I don't think there was a need for these updates but whatever, it won't make more people go to confession. I used to dread confession until I had a face to face confession with a priest, totally conquered my fear.

And this is how we know that the teachings of an organized religion are not the absolute and immutable truth--they change

If these new condemnations do help some people to stop polluting the earth or to reconsider the gap between the rich and the poor, then they will have done some good. However, a) I think it would be sad if it takes the word of the Pope to make people rethink those things, b) I think we all know that pedophilia is bad and don't need it condemned by the Church in order to condemn it ourselves, and c) if the Church is going to start condemning genetic manipulation, then there will have to also be new dietary rules created, I imagine, since much food grown and eaten, at least in America, is genetically modified already. Has the Church a stance on that? Is there a differentiation between altering the genetic makeup of corn vs. the genetic makeup of a human being?

I think it was about time... however pollution? Seems to my like the Pope mobile isn't hybrid.

The rest of the updates are great. The world is changing and I think that it is just that these cchenges are being made. Plus, Pope Benedict is known to be very "hardcore" (I can't think of another word...sorry), so it makes sense that he would do this.

Jude C, I totally agree with you on "I think we all know that pedophilia is bad and don't need it condemned by the Church in order to condemn it ourselves"...but there are many people that need guidlines and need to see it on paper to believe that it is sin and follow rules. No?

That was just a thought

Hmm. I'm kind of indifferent. I'm not religious so it doesn't effect me, however, I think change is good. The world and times are changing, and things like this should, too.

Absolutely, saritabonita IMO that's the most important function of organized religion--there are so many people who can't seem to differentiate right or wrong for themselves, or come up with and live by a simple ethical code for themselves, who do actually need to hear it from a higher authority. Sad, but that's what church is there for, I suppose: if one can't figure out that something is wrong just by the harm it causes another or the world, then I suppose the threat of the hereafter does help.

"..but there are many people that need guidlines and need to see it on paper to believe that it is sin and follow rules. No?"

So sad, but true.

Well people want the Church to progress with the times, so here you go. Although I really don't think they are much different then the original or the Ten Commandments. It just seems to me that they are more specific.

As the times and issues change, people need guidelines that adhere to the world they live in.
Religion is a perpetually controversial issue, so naturally, not everyone follows the given rules, but it's good to have them.

Jude C, I agree with you about the genetically modified food. Perhaps this will help people support natural foods more?

I think only a small minority of people who follow organized religion "can't decide what's right or wrong on their own." Following organized religion does not necessarily mean that you are a brainless moron who doesn't put deep thought in to questions of morality, etc. It annoys me when people presume to know why others believe what they do.

And to me, the genetic mutation of food is completely different than the genetic mutation of human beings. No one (who I've ever heard, at least) is saying we shouldn't eat vegetables, but I'm sure you would be hard pressed to find someone who would say we should eat humans. All life is not the same.

Also, even most people who staunchly follow religion don't believe the teachings of the Church are the absolute and immutable truth. This is why the Church holds Vatican councils to re-evaluate positions on different issues. In addition, this is not really a changing of the "seven deadly sins," but an adding on to them. No one is saying that the old sins are OK now, the Church is just "adding" new sins to the list to keep up with our changing world. In fact, as someone else mentioned, it seems as though a lot of these sins are the same, just looked at from a more modern perspective. (e.g. gluttony/lessening the divide between the rich and poor)

Anyway, all of that being said, I think it's good that the Vatican put out this list, as a way of sparking discussion on "traditional" sins and how they present themselves in today's world.

I may have come across a little bit harsh about organized religion, however I have certainly met quite a few people who do believe, for instance, that what's in the Bible is the absolute and immutable truth, never to be changed or challenged. I certainly don't think everyone who follows organized religion are morons, though, and I'm sorry if it sounded as if I did. I'm a bit testy today

However, I do have to disagree with the difference between genetically modifying food and humans. Yeah, food and humans are different, but the core idea--that of "playing God" by changing DNA--remains the same.

Sorry, Jude. I didn't mean to be harsh directly towards you, either, it's just that I do often come across people who believe that if you are religious, you must not have thought it through. People who say things like, "I don't blindly follow the religion I was raised with." And it just irks me. I didn't think you thought that, I just wanted to make sure the conversation didn't go there.

