example, that the incidence of these kinds of abuses actually isn’t any higher in the Catholic Church than in other institutions where children are put in the care of adults.
And I stand by the MYOB- because truly, I think that people shouldn’t criticize what they don’t understand, and by far most people who criticize religions do so without taking the time to learn about them in any detail. It seems I remember someone telling me the same when I even dared to question certain things about Islam, for example….
Christine: who’s rehashing all that, though? Wasn’t that a major scandal, and as such isn’t that an important issue for the Catholic Church?
And didn’t you object back then?
Ya’ know, 100-200 years from now, any people still alive will look back on the 20th & 21st centuries and immediately recognize how primitive we were. Sure, we look back at hundreds of years in the past, and with a smug confidence KNOW that those people were primitive.
But, 200 years from now, they will see us the very same way. We have ghettos, genocide, wars, starvation, child labor, the death penalty … and supposedly educated people still believe in an invisible man in the sky (god). AN INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY for Christ’s sake!!! Hello? That’s primitive. Holy cow, there is no invisible man in the sky! If you believe that, you’ve got some mental problems. This world and universe is exactly what it appears — a temporary planet in a universe that will eventually expand itself into non-existence.
And, in the mean time, the corrupt Catholic Church, led by a ridiculous guy wearing a pointy hat leads the way in the absurd god superstition.
I just shake my head at how stupid everyone is.
To some extent, you were right to say that those who aren’t Muslim and haven’t studied the Koran shouldn’t pretend to know more than they really do. Of course, I don’t think that was what I was doing at that time- I was sincerely asking you what it was in the Koran that you felt justified your position.
Had your questions here been of that nature, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it (had you seriously asked the question, how does the Church really view capitalism, for example.) Maybe it was because you were simultaneously defending this as a serious post and also claiming it was just all in fun that it didn’t come across that you were sincerely wanting to know what the Church meant by this. You can’t have it both ways in this case- but in the case where I was asking about Islam, I wasn’t at the same time snarking about some of the egregious behavior of some people who claim to be followers of Muhammed. Had I done that, then you would have been fully justified in telling me to MYOB- but in my case, it was just sincere questioning.
If you believe that there is an invisible man in the sky who does magical things from time to time — all without telling us about it — you have serious mental issues
Yes, Bill, you’re so right. The spontaneous appearance of matter which subsequently arranged itself randomly from an inorganic state to an increasingly complex organic state, forming self-replicating organisms which have evolved along with the natural universe according to laws (which also spontaneously organized from chaos), into the current state- is MUCH more sane.
There seems to me very little logos is these new sins. MvdG has already pointed out some serious holes.
Here’s another. If social injustice is a mortal sin, and previous Popes have taken stances on issues such as treatment of indigenous people that certainly fall under the definition of social injustice, and because they at the time of their death, did not repent for those actions, are we to say that previous Popes are condemned to hell for eternity?
The alternative would seem to suggest that mortal sins are only applicable when you place them in context with the social norms of the time, which is a vastly different type of sin, or that even mortal sins can be overcome by sufficient good acts without the act of repentance.
Kevin H: You’re leaving out a couple of other possibilities there (actually you touched on one but didn’t fully develop the thought.)
First, only the confessors of the popes that you reference would have knowledge of what they did or did not repent of. (Sure, I think it’s unlikely, but it points out why humans aren’t supposed to sit in judgment of those whose hearts we really don’t know.)
Second, as you mentioned, social norms of the times does matter, because committing mortal sin requires an understanding that the act is a mortal sin (which is probably why the Church felt it necessary to make people reflect on these things) and norms of the time make it sometimes impossible for an individual to have that understanding.
Here are some relevant passages from the Catholic Catechism:
"Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the private of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance of God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." (C.C.C. # 1861) "To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death." (C.C.C. # 1874)
Christine, I’m going to pass entirely on the whole existence of god debate, though I am sorely tempted, because I have a some questions on Catholic ermmm bureaucracy, I guess you could call it. I find the technical aspects of different religions fascinating, as you know. Here are a couple of questions that occur to me quickly.
I obviously already assumed that paedophilia was already considered a sin (though I’d still wonder about it’s relativity, since a 60 year old marrying a 14 year old would be considered paedophilia today but not when Jesus was born), but that still brings up a question. OK, so if I understood you correctly, you’re saying that the TYPE of sin it is has changed, presumably to be a more grave sort of sin. Based on this, two questions:
1. How is it up to the church to decide which kind of sin is lesser or greater? Isn’t this already detailed in the Bible?
