Genetic modification joins lust on mortal sins list - March 10, 2008
A senior member of the Vatican has drawn up a new list of mortal sins, and science features prominently. Not all of science of course, but Catholic researchers might face some tough choices.
In an interview with the Vatican’s newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, senior cleric Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary which is in charge of confession, was asked “What are the new sins in your opinion?” Along with drug use and social injustice he listed genetic manipulation and experiments on humans.
Girotti also gave a speech on the subject and is quoted in the Times as saying, “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.”
Here is what the Google translator made of part of Girotti’s statement to L'Osservatore:
There are several areas in which today feel sinful attitudes towards individual rights and social issues. First, the area of bioethics within which we can not fail to denounce violations of certain fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulation, whose outcome is difficult to discern and control.
Some newspapers appear to have done some creative accounting on this article, making it into ‘seven new deadly sins’. These are “genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs were all mortal sins” in the Daily Telegraph. Down in Australia they are “polluting, genetic engineering, obscene riches, taking drugs, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice” in the Sydney Morning Herald.
While the Vatican has previously been hostile towards certain aspects of research – such work involving human embryos – Girotti’s statement appears to widen the net and up the stakes. Making these mortal sins, rather than just lesser, ‘venial sins’ which don’t necessarily condemn you to Hell, could make things rather more difficult for Catholics working in these areas, or even working with people who are.
Comments
There is considerable irony in the Catholic Church condemning "unstoppable globalisation". Was there ever a more succesfully globalised organisation?
Posted by: Steve Bell | March 11, 2008 07:14 AM
Interesting. When it comes to pronouncing absolutely that women can never be Catholic priests the previous Pope lamented on the basis of Scripture and liturgical practice that "We have no authority" to make such an innovation; yet the Vatican feels confident that it can authoritatively adjudge "genetic modification" (does this include crops?), excessive accumulation of wealth (does this include Cardinals, Bishops and dioceses?), or pollution (what about that arcane black smoke white smoke business at the papal election?) "mortal" (that is - "soul killing") sins?! I'm just so glad I managed to get out of the Catholic cult with my sense of integrity intact. There is only so much hypocrisy one can bear.
Posted by: DocPete | March 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Here's the thing ...and it could just be me ... since when can the Vatican tell us that we are going to hell? And why do people listen? Last time I checked, only God can judge me. And Jesus died for my sins. Therefore, it is not the right nor privilige of the persons in the Vatican to condemn my eternal soul. They should read that book they preach about, and see what it has to say on the matter. They ARE NOT God.
Posted by: Cheri Leigh-Ann | March 11, 2008 02:23 PM
Hi, I can't find this anywhere in that link to L'osservatore. You sure it's the right link?
[Interestingly, the article does seem to have disappeared – Ed.]
Posted by: Jenno | March 11, 2008 03:56 PM
All genetic changes, man made as in conventional plant and animal breeding, or as evolution in nature involve genetic modification. Wheat, maize and different breeds of farm animals and pets are the result of genetic manipulation.
Posted by: Chittranjan R. Bhatia | March 11, 2008 06:25 PM
"Morally debatable" seems an unlikely criteria for sin IMHO. IOW, if in doubt, don't do it. That should slow progress.
Thankfully the majority of us are no longer consider the church to be the representative of a divine being.
However, they are completely out of touch. Our recent capacity to manipulate and 'invent' new life forms and the feasible potential to place those forms in environments where life would not otherwise occur (on other worlds, for example) may, in fact, be the "special" or "divine mission" of our species.
Posted by: Steven Ericsson-Zenith | March 12, 2008 02:35 AM
"Morally debatable" seems an unlikely criteria for sin IMHO. IOW, if in doubt, don't do it. That should slow progress.
Thankfully the majority of us are no longer consider the church to be the representative of a divine being.
However, they are completely out of touch. Our recent capacity to manipulate and 'invent' new life forms and the feasible potential to place those forms in environments where life would not otherwise occur (on other worlds, for example) may, in fact, be the "special" or "divine mission" of our species.
Posted by: Steven Ericsson-Zenith | March 12, 2008 02:37 AM