Towards a Sociology of Sin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1989 Towards a Sociology of Sin John C. D'Mello Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation D'Mello, John C., "Towards a Sociology of Sin" (1989). Dissertations. 3148. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3148 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1989 John C. D'Mello TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF SIN by John c. D'Mello A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 1989 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee, Ors. Kathleen Mccourt, James Beckford and Roger Finke, for their guidance, constructive criticism and for the time they spent in refining this study. I owe special thanks to the students and faculty of St. Pius College, who did the major part of the data collection. For her invaluable assistance with all my computer work, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Shobha Srinivasan and for proof reading the final copy of this dissertation, Dr. John Tabor. Finally, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my parents and the members of my family for their constant support and encouragement. ii VITA The author, John C. D'Mello, born January 27, 1947, in Bombay, India, is the son of Eunice and Archibald D'Mello. His elementary and secondary education was completed at st. Xavier's High School where he was awarded the Gold Medal for academic excellence. In 1968 on completion of five years of seminary formation at st. Pius College, Bombay, India, he was awarded a Vatican Scholarship. Proceeding to Rome he received his Baccalaureate in Theology in 1970 and his Licentiate in Theology in 1972 from Universita Urbaniana, Rome, Italy. In 1973 he entered the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay, India and graduated in 1975 with an M.A. in Social Work with a First Class Distinction, winning the Shield for the Best student. Until 1978 he served as a Parish Priest and School Counsellor in Bombay, India. In 1979, he was appointed professor of Sociology and Philosophy at the Diocesan Seminary, Bombay, India. In 1983 he came to Loyola University, Chicago to pursue his doctoral studies. While at Loyola he was a graduate research assistant from 1983- 1985. From 1985-1987 he was a part-time lecturer in Sociology and statistical Consultant at Academic Computing Services. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . ii VITA . iii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF CHARTS vi CHAPTER I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND • 1 Sociological Theories of Morality • 6 Methodology . • . • • • . 30 CHAPTER II SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC NOTION OF SIN: PART ONE . • • • • • • . • . • . 36 The Jewish Heritage • • . • • . • • • • • . • . 36 The Persecution Years • • • . • • • • • • • • . 57 Doctrine of Original Sin and the Morality of War 70 CHAPTER III SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC NOTION OF SIN: PART TWO . • . 92 The Penitentials • . • • . • • . • • 92 Summas and Manuals for Confessions . • • . 123 CHAPTER IV SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE HINDU NOTION OF SIN: PART ONE . • • • • . • • . 140 The Vedic Period or Anrta • • . • • • • . • • 148 The Period of Reaction: Adharma • • • • 155 CHAPTER V SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE HINDU NOTION OF SIN: PART TWO • • . • • • • 164 The Brahminic Revival: Pataka ... 164 The Anti-Caste Period: Papa • • . • • . 187 CHAPTER VI THE SURVEY: METHODOLOGY AND PROFILE 204 Historical Sketches • • • . • • • 205 Methodology . • • • • . • • • • • 210 Profile . 223 CHAPTER VII ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY 237 General Notion Of sin • • . 237 Specific Sinful Actions . 248 CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION 276 REFERENCES 291 iv Page APPENDIX A Questionnaire . 308 APPENDIX B List of Principal Penitentials . 322 APPENDIX c List of Summas and Manuals . 325 APPENDIX D Chart of Hindu Sacred Books . 328 APPENDIX E List of Minor Sins or Upapatakas . 331 APPENDIX F Map of Bombay . 334 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Population of India by Religion • 207 2. Percent Distribution of Respondents by Religion 224 3. Respondents by Age 225 4. Respondents by Gender 226 5. Respondents by Marital Status 226 6. Respondents by Years of Education 227 7. Respondents by Income 228 8. Respondents by Place of Origin and Years Lived in Bombay • • • . • . • • 230 9. Respondents by Rural-Urban Exposure 231 10. Frequency of Visits to Church or Temple 232 11. Frequency of Reading Holy Books 232 12. Frequency of Prayer Times 232 13. Percentage Distribution of Religiosity by Religion • • . • . • 234 14. Percentage Distribution of Family Upbringing by Religion . • • • . • 235 15. Respondents' Definition of Sin 238 16. Sources of Authority Regarding What is Sinful 241 17. Skewness of Distribution by Religion • 244 18. Percentage Distribution of Explanations for the Sinfulness of Human Nature . • . • • . • . 