I’m guessing they can’t just up and change the rules, that’s why they were written down in the first place right? Mind you, I’m ignoring the blatant cherrypicking, I simply am asking about the seriousness of things that are already considered sins. I guess you could argue that the church simply comes to a greater understanding about the nature of the "true message" and then communicates accordingly. But that brings me to my next question:
2. Christianity has existed for over 2 thousand years. Throughout that time, Catholics have followed the rules given to them by priests, and those rules changed over time. Since your assumption is that there is an absolute standard, how do you account for all those people who did things THINKING they were right, but who through "better understanding" of the Bible turned out to be wrong? There were people who killed, even people who tortured, honestly believing that this was Gods Will. Today Catholics would argue that’s FAR from Gods will, so are those people in Hell for following the rules they thought were the right ones? Since the "better understanding" of the Bible (personally I just see it as moral relativity in a priests costume) has been continuous for the past 2 thousand years, what makes you think you really are following the right rules today?
Claudia: The problem is that the questions can’t even be entertained in the way you are thinking about it, because the Church isn’t as legalistic about sin as you seem to think it is. These aren’t like laws that are passed- it’s about having an understanding that we are given freedom by God to choose our actions, but it’s sinful if we use that freedom to choose things that are not for our own good and the good of others.
Read the passages above about mortal sin, for example. The distinction made between venial and mortal is based on whether or not the action represents a deliberate choice in discordance with what we believe to be God’s will, on a very serious or significant matter.
We don’t pretend to know whether people who lived in the past (and lived by the standards of their time, which sometimes seem OBVIOUSLY wrong by our current standards) have gone to hell or not. We pray that they have not, and pray that if their souls are in purgatory for those offenses that God will be merciful to them.
And again, the idea that one KNOWS that the action is wrong is critical. So if you truly don’t have any concept that you are doing something gravely wrong, then that’s not fitting the definition of mortal sin. I’d say, for example, that there were people who were slave owners who truly didn’t believe they were doing anything wrong- and although it’s hard to imagine how such a person could be forgiven for that even if he/she didn’t repent of it, I can see how that is possible BECAUSE OF THE NORMS OF THE TIME.
God doesn’t change, and there is an absolute right/wrong for all times- but yes, our understanding of that does change over time. We pretty much assume that people aren’t held to a standard of having a perfect understanding of what is right and wrong, but only that they sincerely reflect on it and accept guidance from spiritual leaders (and yes, of course, they are imperfect as well, sometimes more so than other times.)
CS, I think you forgot to answer the last line of Claudia’s comment, which is so critical. If we really have such a poor understanding of God’s will that a Pope of 100 years ago would probably go to hell for performing the same actions today, how can you base critical current day social issues such as denying visiting rights to gay partners of people in the hospital, and delaying medical advances which could improve the lives of tens of thousands of people on church doctrine?
anti-Catholicism is alive and well on the ultra right
Sounds like the old dim bulb and his gin slathered, Swiss cheese brain suffer from undiagnosed Capgras delusion (or Capgras syndrome), a rare disorder outside of Texas in which a person holds a delusional belief that an acquaintance, usually a spouse or other close family member, has been replaced by an identical looking impostor, except in this case the infidel Boooosh thinks (and that’s a stretch!) that the entire country has been replaced by cheap badly cloned plastic Cheneys. This delusion is most common in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, extreme religious/sexual repression, or constipation(Bill O’Reilly), although it can occur in a number of conditions including after brain injuries, dementia, and Republican voter registration drives. My guess, off the top of my head, is that they were composed with a high melting point in mind (the temperature at which the attractive intermolecular forces are overcome), probably polyethylene with a liberal dash of other polyamides, and in the true spirit of Conservatism, to keep things completely amorphous, methyl methacrylate. Although seemingly real in every detail, with the exception of the fact that they don’t hide every five minutes and that they’re human, Booosh keeps insisting that these Cheney-esque house apes are real, that the economy is great, that the surge is working, and that we’re respected everywhere, as these delusions aren’t cut and runners and all don flag lapel pins in various skin flaps as well as nearby assorted exhaust ports. The Capgras delusion is classed as a delusional misidentification syndrome, a class of delusional beliefs right up there with organized religion, that involves the misidentification of people, places or objects. It can occur in acute, transient, or chronic forms, in fact, anywhere old, tired, patriotic shtick is sold, borrowing on future debt of course.
