Satanism/Luciferianism-- Gnosticism?!

On YouTube there is a documentary called Killuminati which has prompted this post. The documentary isn't even finished being produced in all it's parts but it deserves commentary from a gnostic.  There is a deep misunderstanding brought to the surface during the 9th section which directly shows just how gnosticism gets lumped in with the evil crowd. This is instructive as this is precisely the kind of garbage being perpetuated world wide. It is important that we clear up this grave misunderstanding because... you're reading a gnostic blog!

Let me state emphatically here, right now-- gnosticism is not Lucifer worship, Satan worship, or anything you can possibly contrive about that(those) entities. I do not and would never worship anything evil. I loathe evil. I recognize it for what it is: bad stuff! I do not worship chaos or power hungry entities.

The erroneous motif of Luciferian worship in concordance with gnosticism has a long history; it spans back at least as far as Irenaeus and his 'Against Heresies' work. (available on Amazon here)He codified what it meant to be a heretic against the almighty Church and being gnostic was the gravest sin of all why? Because to be gnostic was to tell the world(and the Pope) that you did not need clerics to tell you the nature of good and evil. You did not need anyone to 'save' your soul because we are 'born in sin.' Instead, you believed that you were born innocent; tabula rasa, and instinctively knew what is good is not to be feared, ie. life experiences. How can an experience which teaches you something be bad? The Church wants you to repent for things you haven't even done yet. You were born a sinful, dirty thing and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

The Church has tried to shove those very notions down the throat of everyone within reach for nearly two thousand years, creating the most horrific spectacle of evil on Earth. When I speak of evil I am not only inferring the molestation from priests and nuns, I'm talking about things far more profoundly evil than I can mention in my blog. Do your own reading. I'd suggest starting with Sister Charlotte Keckler. That's not even the tip of the iceburg, folks. The deeper you go the darker it gets. Research masonic lodges. Continue. Do your own reading.

I digress. Ok, so the Catholic Church is evil. Have they been pointing the finger at us(gnostics) throughout the ages as a way to divert attention from themselves? Absolutely. The problem is that there are other organizations which are directly connected with the Catholic Church which advertize themselves as non-religious orders but they in fact are. The members might not know it, though. (Masonic orders and the like. Illuminati at the core)And because they have bought into the out-of-the-field fundamentalist belief system of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden they have taken the kernel of truth gnostics take for a metaphor and spun it so wildly out of control that they make Jeffrey Dahmer look like a cute little bunny. Countless millions of people have suffered for this doctrine of hate through the millennia as a result.

What is this core metaphor gnostics know about the Garden of Eden story which gets us into so much trouble with the Church? It is simply this: the "snake" did us a favor.  But it is the identity of the "snake" itself which is only part of the problem. Roman Catholics call him Satan or Lucifer. In some stories gnostics call him pleroma or the All , the Good God, or even Sophia. Ahhhhh, so now do you see where the misunderstanding has come about? It all goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of what is good and evil, who 'God' really is, and what the purpose of life is. If you don't understand who or what 'God' is in the context the gnostics are using him then yeah, it all turns into a name calling party. But it's not even really about what names are used for which character. This isn't about names. It's about a misunderstanding of the characters themselves and where they reside in the hierarchy of Good and Evil. 

Think of a totem pole of power. But you've never even heard of the guy on top. Why not? This is what gnostics ask fundamentalists to justify every single day and they refuse. The fundamentalists are stuck on worshiping the middle man instead of the real power. And no wonder that middle man feels the need to make everyone feel bad, he's got an inferiority complex!

That's a load of tripe, most people say. Now get back to the snake. How can you call Lucifer good? Well, we don't. Satanists and Luciferians do. Catholics have gone batshit crazy through the centuries(that's obvious even to atheists) and their doctrine is so flawed that when atheists and gnostics can agree on some things you have to admit that something is amiss. The reason we can agree with atheists is because they only hone in on the Abrahamic God personality not considering other possibilities, when that is the God they're pissed off at. I've already written about this in other posts. 

Ok, so those who worship Lucifer tell everyone that the snake did everyone a favor. Gnostics also think the snake did everyone a favor. But gnostics aren't Luciferians? How is this so? I'm going to make this as simple as I can for all the fundamentalists who come here and read this post so you can understand once and for all that you can't browbeat gnostics about this issue ever again.  As a matter of fact, from now on I'm going to consistently link people who make this assumption directly to this post. Here's the definitive answer.

Satanists and Luciferians were initially inspired by gnostics but have run so far afoul of the concepts that they have gone insane. That's the whole problem right there. They're nuts. They're fundamentalists of Evil. Gnostics want nothing to do with Luciferians or Satanists. Then why do we get tarred with the same brush?? Let's break it down.

