The Vatican inspires me to write...

I've posted an article below. I find humor in it. But first, my commentary on it. Scroll down for the article.

First let me begin by saying, I love the Catholic Church. In large part, it made me the person I am today. But as a self-identified mystic Christian-without-a-church, who admittedly entertains many heretical beliefs and practices, I think the church has gone very, very astray from the teachings and Spirit of Christ over the centuries, but especially in the past few decades.

According to 95-year old Jesuit theologian, Fr. Roberto Busa, "When you look at vices from the point of view of the difficulties they create you find that men experiment in a different way from women."

His thoughts were expanded upon by Msgr. Wojciech Giertych, theologian to the papal household (every household should have its own theologian, don't you think?), who said the most difficult sin for men to face was lust, followed by gluttony, sloth, anger, pride, envy and greed, and that, for women, the most dangerous sins were pride, envy, anger, lust, and sloth.

Well, first, I have to question the control groups being used in this experiment, who include only Italian Catholics who are prone to going to confession. It's noteworthy that Italy suffers some of the worst Catholic church attendance in Europe. Their masses are sparse and rote, despite the rich beauty of their buildings.

Dig deeper, and you will find that there's a difference between what's easy to confess and what's hard to confess. In a macho culture like Italy, you would get off easy confessing lust. It's expected, and perhaps even a point of national identity. The fact that the Catholic church is unnecessarily fixated on sexual behavior (which culturally gets laid on men's laps), makes this a no-brainer. On the other hand, it takes bone-shaking insight -- often great pain -- to realize when you've been prideful, because once you have, you've probably already really hurt someone.

In other words, it's easy to tell a stranger, "I looked at my buddy's girlfriend lustfully (lust), I ate too much pizza last night (gluttony), and I should have visited my mother instead of playing with my Wii (sloth, or something else masquerading as sloth)." But you have a lot more soul-searching to confess, "I won't call my brother because of something he said five years ago that pissed me off (pride/anger), I drank too much last night because I hate my job and feel trapped (anger), when I see my brother's wife and apartment I feel inadequate (envy), and I took credit for my co-worker's idea so that I would get the raise (greed).

I'd like to have a discussion with these theologians about the nature of sin at some point.

Women are every bit as lusty as men. If you don't know this first-hand, trust me on this. They are. They just don't talk about it. Especially to priests in confession. For starters, they don't feel so guilty about it. However, because women (generally) instinctively place a higher value on relationship, they know what pride can do. So of course they will confess pride before lust. In the confessional, these women know not to sweat the small stuff.

According to Pope Benedict, "We are losing the notion of sin." He said, "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm."

Sorry, Benny. People are confessing, but not to you, and not to the priests. (I speak in general terms here.) They are confessing to their therapists, their spiritual directors, their friends, their online buddies, wherever they find it safe, and the ears compassionate.

To be a worthy confessor, you need to create a safe space, a non-judgemental space, that doesn't threaten with hell.

That is all. Here's the article, from BBC:

Two sexes 'sin in different ways'

Italian confession boxes have been used less in recent years

Women are prouder than men, but men are more lustful, according to a Vatican report which states that the two sexes sin differently.

A Catholic survey found that the most common sin for women was pride, while for men, the urge for food was only surpassed by the urge for sex.

The report was based on a study of confessions carried out by Fr Roberto Busa, a 95-year-old Jesuit scholar.

The Pope's personal theologian backed up the report in the Vatican newspaper.

"Men and women sin in different ways," Msgr Wojciech Giertych, theologian to the papal household, wrote in L'Osservatore Romano.

"When you look at vices from the point of view of the difficulties they create you find that men experiment in a different way from women."

Msgr Giertych said the most difficult sin for men to face was lust, followed by gluttony, sloth, anger, pride, envy and greed.

For women, the most dangerous sins were pride, envy, anger, lust, and sloth, he added.

Secretive department

Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. The priest absolves them in God's name.

HIS AND HERS - THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS Men 1. Lust 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Anger 5. Pride 6. Envy 7. Greed Women 1. Pride 2. Envy 3. Anger 4. Lust 5. Gluttony 6. Avarice 7. Sloth

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell".

Traditionally, the seven deadly sins were considered: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.

The Apostolic Penitentiary, one of the Vatican's most secretive departments, which fixes the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners, last year updated its list of deadly sins to include more modern ones.

The revised list included seven modern sins it said were becoming prevalent during an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

These included: genetic modification, experiments on the person, environmental pollution, taking or selling illegal drugs, social injustice, causing poverty and financial greed.

