KEY POINTS:
The Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI is the last place to expect an outpouring of political superficiality of the sort that appeared this week in reports of an additional "seven deadly sins". Perhaps something was lost in translation.
No longer content to proscribe pride, envy, greed, sloth, wrath, lust and gluttony, the church now regards as equally "deadly", genetic modification, human experimentation, pollution of the environment, causing poverty, causing social injustice, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs.
Issuing the additional seven, the head of the Roman Curia's apostolic penitentiary, Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, said the originals were "rather individualistic", the new ones had "social resonance". For some perhaps, for others they have as much resonance as a leaden policy tract.
Note the different language. The seven drawn up in the 6th century could not be more concise. Nobody has been in doubt of their meaning for 14 centuries.
Now, instead of words we have windy phrases: "causing social injustice", "polluting the environment", "becoming obscenely wealthy" ...
Exactly what sort of wealth is "obscene"? Does social injustice mean inequality in any form? Is it possible to live without polluting the environment?
The quality of language usually reflects the worth of the idea expressed. Heaven knows how the idea arose that the seven deadly sins were lacking social resonance; practically every social problem springs from at least one of them.
In fact that is their intended meaning; they are not so much "sins" as impulses to be controlled lest they cause sin.
Under self-control the impulses are good, even necessary. No person should be without pride, ambition is built on envy to a degree, wealth is generated by a certain amount of greed. A fair amount of sloth is called work-life balance and wrath is the essence of a protest march.
The point at which any of the seven human impulses have harmful consequences is a matter of opinion. The Vatican considers genetic engineering sinful, presumably because it meddles with the chemistry of created life. But within controlled limits it can enhance the lives of some people. "Sin" seems a trifle harsh.
Likewise environmental pollution; sinful could readily describe carelessness on the scale of the Bhopal disaster, but just about every industry pollutes to some extent. And causing poverty? Almost nobody in government or business sets out to cause poverty, so the injunction must refer to incidental effects of their activities. But it is not clear whether the sin lies in the consequences of communism or free markets, competition or currency stability, possibly all.
And what is social injustice as distinct from poverty? It is unlike Catholicism to use language loosely when laying down the law. And the church makes itself too easy a target when it singles out "obscene" wealth. The vaults of the Vatican, priceless and illiquid as they may be, leave many a tourist voicing a similar sentiment.
Wealth is always "obscene" to the envious. Is one person's wealth worse than another's envy? They can't both be wrong. Sin, deadly or otherwise, is a subject the church historically has treated as a matter for personal review. To define it by social effects seems fraught.
The moral force of the original seven lay in their virtuous antidotes: for sloth, diligence; for wrath, patience; pride, humility; lust, chastity; greed, temperance: gluttony, abstinence; and envy, kindness.
Those are the ancient elements of good social behaviour. They are enough.
