Faith Meets Life: Re-examining the seven sins
The Roman Catholic Church recently did a remake of the Seven Deadly Sins. This is not the first time most readers will have heard of the Seven. Hollywood periodically connects us with them.
In 1995 we saw the release of Se7en. Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt stared in this film about the pursuit of a killer, John Doe, who uses the sins to kill his victims, leaving a grisly trail behind.
In 1993 a mini series, “The Seven Deadly Sins,” came out. Poking around online I found “The Magnificent Seven Deadly Sins,” a 1971 “British comedy” (ok, that one is not Hollywood).
In 1967 “Bedazzled” capitalized on the Seven.
The original list of the Seven Deadly Sins goes back to before the Middle Ages, where Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century referred to them. The traditional listing is: lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, anger, envy and pride (or in reverse; the idea is that pride is probably the most dangerous). You can see that the list is not so much a list of actions or behaviors, but instead it's a list of attitudes that can get people into a lot of trouble.
For example, if we allow anger to grow in our minds, we run the risk of causing serious harm. Witness road rage or, as one of my friends recently quipped, parking lot rage, when a spot he was aiming for was taken by another driver. “Cold Case Files” and “Judge Judy” are filled with characters who have not managed to deal with these seven “deadly” attitudes.
This list created by teachers in the Christian Church has an interesting parallel, or really, a list of opposites that correspond to the list of sins or vices. These “Seven Virtues” are chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness and humility. To see how this list could play out in contrast to the first one, just consider how a home directed by the former would differ from one influenced by the latter.
On March 9 of this year, the list was upgraded. Seven more sins have been added. They are environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty, drug trafficking and consumption, morally debatable experiments, and violating human rights.*
As some people have pointed out, this list seems to be less about attitudes and more about actions. Therefore, it isn't clear that the list is an expansion of the original one. Others have commented that this is a list of actions that are social and collective in nature. The degrading of the environment, for example, is a result of our collective actions.
But does this leave people off the hook with respect to the new list? People can debate the merits of some of the actions on the new list and if they are “softer,” community sins. However, it seems to me that this new list is worth serious reflection.
It could turn out that the list is about more than broad, social currents. After all, aren't currents in our societies created by many individual decisions? For example, the list challenges me to look at how I spend money and how I vote. Much like the first list, it challenges us to examine our own individual actions, only this time there is a stronger focus on how our actions contribute to a larger whole.
* Wikipedia gives a nice overview of a lot of this stuff.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
In 1995 we saw the release of Se7en. Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt stared in this film about the pursuit of a killer, John Doe, who uses the sins to kill his victims, leaving a grisly trail behind.
In 1993 a mini series, “The Seven Deadly Sins,” came out. Poking around online I found “The Magnificent Seven Deadly Sins,” a 1971 “British comedy” (ok, that one is not Hollywood).
In 1967 “Bedazzled” capitalized on the Seven.
The original list of the Seven Deadly Sins goes back to before the Middle Ages, where Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century referred to them. The traditional listing is: lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, anger, envy and pride (or in reverse; the idea is that pride is probably the most dangerous). You can see that the list is not so much a list of actions or behaviors, but instead it's a list of attitudes that can get people into a lot of trouble.
For example, if we allow anger to grow in our minds, we run the risk of causing serious harm. Witness road rage or, as one of my friends recently quipped, parking lot rage, when a spot he was aiming for was taken by another driver. “Cold Case Files” and “Judge Judy” are filled with characters who have not managed to deal with these seven “deadly” attitudes.
This list created by teachers in the Christian Church has an interesting parallel, or really, a list of opposites that correspond to the list of sins or vices. These “Seven Virtues” are chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness and humility. To see how this list could play out in contrast to the first one, just consider how a home directed by the former would differ from one influenced by the latter.
On March 9 of this year, the list was upgraded. Seven more sins have been added. They are environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, accumulating excessive wealth, inflicting poverty, drug trafficking and consumption, morally debatable experiments, and violating human rights.*
As some people have pointed out, this list seems to be less about attitudes and more about actions. Therefore, it isn't clear that the list is an expansion of the original one. Others have commented that this is a list of actions that are social and collective in nature. The degrading of the environment, for example, is a result of our collective actions.
But does this leave people off the hook with respect to the new list? People can debate the merits of some of the actions on the new list and if they are “softer,” community sins. However, it seems to me that this new list is worth serious reflection.
It could turn out that the list is about more than broad, social currents. After all, aren't currents in our societies created by many individual decisions? For example, the list challenges me to look at how I spend money and how I vote. Much like the first list, it challenges us to examine our own individual actions, only this time there is a stronger focus on how our actions contribute to a larger whole.
* Wikipedia gives a nice overview of a lot of this stuff.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