Actually, criticism of environmental harm and results of capitalism and other things as sin is missing the point. By living we naturally impact the environment, and there are always people who are hurt by capitalism. But the concept of sin, was always that everyone is a victim of it, its a condition of our imperfection as humans. Everyone is supposed to be prone to sloth, lust, greed. Moral behavior is, according to Christianity, acknowledging these things as harmful and keeping them in check and trying to get redemption. The same thing would be true of our environmental impact and capitalism, moral action politically is keeping it in check.
So this list is of social issues that can get out of hand if not kept in check. We want to prevent biological experimentation from getting out of hand and leading down paths where we’re in over our heads and harm ourselves more than help ourselves because we try to play God. We want to make sure our attempts to improve civilization don’t get out of hand and cause irreparable harm to the environment. We want to prevent the profit motive in capitalism from being abused.
In other words, the concept of sin, is about the idea that we are not Gods and need to always tie our actions to ideas of responsibility.
Whether someone is an evil person or not, whether you’re having a theological dialogue or just a normal discussion is often relative to that person’s situation and capability. Most people accept that the reason Thomas Jefferson and other US founders had slaves is because slavery was an institution that he inherited from his family having owned slaves, and that freeing all wasn’t necessarily the wisest thing to do, although many of them made up for that by trying to get slavery banned in the Constitution.
In a similar way, whether someone is an evil person or not according to Christianity often has to do more with whether a person redeems himself based on applying moral understanding, than whether he acts perfectly, as we all supposedly are sinful. Not all sinners go to hell. As theologans talk, some sins are too steep to redeem.
And I really don’t think this is too different from how average people think about moral behavior, do whatever you can do best to make things good.
Why is it that moral apathy isn’t on this list? We have to be equally poor, but we don’t have to care whether or not someone’s being stabbed/raped/whatever in the streets? I see many Christians in general keep to their own and not lift a finger unless it’s someone in their religious community, and when they do see some injustice, it’s just a backlash from "whatever they deserved."
I hate it when people quote the bible and don’t follow it as they should. As far as I’m concerned, they’re only interested in the blockbuster parts that get made into movies, not the actual rules of the game.
For one thing some of these new sins are already part of the old ones.
Paedophilia- Its called Lust, its been around for over 1000 years.
Social injustice - That would come under Greed, doing what you can to get richer and not give anything back to the poor.
Abortion - This can come under Wrath for murder, Greed as not wanting to pay for the baby, or Lust if your getting the abortion so you can have more sex.
Littering - it can easily come under sloth, for being lazy and not puting rubish in a bin.
I don’t, Kevin H- because those things aren’t "Church doctrine". In the first case you’re confusing evangelical stances with Catholic ones, and in the second case you are oversimplifying the moral and ethical questions of medical research.
Fine, Daniele, I’m not fond of that strawman type religion that you criticize here either. But I also "hate it when people comment on religious practices and don’t understand it as they should."
Oh, and moral apathy would fall under "sin of omission". When Catholics confess, we reflect on "what we have done, and what we have failed to do."
Lendai C: Of course…that’s why I already pointed out that this list was not supposed to be a list of brand new sins. The Church is simply pointing out that our interactions with society (not just our interactions with our family/neighbors/friends/acquaintances) lend themselves to opportunity to either choose right or wrong action, and (as redfish nicely explained), when those choices are fundamentally opposed to the choices that we believe God would ask us to make, the sin is serious enough to remove us from a state of grace in our relationship to God, unless we acknowledge that we’ve made the wrong choice and decide to change course (which is called repentance.)
Hullo all,
I always wonder why people who know so little about anything catholic at all and quite obviously feel a deep antipathy for the Church and even for God spend so much of their time thinking about the Church and making such rubbish comments.
For example, Claudia and Michael, with respect I am astonished at your desire to show your ignorance of catholic dogma for the world to see.
However, I imagine that same innate arrogance prevents you from seeing how silly you appear to anyone with even a little learning on the matter. Dressing your comments up- as poking a little fun-doesn’t hide the fact that you are sadly prejudiced and woefully ill-informed when it comes to the Catholic Church; and as for wondering who is in hell and who isn’t—well perhaps that’s just not your business.
