The sins of economics (updated)

The visible hand in economics has written here on, in part, the question, Has the Catholic church become anti-economics? The Catholic church has added a set of new sins to the list we all already know about. The new sins are:

• Environmental pollution;
• Genetic manipulation;
• Accumulating excessive wealth;
• Inflicting poverty;
• Drug trafficking and consumption;
• Morally debatable experiments; AND,
• Violation of fundamental rights of human nature.

As the visible hand points out this list does have an anti-economics look to it. Who will want to point out that there is an optimal, and most likely positive, level of pollution? Or what to argue in favour of economic growth, during which people may accumulate wealth? Or argue in favour of a cut to the top tax rates? Also in the short term at least, environmental pollution may increase due to economic growth. Economists may also support the use of genetic manipulation, to increase crop yields for example. A number of economists have argued against the war on drugs and in favour of drug legalisation, how does this sit with the sin of drug trafficking and consumption? You do have to wonder if the implications of these sins have been thought about fully.

As to the sin of "accumulating excessive wealth", what of the wealth of the Catholic church itself?

It is also noteworthy that the BBC report on these new sins contains the following,

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

A reading of the Findlay and O'Rourke article, Lessons from the history of trade and war, on VoxEU.org, would have the Vatican thinking as to just how unstoppable globalisation really is.

Update: Not PC comments on New 'sins' for a new century.