Breaking of one of the cardinal rules of blogging (thou shalt post on a topic in a timely manner), here I go with my opinion of last Saturday's Dominion Post Editorial.
This obsession that the secular world has with sin is a good sign of a not completely dormant conscience. So in a sense it is good that pronouncements from the Vatican on sin hit the secular radar. However, it would be prudent for those that write on such subjects to at least know a bit more about them and treat the subjects seriously, rather than as an object of derision and amusement.
Unfortunately, the Dominion Post does not treat anything concerning religion with respect. Case in point - last week it published an article on the Vatican's take on the differences in sinful inclination of women vs men. And then on Saturday, the editor follows up with an opinion.
Not a serious opinion, of course. A more tongue in cheek, not sure what the point is type of opinion. Maybe the whole point was to be funny, but then, being female, I wasn't sure what part was supposed to be humorous.
Maybe it was the conclusion, the last part on the lack of female sinfulness that inadvertently also gave away the sex of the writer. For after agreeing that men are more prone to the sins of lust and sloth, the editor then speaks on behalf of all male readers that "they" disagree that women are in any way sinful at all.
However, on behalf of its male readers, The Dominion Post would like to assure women that the men in its readership area completely dissociate themselves from the monsignor's comment.Now, of course I don't believe for a minute that the writer believes that all women are complete paragons of virtue, nor do I believe that the writer also believes that every man reading the Dominion Post thinks the same.
Never have they seen any evidence that women have ever sinned, erred or even momentarily let slip the extraordinarily high standards they maintain. They lead lives of blameless excellence, to which their partners can only aspire.
And, just as soon as they've digested their lunch and the cricket has finished showing on television, they'll get up off the couch, change the light bulbs, put out the rubbish and mow the lawns.
Then perhaps, having established the mood, their partners will take the hint, head upstairs, dim the freshly installed light bulb and give in once again to sin No1 on the male hit list.
This is where I'm left wondering what the point of the editorial was.
Was it, and I'm stretching ALOT with this one, that women are such mysteries to men, that no man could ever determine or feel qualified to determine (even such a man as a Priest who has heard thousands of confessions) whether or not a woman's actions may be sinful. So, whatever a woman does is ok by them.
Or is it that the writer is taking the piss out of women by trying to be funny. By pretending we are up on a pedestal that we don't deserve, he is mocking us. Oh, most likely not intentionally. He's probably trying really hard to mock the Vatican and the whole notion that anyone could be sinful, even though he agrees when it comes to men.
But on his attempt to mock the Vatican, he instead mocks the opposite sex and leaves this woman thinking that men who attempt humour need to do so with a clear head during the light of day rather than leaving it to after a Friday night's carousing as a quick knock-up job before the deadline.
If he wants to do that, he should take up blogging instead.
Related Link: Bless Them Father ~ Stuff, Dominion Post
The general tone is gently mocking the whole concept of human sinfulness -- but if the reader actually *reads* the news of war, oppression, crime -- Sin is THE major source of news.
ReplyDeleteTo the western materialist, the Vatican is seen as an outmoded monolithic entity. They fail to see secular humanism's days of supremacy are over, the recent financial and political turmoil is a signal that God is changing all that!
Great civilizations may rise and fall, but God's love remains; the Gospel cannot be quenched.
What a grand piece of journalism, so refreshing to see a newspaper poke fun at religion.
ReplyDeletePity some thin-skinned papalists can’t see the humour in what he was talking about.
Thanks for posting the link.
By the way on what do you base you opening statement “This obsession that the secular world has with sin” on?
I’m struggling to think of a single article I’ve read in The Herald, Press or ODT etc on the subject of sin.
Please guide me towards this so-called mainstream obsession with sin you allude to.
The leading group on this planet who obsess about sin, to the ludicrous point they make lists and rankings, is the same body you kneel-down to and ask forgiveness to.
See ya.
Paul.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI could give you a list of the sites I monitor daily to keep up to date with Catholic news and what the Vatican is doing.
