Some background. NPR have little programs that focus on a particular topic combine several of the stories they have done on their various programs throughout the week that fall under the umbrella of that topic. I don't know how many there are; I generally listen to the Political Rewind, NPR: Music, and NPR: Religion. On one of the programs making up the NPR: Religion podcast (normally they're news shows like All Things Considered or Morning Edition or Weekend Edition), Jesuit priest Father James Martin first commented on what the survey actually measured, saying, "You read the survey, and you could also interpret it as those are the sins they confess more. Which may not mean that they're actually sinning in that way, but those are the sins they confess most often to confessors". That is an important distinction; I remember talking to some of my friends who actually went to confession after their confirmations and made up some plausible sins because they couldn't remember any of their real ones. Measuring what people confess could be just a measure of what they generally feel expected to confess and not what they actually feel like they've done.
Father Martin also brings up the sociological aspect of who sees what as sinful, remarking, "Women may be more encouraged when they're young not to be proud and be more self-effacing. They actually may be more attentive to the sin of pride than men would be. But that may not mean that they are any more proud than men are but that they may confess it more." That was what almost laid me flat, because it acknowledged societal gender roles as playing a part in how people interpret their actions and how what may be different is not the type of sinning but what men and women consider to be sinful. "That's very similar to my thinking. I wondered if what women would identify as the sin of pride men would identify as just, you know, a bit of swaggering self confidence," agreed host Scott Simon.
Something not really addressed in the conversation but that occurred to me was the philosophical question of sin. I wondered, while listening to the podcast, whether or not men and women may not truly sin differently simply by virtue of experiencing sin differently. Or, are women, by acknowledging their pride, actually sinning where men experiencing the exact same emotions or going through the exact same actions are not, simply because they don't perceive what they're doing as sinful? Not being religious, I can't really see sin as being something existing independently of those sinning. But at the same time, I would imagine for the religious it is. Otherwise, it would simply come down to perception - and if sin is just about perception then the person who inhales a carton of ice cream could not be gluttonous and the person who had that extra piece of bread could be. And if sin is simply about the sinner's perception of sin, then men and women would sin differently - and the question would then become why a particular action or emotional response would be a sin when attributed to women but not when attributed to men. But I don't really think that's how the Vatican and the 94 year old who documented these confessions are approaching the gendered sin question; I think they really just stop short of really getting what this report could actually be saying to them.
6 comments:
I hadn't heard this story at all, yet funny enough was thinking about sin on the way home this evening (probably prompted by the explanation of Ash Wednesday from one coworker to another when the latter pointed out that she had smudges on her forehead). I remember when being asked to confess my sins, I usually just made up a bunch of things--they were true, but very general, that I didn't go to church as often as I was supposed to and cursed way too much, which is still true. But I think I rarely went into anything too deep, partly because I felt it was none of their business and didn't want to be judged or seen as a horribly deficient person, and partly because I was too ashamed or nervous. Those feelings would have included anger, jealousy and lust, with some gluttony and sloth on the side. But it never would have occurred to me that pride was a sin. I always had trouble with that one--maybe arrogance would have been the better word choice.
Hmm, very interesting post.
I like how they only list five sins for women. Apparently you all are SO prideful that you don't even bother to be gluttonous or greedy. Imagine that.
Measuring only by the sins people confess is going to lead to serious self-selection bias, for all of the reasons that you say. Let's not forget that arrogant people never think they're arrogant, they just think they're more aware of how spectacular they are than the rest of the world is.
Considering the purpose of the sacrement, I find it funny that people aren't completely honest during Confession for fear of being judged harshly. Isn't the whole idea to be completely honest with yourself in front of God, so that you can seek absolution? If you don't tell the priest that you cheated on your wife with her best friend while you were supposed to be watching the kids (and in the bed that you and your wife share, no less,) God would still know and you'd get punished all the more harshly in the afterlife. That is how it works, isn't it?
I think John's right. Sin isn't supposed to be subjective. Whether I see myself as sinful or not, God supposedly has some objective criteria by which to judge me.
I think this is the major problem with Christian morality. How does God judge, say, the legally insane - who apparently have no concept of right and wrong and derive no guilt from their actions?
How can there be any kind of judgement in an amoral context?
"Sin isn't supposed to be subjective."
It isn't supposed to be, no. But seeing as I'm an atheist, it kind of seems to be entirely subjective. If there are no Platonian Forms of Gluttony, of Pride, of Sloth, and so on, then our perception of what makes up those sins determines what those sins are for us on an individual level. And even if there are Platonian Forms of Sin, Father Martin is right that we (and the priest taking the confession) can't be sure the person has (a) actually sinned in the way they are confessing, or (b) are simply perceiving themselves to have sinned in ways they truly haven't.
And if you believe you have sinned in X way, confess that you have sinned in X way, and have done penance for X, wouldn't it stand to reason that you have by all accounts sinned?
And if you don't think that you've sinned, truly deeply don't see your actions as sinful, and thus don't confess, there is no indication that you have.
Of course, the the flip side of that may be a case where women are confessing sins of pride they may not have committed and a whole bunch of men are on the roller coaster ride to fiery eternity in Hell, which to my mind is just as problematic in terms of theology and belief.
Kind of like all those poor people who may or may not have been in Hell for eating meat on fridays before the Second Vatican Council. If it wasn't a sin and the church said it was, then people were abstaining and confessing and thinking they had sinned - and thus thought of themselves as sinners. And if it was a sin, then all the people who nicely abstained from eating meat or had the luck of getting to a priest and confessing their sin and their guilt and being absolved for it before dying and who were in heaven kind of got the pointy edge of the stick because they followed the rules and all those who didn't still ended up in heaven.
"I think I rarely went into anything too deep, partly because I felt it was none of their business and didn't want to be judged or seen as a horribly deficient person"
I have to say, I had a good chuckle over this! MM, I think you did confession wrong!
"Let's not forget that arrogant people never think they're arrogant, they just think they're more aware of how spectacular they are than the rest of the world is."
We are more aware.
"And if you believe you have sinned in X way, confess that you have sinned in X way, and have done penance for X, wouldn't it stand to reason that you have by all accounts sinned?"
I don't think so. A person (even a priest) can simply be wrong about what constitutes a "sin," right? But, in theory, God should know whether it is ACTUALLY a sin, since he makes the rules.
Either way, this is a huge theological problem because everyone is supposed to have God's law written on his or her heart. I'm not sure why God would write His commandments differently for different people . . .
"I'm not sure why God would write His commandments differently for different people . . ."
Just to mess with us. It's God's little way of playing a prank.
Post a Comment