Wouldn’t’ you rather be out playing golf or tennis or looking at picture books or what ever it is that people who have an aversion to knowledge do?
Perhaps the lot of you could add a course on how to think critically as one of your projects for this year, in addition to some level 1000 courses on Catholicism (just teasing–no not really) Carl??? I imagine you just like to use complicated words–well someone has to. I hope you had everyone running to their dictionaries
C Stanley, kudos!
How you have the patience to deal with this lot is beyond me. It must be a grace from that invisible man in the sky. Sic. Bill
You treat their comments with respect and answer their comments kindly and thoughtfully: explaining truths, even citing sources in case they might wish to overcome their reluctance to learn. Catholicism isn’t easy or simplistic and many would like to portray it as such.
As for myself, I haven’t got the patience. I think they should all be consigned to Hades, but I’ll have to say sorry to Jesus, for that. For some reason He loves them, so much that He gave his life that they might have life eternal.
Ah, the wonder of a compassionate God! I know I certainly need Him. I wonder why they fight Him so hard. Perhaps no one ever told them how much they were loved by their creator.
See ya–off to say sorry to Jesus for my lack of consideration toward the persistently bigoted–aw shucks–I don’t quite have the hang of this do I? :)
CS, please show me where the church actively supports things like visitation rights. It seems that the church’s current stance is that they shouldn’t be burned or beaten. Unfortunately, this is also a stance that has only been reached in recent history.
Frankly, I’m not oversimplifying the issues on stem cell research. There is no logical reason to assume human life begins at conception. Any analysis which does not rely on church doctrine invariably comes to the conclusion that our personalities, intellect, culture, everything which separates us from a worm, exists because of our brain. Therefore, before a brain develops, there is no fundamental difference between us and a worm, or fly.
Recent science has also rendered the potentiality argument moot. We can now induce any bodily cell to become an embryo. Probably with increased number of birth defects, but it still removes the idea that a cell becomes special from the moment of conception because of a special potential not shared by other cells.
So if church doctrine has such a poor track record, and has on many occasions for hundreds of years supported policies which directly violate god’s will, what makes you think they have it right now.
Kevin, as far as I know the Catholic church doesn’t have any policy whatsoever on ‘visitation rights’, nor do I think it should. It’s up to secular society to decide on whether or not unions between various types of couples ought to be sanctioned by law. As far as how individuals should treat homosexual people, I can assure you that the degree of love and kindness toward homosexuals that is advocated by the Catholic church is far above and beyond your snipe about ‘not burning or beating’. I say this, not only because I know it to be true in the Church’s general teaching, but also because a personal friend who died of AIDS was ministered to by his (and his family’s) priest, and I can assure you that no one was telling him that he deserved the fate that he was dealt because of his homosexuality.
And I’m sorry, but just saying that you aren’t oversimplifying doesn’t make it so, nor is your claim that "there’s no reason to assume that life begins at conception" meaningful at all (because of course, there’s no reason to assume that it doesn’t, either.) Your argument about potentiality is convoluted, because obviously if WE are manipulating cells to have that potentiality, the cells themselves didn’t have the self determining potentiality that a zygote has.
And finally, on this "track record" business, your argument is no different than if I were to say "Why should we listen to scientists since they once firmly believed that the sun revolved around the earth?", or, "Why should we believe that the American Constitution is a good affirmation of human rights when it once allowed the institution of slavery?"
LOL, I’m multipartisan when poking fun blossom, but if I think something is silly I will say so. My objection on the matter of "genetic manipulation" is real, not poking fun, I find it ludicrous. The Catholic Church is no more and no less worthy of critical thought than the Democratic Party, for instance, so if I think something is silly I will say so. This doesn’t mean I have anything against Catholics themselves, of course. C. Stanley knows this perfectly well, BTW.
As for wondering who goes to hell not being my business, I could swear that it’s a- Knowledge of the Public Domain and b- something people are supposed to be VERY interested in, no? I have a great deal of curiosity, and religion is one of my favorite topics. Perhaps you are offended because I don’t approach the subject with the proper reverence? Do you approach questions on Buddhism, Islam or Mormonism with the same reverence you’d approach questions of Catholicism?
I always have to assume that the religious who say this aren’t being serious, or aren’t really thinking things through. So you really want me to suffer eternal fire and torture and despair because I offended your sensibilities? Because if you want to condemn me to hell apparently you wish for me the worst of all possible punishments for the dreaded crime of offending you on a comments thread.