And I see what you're saying about the genetically altered food, but I still think there's a huge difference. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. (It was an interesting point to think about, though.)

lil, I most certainly don't think people are brainless morons if they follow religion, as I am a practicing Catholic, and I don't regard myself as a moron.

I do think some people need more guidance then others, and sometimes when people have it written down it has more a "law" feel to it.

Sorry, I did not sleep well yesterday, so I am a bit off.

It's always a pleasure to have a civilized debate, lilkimbo There are many reasons for following an organized religion, most of them very positive, and I've no beef with that whatsoever.

My point was just what the main reason for the official condemnation of genetic enhancement was--if it's about altering the natural order, period, or if it's human-centric. And I absolutely agree to disagree with you there

I agree. Face to face confession is much better.

I'm sorry, cine. That comment wasn't really directed at you or Jude, just at people who think that in general (as I have met many people who do). I think I may be the one who is off today...

Ugg! I hate face to face confession! Although I must confess, I have not gone in way to long. I need to get my butt in there.

I have always wondered about this, what would be an example of disorganized or unorganized religion...or the opposite of organized religion basically? I hear this word combination a lot but I'm not sure of the meaning.

I agree with lilkimbo. It peeves me when people use a snobbish attitude to belittle the religious. It peeves me when the religious return the action, too.

I enjoy the modernization of the church. The best Pope quote from that article was: He said that hedonism and consumerism had even invaded “the bosom of the Church itself, deeply undermining the Christian faith from within, and undermining the lifestyle and daily behavior of believers.”

To my knowledge, organized religion is that which falls under the umbrella of either a central governing body (such as the Vatican for the Catholics) or official denomination with its specific rules and tenets. One can be religious--well, I'd reword that to be spiritual--without claiming affiliation with an official religion, denomination, or sect.

lil, no apologies needed! I get all the time from people who question my faith. Many people make that comment, and that assumption and it drives me nuts too.

I don't blame you for being on the defense. Nowadays, when it comes to faith and religion, I feel like I am always defending myself and others.

I would have used "spiritual," too. Let's call them "church-goers," as we do now with the labels, and the us and the them.

I agree re: the belittling and the defending etc. It gets old.

Especially the people who have had no religious education, not even something like an unbiased intro to religion class in college.

I have a lot of friends that seem to dislike or are irritated by religion, yet havent educated themselves or bothered to take the time to learn about this thing that they hate so much.

j2, I wonder if the way things are going, if it will actually make people who follow a religion more religious and devoted to their faith?

Do you mean because they have to defend it often? If so, thats a good point.

I think growing up I thought/assumed everyone had a religion, even if it differed from mine, but then the more interactions that I had with people who were anti, (probably starting around college or high school) the more aware I became of my own faith and beliefs, etc.

"Do you mean because they have to defend it often?"

Yup, that is exactly what I meant Sorry, I really have not slept, daylight savings time really does a number on me for some reason.

But I find with myself, the more I have had to defend my religion and my faith, the more it has reaffirmed my beliefs. I was the same way growing up. My best friends were either Jewish or Catholic, and they were all raised in devoutly religious house holds. I was definitely in a bubble.

Sorry to leave for a bit and then jump back in, but I wanted to say, cine and j2e1n9, that I definitely agree that having people question your faith can make it stronger. I went to public high school and a Catholic college and, oddly, I first encountered people who were rude in their questioning of my faith in college. It really pushed me to research my faith more and think more about why I believe what I do. I'm glad that I was exposed to an environment where people were more questioning, because it did make my faith stronger.

lil, do you mind if I ask what exactly they questioned? Was it Christianity, God, or the "rules" that people associate with Catholicism?

I just don't see how people can put so much trust in a creed that has been edited and manipulated so much over time. If it is the word of God, does he need an editor?

I don't dislike religion. I think there are a lot of really good lessons in the Bible. However, I do think it is terrible when organizations use the Bible to manipulate people for political reasons.