And I could then also direct you to the international sites I read to keep track of news in general.
And then I could point out what types of Vatican and/or Catholic news tends to excite the masses, while as what is studiously ignored.
But, I really can't be bothered.
You'll just have to take my word for it or start keeping track yourself.
Just one link from N.Z would be nice Lucyna.
ReplyDeleteI too am doing a study into just how often religious matters appear in the media (namely the Foreign News pages of Christchurch Press)and to date - sin doesn't appear once, thus my interest.
I tried google it as well - but most roads ended back at Mr Popes H.Q.
So one local link would be nice.
Ta
Paul
Considering that there's not much grovelling going on, I'm going to have to think about whether I do the work for you.
ReplyDeleteBut in the meantime, think of the last time sin made a news splash in NZ. Think back to the "new" 7 deadly sins. We even have a post on it somewhere, and we probably link to a post of dpf's on it as well.
I’m struggling to think of a single article I’ve read in The Herald, Press or ODT etc on the subject of sin.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the editorial Lucyna has just commented on is one. There's even a link.
That was easy.
As for your thoughts about the editorial poking fun at religion, your excitement over the concept helps you to miss the point.
The editor tried to poke fun at religion, but just ended up looking like a pillock.
There was another article recently (DomPost, last Saturday) where well known philosopher Peter Singer, the humanist who argues killing babies AFTER they are born is morally acceptable, was talking about ethics, morality and capitalism. The first two are just dimensions to the nature of sin and it's opposite - virtue.
Plenty of examples if one cares to look.
1 in 4 pregnancies, ends in a miscarriage, so just how many babies does God 'morally' terminate each day?
ReplyDeleteI think you want to keep things moral, in perspective there Zen, buddy.
Peter Singer (who I've never heard of)is but a light-weight, compared to the Christian God, you pray to.
Time for theists protests outside Churches one feels, with placards saying “Stop Gods Baby Slaughter” and “God has blood on his hands” etc.
Me, I’ll be sleeping-in come Sunday morning, so I can’t join you with your righteous and consistent battles to prevent abortion, starting at your local church.
And I don’t get the Dom Post (as I explained)so I’ve yet to see one of those fabled articles on ‘sin’ from collecting The Press International section for 5-6 weeks, nor The ODT.
Guess, journalists down here don’t cover ‘sin’?
Fiction isn't a big seller of newspapers in the south, I guess.
Gotta go.
Paul.
Paul you wrote the same thing on our blog then disappeared when I responded and repeated it over here.
ReplyDeleteGuess I will just have to repeat my response here then:
I doubt anyone at NZ Conservative has any more idea of how many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion each day than you or anyone else does.
Like I said at MandM, your point doesn't really have any relevance to the abortion debate.
Are you trying to say that God is a hypocrite for opposing abortion because he engages in it via miscarriages? Or do you mean that if God does it then it is ok for humans to do it?
If you follow the logic through then what you are implying is that any cause of death God uses to take life is ok for humans to use to take life too. Sure you want to go there?
Paul's point has little relevance to anything.
ReplyDeletePaul doesn't believe in God, and yet he thinks he knows what God does and doesn't do. Doesn't that strike you as just a little crazy?
I see Tom Scott used the Devil in this mornings cartoon in the Dom Post. It was just across from the weekly (mostly weakly actually) column on religion and ethics.
Bye Paul.
"Paul doesn't believe in God, and yet he thinks he knows what God does and doesn't do. Doesn't that strike you as just a little crazy?"
ReplyDeleteOnly a little crazy? You're far too charitable Zen.:-)
Reading Paul's comments is like watching a person who veers between arrogance and fear, whistling as he walks by the churchyard.
Google keeps track of sin in the news. It's big business these days, evidently
ReplyDeleteWhat a fascinating link, Ropata.
ReplyDeleteinteresting huh. if the graph is remotely accurate (which is dubious) then one would expect God to intervene fairly drastically..
ReplyDelete