The report came amid Vatican concerns about the declining rate of confessions.

A recent survey of Catholics found nearly a third no longer considered confession necessary, while one in 10 considered the process an obstacle to their dialogue with God.

Pope Benedict, who reportedly confesses his sins once a week, last year issued his own voice of disquiet on the subject.

"We are losing the notion of sin," he said. "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm."

The Valentine Blog

I was struck by a powerful thought a few weeks ago that has managed to diffuse any sentimentality about Valentine's Day for me this year. Valentine's Day, for many people, is SAD (Singles Awareness Day).

The marketing machine plows through our collective consciousness and unconsciousness, creating feelings of inadequacy for many of us who have no sweetheart, no flowers or candy or romantic dates. But this is hardly news for those of us who are unattached. If you've spent as many of your years single and unattached as I have, you have a lot of time to ruminate about your situation, as not only the self but the relatives and friends ask, "Why haven't you gotten married yet?"

What I'm about to say might exile us to a life of indefinite if not permanent singlehood, or maybe it will liberate us and even make us available to the partner we've always dreamed about.

The simple thought I'm putting forward is this: A relationship is a response, and not a goal.

Perhaps we've all held relationship as a goal. I know I have. "I want to be married some day." "I don't want to be alone." "I want to find my soulmate." When there is a goal, there is always looking to the future for a change in status, and with that, typically a lack of capacity for living in the present. It's natural enough, especially if you want to be a parent someday, or if there are things you fantasize about doing with a partner, generally and specifically.

What's interesting about this is that there is a role, a blank line __________ of your imagination that may or may never be filled by a special stranger. Perhaps you have a plan, and you're hoping that the universe, God, the Goddess, or whatever higher power you believe in, will provide this very special character actor to round out your special cast.

Let's look at the notion of relationship as a response. Backing away from the model of a romantic relationship, most all of our non-blood relationships are responses. I meet a guy at work, we converse about things that interest us, and we decide to hang out after work and share a drink. Over time we get to become good friends, sharing things that matter to us. Our response to encountering each other takes the form of a friendship. I eat lunch at the same restaurant every week and pretty soon the waitress knows my usual order, and over time we learn more about each other and begin a friendship that exists within the confines of the restaurant. We are responding to each other as customer and server, and then as friends because we like each other. If either of us were unfriendly, there would be no response, no relationship.

Looking at past loves with whom I'm still connected in some way, perhaps there was a goal of relationship, and that relationship ended, and whatever is left is my response to the human being whom I was privileged to spend time with. That response could be an ongoing connection, perhaps no connection at all, or something occasional. But interestingly, whatever remains may have authenticity that was lacking in the romantic phase of our relationship, simply because it arises from something that is there, instead of a goal that is created. In the same way, even a relationship that begins as a goal and deepens over time, if it is healthy, transitions to a response to the reality of who your partner is, rather than a goal. If the person remains a character, a role, instead of a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get human being, the relationship will fail, will be miserable, or both.

So consider yourself as a response waiting to happen, indeed, happening to everyone you meet in some way. Every day is the opportunity to respond to someone new, to create new relationship, to bring new levels of chaos, amusement, and depth into your life.

It has been surmised that you can't love any two people the same way, that love is defined anew every time you fall in love. I believe this is true. And I believe this is because love is, at its core, a response to someone. You cannot respond to a unique, individual human being the very same way you would a different unique, individual human being. Using the metaphor of alchemy for relationship, all of us are distinct elements that react to each other. Every combination of elements causes a unique reaction. We see that one person brings out the best in us without even trying, while another person seems to cause us to misspeak, misstep, get angry or flustered, or be awkward. Still others are like "inert" elements to us, that seem to cause no immediate reaction whatsoever.

So, if Singles Awareness Day is causing you anxiety or regret, try on this new context. Notice how you respond and react to the people you encounter in your day-to-day life. If relationship still occurs as a goal despite your best efforts, try making it into a game of just observing whom you respond to, and observing the responses. In the meantime, know that you have plenty of other elements to respond to that may show up as a myriad of relationships: best friends, lovers, companions, all based on the natural, organic response of your personal alchemy. Put yourself in the "science lab" of life as fully as you can, and enjoy all the natural relationships that ensue.

Of course, this could just be another one of many vain explanations I have come up with to explain something that I wish I had a better explanation for. But hey, I do enjoy many responsive relationships and I am happy. May you enjoy this day and whatever it brings to you. Al