It kind of depended on the person. A lot people questioned the "rules," which I understood the most, since I myself question some of them from time-to-time. In general, most of them questioned the existence of God or a higher being, which is fine, but it was the way in which they questioned it that bothered me. They would say things like, "No intelligent human being actually believes in God." Or, "People who follow a religion just can't think for themselves." It's hard to say specifically what a lot of these people questioned, because with a lot of them, if you pressed them for more information about what they thought, they didn't really have much to say.

Interestingly, Jillness, most people who are religious would agree with you. Very few people today view the Bible as the "literal word of God." Most view it simply as "divinely inspired."

Wow, I'm really glad you guys brought that up. I've never thought about it that way!

I guess from now on, instead of seeing those people as an annoyance, I can be thankful that their questions made me reaffirm my beliefs and strengthened my faith! Now I can actually see a purpose to it.

This is a bit off-topic but what I find to be interesting that lilkimbo and cine are both strong in their faith as Catholics and are Republicans. Jude, are you Catholic as well? I vaguely remember you telling me that you don't go to Mass. I was raised Catholic as well, I'm far more spiritual than religious, haven't been to Mass in about 2 years. Well, my point is that Jude and I, being non-practicing Catholics happen to be Democratically-inclined(understatement of the year) and I'm just wondering if you guys think that there's a correlation between being a 'deeply' religious, practicing Catholic and leaning more to the conservative side of politics and vice versa. Just a thought. I hope none of you were offended by my post, I was just making some sort of connection. Also, I know how hard it is to be a Catholic and having to defend your church to others. The RCC is very heavily respected but also very heavily criticized and those sexual abuse charges didn't make the situation any easier. There are many misconceptions about the Church's beliefs though, mostly coming from 'Christians'. I don't get where this idea came from that Catholics are Christian in the first place, but that's another topic.

lil, I was just wondering. I actually have a very close friend who left Catholicism, because she did not agree with Saints, and she did not think that Catholics take the Bible literally enough. She does believe in the literal translation. My thought process is this. It maybe the word of God. But it is man who translates. Thus, it is not infallible.

Jill, as I stated before, I think these are more specific, really the root are not much different then before.

As always, you bring up a great point, indie.

Just for the record, I was raised Catholic; I consider myself spiritual because I do believe in a higher power, and that belief does inform my personal code of ethics, but I no longer truly consider myself Catholic or affiliated with any particular organized religion.

right, and plus you never know who's mind/opinion you change while your giving your own explanations

Indie, that's definitely an interesting point. In the past elections, they have actually done some exit polling that suggests that more religiously observant people, regardless of religion, tended to vote Republican, whereas less religiously observant people tended to vote Democrat. It was true across all age groups, income groups, etc. I think it's interesting to theorize as to why.

Cine, I'm kind of where you are. I think the Bible is divinely inspired, but since it was written by man, is bound to have flaws.

Which isn't exactly how you said you feel, but I think it's kind of similar.

I think a lot or most Catholics vote Republican.

I myself am mistaken for a Republican a lot, even by my family members who are mostly Catholic dems. My response is always the same, I'm not Republican, I'm Catholic. So I vote Republican. My religion is more important to me than my political affiliation, and I guess I kind of want people to know that and so that is how I respond.

Still, I am usually grouped into the Rep category, and that is ok with me!

indie, for me it has nothing to do with the reasons I am a Conservative, except for my feelings on Abortion, BUT I can back up my beliefs legally.

Now my choice of Charities, they do weigh heavily on my religious beliefs.

"I don't get where this idea came from that Catholics are Christian in the first place, but that's another topic."

I am completely confused by this statement. Can you clarify?

I think the whole Catholic/religious affiliation thing is extremely interesting, especially as Catholics used to be so closely affiliated with the Democratic party. When I was in college, the Poli Sci department put on a panel about issues Catholics need to consider when voting. It was definitely extremely interesting.

"I don't get where this idea came from that Catholics are Christian in the first place, but that's another topic."

Sorry, guys, my mistake. I meant to put 'that Catholics AREN'T Christian.."

I am with you, though, cine. I feel like the vast majority of my political views are based on my views of the Constitution and my belief in a smaller federal government, with more state and local control. But I do think it's interesting that the connection is there.