I don’t "fight god" the same way you don’t "fight invisible ice monsters". To me god is not real. If thinking that in my heart I don’t really believe those words and are in a struggle to maintain my disbelief (¿?) and am really lonely and empty makes you feel better, than by all means go ahead, that won’t make it one bit more true. Michael, by the way, is a Christian, so presumably he doesn’t "fight god" either, for different reasons.
Me thinks that you have to look a little deeply at your own prejudices before you go off complaining about those of others. I do appreciate, believe it or not, the frustration over certain generalizations made about the Catholic Church, but the sooner you come to understand that not every dig at the institution is a dig at the religion or it’s faithful, the happier you’ll be.
People against gay marriage and even people against civil unions aren’t necessarily against visitation rights. There are a lot of other solutions, some of which are being pushed by conservative groups as alternatives, to expand rights to gay couples. That this is made an issue of gay haters vs anti-gay haters, is a simplification of politics.
The issue of stem cell research was just as much about politics; the argument from a lot of people was that learning how to switch adult stem cells to function like embryonic stem cells was more important scientifically anyway, because these types of stem cells are compatible with the individual’s immune system. In the mean time there were several lines of embryonic cells being funded by the government and much more done privately. However people against it, from their own ethnical standpoint, didn’t want to turn abortion into an industry for harvesting stem cells. It turns out these religious people were right, and that funding embryonic research was not necessary, and that a lot of people who supported it just wanted their careers supported with funding.
So, I’m not a religious person and am not even on the social conservative side, i criticize them equally when I have the right chance to. But liberal politics often has a holier-than-thou attitude towards religious people that is as worse as any religion.
redfish: I always appreciate your thoughtful comments (esp when they support my side of the argument
) Seriously, though, you often seem to approach an issue from a slightly different angle than I do but you frequently come to similar conclusions, and even if I wasn’t already in agreement with your conclusion I’d still find your comments very articulate and intelligent.
And yes, the part about visitation is something I tried to explain here and at Kevin Sullivan’s blog- because there really is a middle ground, compromise position on gay marriage that I can fully accept, and I know a lot of other Catholics who feel as I do. As I said above, I don’t think the Church has an official position on the legal issues involved anyway- and of course, even when the Church has official positions it doesn’t mean that everyone who considers him/herself Catholic follows that position blindly (not by a longshot, LOL.)
Claudia: FWIW, I’m pretty sure that blossom was being tongue in cheek with the part about wishing you’d go to Hades. I realize some people who claim to be Christians do act that way, but I think that blossom was actually poking fun at that rather than seriously engaging in it (and perhaps poking fun at the idea that many nonchristians assume that religious people always behave that way.)
Claudia, in all seriousness, surely you can see a place for bioethics which would sometimes draw lines and say that we have to ask the question "should we" whenever we’re asking "can we"?
If you do accept this (for example, cloning or manipulating stem cells into embryos which theoretically could develop into fully formed humans- isn’t there a line there which we shouldn’t cross? That we shouldn’t allow science to get in the business of creating life?) then isn’t it just a matter of where different people draw the lines? And just because you stand at one end and want the lines drawn as liberally as possible, shouldn’t there be a counterbalance of a voice in society saying "hold on just a minute"?
Christine I certainly think there is a place for bioethics in scientific study. In fact, it’s a field of interest I plan on delving into seriously once I’ve got my thesis done. I wasn’t ridiculing the idea of drawing ethical guidelines for scientific studies in general, but the particulars of this rule especially. When you say this:
You are showing an ignorance of science that is laughable. I know that a priest is not obliged to know the particulars of biology or genetics, but if you’re going to issue a rule that affects many millions of faithful, maybe taking the time to email a Catholic biologist would be nice. Even assuming that by "embryos" they mean only HUMAN embryos (since animal embryos are widely used in scientific study), the " genetic manipulations which alter DNA" cannot be parsed to be anything but a statement about the biological sciences spoken by someone who has no idea of what they consist in.
I certainly see a place for bioethics in the sciences, in fact I think it’s vital, though like all ethical debates in the public sphere I think they must be based on criteria outside the religious, but I find this particular argument faulty. I also find the arguments about ESC to be faulty, but that’s a debate for another day.
