His Most Holiness hath declareth unto the people 7 sins of Mortal Penitence.

So they aren't going to make any further "divinely inspired" editions to the Bible, and all for backwardsness and stupidity. Not to mention that for a living God he certainly don't have much to say, but thats another issue for another day.

Then there are the rules themselves:

Genetic Modification/Manipulation

Count on the catholics to bring up the rearguard. This issue has been around vastly longer than I think anyone realises. The longest running genetically modified source has been insulin producing bacteria. This has been going on for years before the gentic modification debate became mainstream, and nobody batted an eyelid, but with the potential to modify human life suddenly it has become a big deal. If Catholics honestly believe this is sin, then they may as well declare a lot of their drugs sinful also. They have royally ballsed up with this rule, and it only serves to show how ignorant to science they have truly been.

Human Experimentations

Now after a bit of snuffling around, I think this is meant to refer to embryo selection etc, as well as human cloning. Now, I can understand the need to regulate this carefully, but to claim it is a sin is a bit daft, in my honest opinion, sheerly because it has the potential to do so much good for mankind. In particular stem cell research, which could allow the blind to see and the deaf to hear etc etc. (sounds vaguely biblical that don't it?). To be blunt, their own mission to end human suffering can be met with this technology that they are labelling sin.

Polluting the environment

I have to give them this one. Apart from anything else this IS already in their texts and isn't such a bad point. I don't really have any argument with it except for the fact that they should really know that its already in the big book of holy dude's stuff. Climate change is happening, though the cause is still relatively unknown it does make sense to err to the side of caution, even something that big buisiness in the US has seen.

Social Injustice, Causing Poverty, and Financial Gluttony

I'm doing these three together because my argument against these is pretty much identical in each case. The argument is twofold. a) The Catholic Church has been singularly more involved in these things than any other religious body. FACT. Tithes make poor people poorer, and don't make too much of a dent in the rich's pocket, the Catholic Church has enough wealth to clear 3rd world Debt, and as for social injustice, I would say that a bundle of witch burnings, not to mention the suffering of those poor children who were victim to paedophile priests, the exlusion of the gay community, the supression of women and the ever present ritual to try to stamp out "non believers" has a lot of answering to be made for. b) These terms are to vague. At what point does richness become financial gluttony? who can be held solely accountable for social injustices? and who, pray tell, that cares about what a deity thinks, is going to be held accountable for making people poor?

Taking [illicit] Drugs

Is covered by the bible anyway (obey the laws of the nation you are in except where they come into conflict with your belief in God) and is back to the old denial of the flesh routine that has made so many people in so many places mentally ill. Furthermore, if you take drugs, then you get ill. Punishment enough says me without the eternal punishment of ones soul.

Apart from anything else, why is this being reported in secular news sources? The Catholics can find out for themselves and it doesn't affect the rest of us except to make me and Richard Dawkins peculiarly irate.

Think what need be thought,
Say what need be said,
Do what need be done.