248 19. SINDEX (Ranked for Hindus) 250 20. SINDEX (Ranked for Catholics) 251 vi Table Page 21. Mean Scores, R2 and Significance of Sexuality 256 22. Mean Scores, R2 and Significance of Faith 257 23. Mean Scores, R2 and Significance of Truth . 258 24. Mean Scores, R2 and Significance of Public Good . 259 25. Mean Scores for Sins Against Sexuality by Religion . 266 26. Mean Scores for Sins Against Faith by Religion . 268 27. Mean Scores for Sins Against Truth by Religion . 270 28. Mean Scores for Sins Against Public Good by Religion . 272 vii LIST OF CHARTS chart Page 1. Comparison of catholic and Hindu Notion of Sin from History . 280 2. Comparison of Catholic and Hindu Notion of Sin from Survey . 282 viii CHAPTER ONE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND During the time I worked with a tribal group in the interior of India, I noticed that they had the custom of trial marriage - young boys and girls mixed around freely and intimately with each other. After a period of courtship, if things worked out well between the couple, they would offer themselves publicly for marriage and the parents and the community would approve. They practised this custom innocently and never felt it to be wrong or sinful. As an Instructor in Christian doctrine, I had the reluctant task of informing them that this custom was morally wrong. Somehow I felt very uneasy about this task (an unease I did not feel, for instance, when I spoke to them about cheating or the practice of wife-beating). My reluctance stemmed from the fact that I felt that I was imposing on them my own alien cultural norms and I wondered whether I had the right to thrust notions of sin and conscience on their innocent style of life. Further, whenever a moral discussion of free social mixing was brought up, not only did I feel that they were most disinterested, but I also felt that they seemed to be 1 2 laughing inwardly at me all the while (something I did not notice when the subject of lying or honesty was brought up). There was no doubt in their minds that the custom of premarital intercourse and contraception was neither deviant, nor pathological, nor sinful. Puzzled somewhat by this "apparent lack of conscience" on their part, was I to conclude that these tribals were simply hard-hearted or was I to conclude that the notion of sin ought to be re-examined? I inclined towards the latter and when I read some of the sociological theories on morality, I was only confirmed in my conviction. Just as the notion of deviance went through change and transformation, so also the notion of sin reflected changes in the structural and cultural forces of society. For too long now had sin been studied in "splendid theological isolation"; to become more meaningful, it would have to be seen within the broader framework of history and society. Having been brought up Catholic in a society that is surrounded by Hinduism, some of the questions that ran through my mind were of a comparative nature: Why does Catholicism stress some types of sins and Hinduism, others? For instance, why does Catholicism emphasize sexual sins while Hinduism not do so? Does Hinduism, in turn, focus on sins against truth and why? Is the notion of sin in Catholicism different from the notion of sin in Hinduism? Has catholicism developed a 3 personal-individualistic sense of sin, while Hinduism a more impersonal though societal sense of sin? If this is true, what socio-historical forces brought this about? What factors brought about these unique formulations of sin? The purposes of my study, then, are first, to determine the social and structural factors that gave rise to the unique elaboration of sin in Catholicism in the historical past and at the same time what social and structural factors gave rise to the unique understanding of sin in Hinduism. Second, to find out what are the conceptions of sin that Hindus and Catholics hold today and why and what types of sins do Catholics lay stress on and what kinds of sins do the Hindus emphasize? What factors currently shape a Hindu's or a Catholic's way of thinking about sin? My study will be divided into two parts. The first part is a historical study and will go back into history to uncover the socio-cultural forces that gave rise to the notions of sin in Hinduism and Catholicism. The second part is a contemporary survey of how Hindus and Catholics currently view sin. While the historical part will illumine the social underpinnings of the present concept of sin, the contemporary survey will confirm the findings of the historical study.