Claudia,
i’m not sure you know what he thinks the actual limits to dna manipulation are, though i admit i don’t either. but the priests in the vatican tend to be well educated, literate men; as opposed to the typical parish priest
Exactly, redfish. And Claudia, perhaps you could be excused since your statements here aren’t having the wide audience and effect that this Catholic leaders’ statements have, but you are actually guilty of the same thing you’re accusing him of. Shouldn’t you actually bother to learn how the Church leaders study the issues (and what biologists they DO consult with, or what understanding they DO have about the science involved) before you criticize them? Apparently you assume that they couldn’t possibly know what you know and come to a different conclusion; I’d offer that it is perfectly possible for that to happen (without having to accuse the other party of ignorance) because they have a completely different moral understanding of the matter than you do. You don’t think those sorts of things should enter into political discussions, and I’ll agree with you there. But here you are also wanting those religiously based moral considerations to ALSO be excluded from what is actually a discussion between a Church leader and his flock. Methinks you are the one who is on thin ice here.
Christine, I will admit the possibility that the priest was misquoted, or misspoke. I will admit the possibility that perhaps he doesn’t have good knowledge of the subject but those who actually wrote the rule did, and included the appropriate specifics. It wouldn’t be the first time a newspaper badly mangles the actual meaning of a story. However the statement "genetic manipulations that alter DNA" is a horrible one. It shows ignorance of the topic especially because genetic manipulations ALWAYS alter DNA, by definition. It’s like saying "murder that causes death". Again, maybe he was distracted and misspoke, but I can only go on what I read. Additonally, unless the actual rules are much more specific (which they might be, I’d need to see them) that prohibition would cover such a huge area of science that no reasonable person would find unethical (genetic modifications are done all the time, every day in everything from bacteria to mice) and even a prohibition in humans leaves questions open about genetic therapy.
I’m not saying that someone who disagrees with me about moral limitations is ignorant, but I stand by my claim that that particular sin, unless it’s been badly reported, very likely belies scientific ignorance, since it would turn into sin things that I have no doubt at all, no one, not even primitive baptists, think is sin
Claudia, I simply read that specific clause in that sentence differently. More like: genetic manipulations (which alter DNA)
Instead of: genetic manipulations which alter DNA
I realize that the second is the way it was written, but if someone transcribed it exactly as he spoke, it could easily have been written the second way which leans toward the meaning you infer rather than the first way which is different. And you do get the difference, right? I’m rusty on my grammar definitions, but I think your way makes it an adjective clause (a modifier of the noun ‘manipulations’, so that the sentence is about a specific subset of those manipulations) whereas in my interpretation the clause in parentheses is just inserting a separate thought about the genetic manipulations- in this case to explain why they’re objectionable.
Oh, I meant to add though that I do think the word "human" should have been included there.
The Anchoress has some good commentary about the way the press flubbed this story. Michael, perhaps you can see from her explanation why it made me angry that you chose a snarky coverage of it.
Claudia, just a bit of a correction. Some genetic manipulation involves RNA, not DNA.
And I agree with Christine. It is indeed bad form to pick some isolated comment by a Bishop (and it’s the Bishop quoted about DNA and embryos, not the Pope) and making some 2-bit snarky criticism of it. It’s almost the same as pulling a couple of quotes out of the Koran and declaring that Islam cannot possibly be a religion of peace just because of those quotes.
The Catholic church has devoted more time, energy, and thought to contemplating deep moral, religious, and philosophical issues, including the relationship between religion and science, than any other religion or denomination, and almost certainly more than any other human institution, period. They don’t make knee-jerk reactions to momentary fads, and they’ve demonstrated a willingness to take a few decades, or a few centuries, to mull something over, when needed.
Is it perfect? Of course not. As the Bishop himself notes in the article, even the Church as a human institution can become infected with sin, as it did with the pedophilia crisis. Like all human institutions, it is of course imperfect. But on average, they do a damn sight better than just about any other human institution over the past 2,000 years.
But hey, by all means make snarky criticism which mostly serves to reveal your ignorance of the Church and its teachings.
Leave it to the Catholic church for more "man made" rules.
It’s not even Biblical for a Priest to be celibate… probably why so many problems with pedifiles. We can’t think we can be on the same moral ground as Jesus because we aren’t perfect. He is the only perfect being.. we have a sin nature, Jesus did not.
I have SO many issues with the Catholic church I can’t even begin to list them all
i think the church should stop getting people scare and the other religions dont believe in half of the things [ p o p e ] which is in rome please forgive me god but…..the pope should stop !