In All Things
Seven (New) Deadly Sins? Or Not?
As an example of how the media sometimes can get a story wrong, or at least confuse things unnecessarily, witness the story from the March 8 issue of L’Osservatore Romano, which included an entirely sensible interview with Bishop Gianfranco Girotto, an official at the Apostolic Penitentiary, on the subject of social sin. Contrasting an older understanding of sin as more individualistic in nature, Bishop Girotto noted that sin "today...has an impact and resonance that is above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization." He pointed to a number of "social sins" (by now a familiar term to Catholics accustomed to hearing it applied to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism). Among those he mentioned were economic injustice, environmental irresponsibility, accumulation of excessive wealth and genetic experimentation with unforeseen consequences.
The media’s reporting, however, transmogrified this into something different. "Seven New Deadly Sins," wrote the Times Online, mistaking the main point of the interview, which was that these new social sins were in fact different in nature for those more individualist "deadly sins," which focused more on regulating a variety of human passions. "Vatican Lists New Sinful Behavior," wrote the Associated Press, as if accumulating excessive wealth hadn’t been already condemned by the church for centuries, and, before that by--well, Jesus for one.
My guess is that some in the media bobbled this story for two reasons, neither of them malicious. First, a general unfamiliarity with the contemporary Catholic tradition of social sin, even though under Pope John Paul II something like "anti-Semitism" was often referred to in those terms. And, second, the fact that a headline that reads "Seven New Deadly Sins" is undeniably sexier than a headline saying, "Vatican Official Deepens Church’s Reflection on Longstanding Tradition of Social Sin."
The Vatican’s intent seemed to be less about adding to the traditional "deadly" sins (lust, anger, sloth, pride, avarice, gluttony, envy) than reminding the world that sin has a social dimension, and that participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect.
In other words, if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.
Update: Here’s NPR’s take on the situation, along with some commentary by your blogger: "NPR"
James Martin, SJ
Comments (13) |
17747 Views
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
You stated that: '...participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect.'
Because sin, venial or mortal, requires some sort of willing act, institutions cannot sin. Unless, of course, you mean that it is participation in an evil act, which is surely something upon which to reflect.
But, why would that involve a deadly sin? Not that corporations going to hell is not an interesting thought experiment...
Yes, indeed. It is in that 'participation' that we can sin. That is, if you are a corporate executive who is participating (by earning profits) in a company that is polluting the environment, engaging in unfair hiring practices, or not paying a fair wage, then this is something to consider seriously when you think about your own sinfulness.
And you're also right about this not being one of the traditional seven 'deadly' sins (though you could ascribe it to greed, which is one). My point was that the media had wrongly conflated the traditional 'deadly' sins with the new addition of 'social sin.'
But to push the point even further, perhaps these new sins are, in their own unique way, 'deadly.'
Interestingly, this is precisely the reason that I no longer participate in or support the Catholic Church.
In that respect, I suppose, the Church can consider this 'lapsed' Catholic a successful product of her upbringing.
The media's excited utterances aside, it seems to me that most of these *new* sins aren't really new, although definitely newsworthy. Using Fr. Martin's examples: As Catholic Christians, we are called to fight poverty and to fight for justice (economic injustice); in Genesis, mankind is given stewardship of the earth, and Jesus' parables and the apostolic teachings provide guidance on the nature and importance of stewardship; the 'accumulation of excessive wealth' is close cousin to avarice (greed), which has long been on The List of Big Ones (mortal sins). With the exception of 'genetic experimentation,' I don't really see any *new* sins appearing on the list released by the Vatican. I don't recall when drug abuse made its appearance on the list of 'sins' but I remember being taught (and I'm of Baltimore Catechism age!) that we are created by God, and to abuse God's creation is to degrade the creation and the Creator. It seems that the list of 'social' sins is basically an updated version of venial sins with an enhanced global perspective.
Thank you, Father Martin, for your clear and common-sense response to the media's overreaction.
Debbie
I can understand you example of the executive as far as that goes, but what about the executive's secretary? She too participates in the company because her salary comes from earnings that result from polluting the environment, engaging in unfair hiring practices, or not paying a fair wage. Yet she may have no control over any of these actions.
What about the hourly worker who pollutes the environment as a result of his work? What about the corporate employee who benefits as a result of a salesperson lying to or bribing a client?
None of these people had any intent to sin, but they all 'participated' in organizations in which others sinned. Are they all morally culpable? While we certainly have some obligation when we witness questionable behavior first hand we also cannot be held responsible for the actions of the thousands of other people in our organizations. To even talk about 'institutions that sin,' paints the situation with too broad a brush.
Those are all excellent questions. I'm not a moral theologian, but I would suggest that our degree of culpability rests, in part, on how cognizant we are of the effects of our actions. That is, if the secretary fully understands that she is contributing to a grossly unethical corporation, then I would suppose that she has some soul-searching to do. Part of her paycheck, after all, is coming from the fruits of the 'bad tree.'
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.