Luciferian/Satanist point of view:

1.  Luciferians/Satanists believe Lucifer/Satan was either cast out of Heaven unjustly and/or created this world.
2. Luciferians/Satanists believe the God of the Old and New Testament(Jehovah/Yahweh) is evil. He wants to enslave humanity. 
3. They believe the 'snake' is Lucifer/Satan and that he should be worshiped and/or revered because he opened Adam and Eve's eyes to what freedom they could have outside God's protective garden.
4. Wiki: "While Satanists are deeply involved in living for the moment, content to remain who or what they currently are, Luciferians seek ways to aid humanity’s progression to the next stage of social, physical or intellectual evolution. One religion deals with the self, while the other deals with humanity as a whole and the natural world in which we live. In spite of using similar archetypes, the Luciferian pursuit of knowledge and understanding has little in common with the Satanic goal of immediate gratification."
5. Wiki: "Rather than focusing on “what comes next,” Luciferians feel that humans should be focused on this life and how to make the most of it every single day. Enlightenment is the ultimate goal."
6. Wiki: "Luciferian principles highlight truth and freedom of will, worshipping the inner self and one’s ultimate potential as opposed to bowing to the rules of a supernatural entity. Traditional dogma is shunned as a basis for morality on the grounds that humans should not need deities or fear of eternal punishment to distinguish right from wrong and to do good."
7. Wiki: "Most theistic Luciferians, however, are solitary practitioners, connecting with others who share their beliefs but not forming or following a particular institution. A personal relationship with Lucifer is commonly achieved through meditation and the practice of Magick, either independently or in small groups, unaffiliated with a larger community. While this relationship is a deeply personal one and, as such, varies from one practitioner to another, it follows by default the Neo Pagan approach of seeking camaraderie and inspiration rather than the father/child or master/servant dynamic of monotheistic beliefs. The thought of a spiritual hierarchy or submission to a higher power is looked down upon on the grounds that being a god is not enough; even a deity must earn respect and admiration from those who follow him. In some cases, Lucifer is seen as a rebel angel or opposing god who sought to move humankind forward in defiance of Jehovah’s will to keep them ignorant and childlike. In other cases, Lucifer is believed to be the actual creator of Earth and the mortal realm, and was punished for bringing humans into existence. Exact beliefs and practices vary greatly, as they do within any religion, but in all cases Lucifer is considered to be a positive figure of both social and intellectual progress, with magick and ritual as potential tools to follow in his footsteps."
8. Wiki: "Most, but not all, atheistic Luciferians are involved with the occult and practice magick, ritual and meditation. They do not accept the idea of non-corporeal entities but do often follow the occult as a means of harnessing the natural powers and energies around them to achieve their goals. In this way, many embrace the concept of Lucifer as the inner self, and essentially deify themselves by striving to understand, change and recreate the world around them, becoming their own “gods.” Striving for apotheosis is a common theme among most Luciferians, but the approach runs particularly strong amongst atheistic practitioners."
9. Wiki says: "Luciferianism does not support violence or amoral practices. Luciferians strongly believe in equality, moral excellence, honesty and integrity. They support the moral and intellectual development of children in particular, and the protection of the natural world." 
10. Man is meant to overpower those who are weaker than they are. Might makes right!
11. Greed is good. Look to the robes, symbology, accoutrements, and palaces of the Pope to see a good example of this. Follow the money and the history. Catholicism is Luciferian at its root. Magic is practiced every single day for its parishioners in open view and they accept it as being holy and good. This magic is used to tether people to dogma and a perception of perpetual sin and redemption. Luciferians will not admit to their connection with Catholicism, though. An ex-Catholic is a completely different story. They tend to open right up and tell it all, quite fearfully.

Gnostic point of view, in no particular order:

1. The demiurge(Jehovah) created this universe and declared himself God because he didn't know he wasn't the only one. His mother, Sophia, created him and was so embarrassed by him that she put him in a vacuum-like area. So he himself was all he could see. He thought he was God. He thought he just sprang forth from nothing and was all-powerful. 
2. There is no Satan in gnosticism, only layers of ideas or realms of ideas and spirits which can influence human beings which are called Archons. They vary in philosophy and purpose. They are spirits.
3. All gnostics are theists. We believe in a deity and spirits, if not several levels of them. We do not need the God of this world(the demiurge/Jehovah/Yahweh) but we do need the All/pleroma/the Good God. Pleroma is in essence our spiritual grandfather. He is not in any of the Genesis stories fundamentalists will ever tell because to talk about him or even acknowledge his presence is an affront to them. He is a separate entity entirely from Satan. We do not have anything to do with Satan. The 'snake' in our 'Genesis' story is actually Sophia, which is an emmination of Pleroma whom he calls his 'wisdom.'
4. Gnostics understand personal metamorphosis and forgiveness. We've never tortured or killed someone because they don't convert. Gnosis can't be faked. Personal room to grow is a fundamental right of gnosis. Everyone has a place in this world, no matter how contrary their ideas may be from ours. 
5. Humans are already free by birth. Humanity didn't need a helpful 'nudge' from any snake; we were born perfect and whole and fully capable of understanding good and evil simply by listening to our innate common sense. That innate common sense is our soul, which is divinely connected to pleroma/the All. We derive our common sense and conscience from him, directly. Bad people tune him out, good people tune him in. It's that simple. You are accountable for your actions and expected to act in a mature fashion. If you don't act in a mature fashion then you'll simply make yourself miserable. You get what you give.
6. Jehovah/Yahweh is evil. He has a purpose(overseer of this material world) but he is evil at the core. He wants to separate us from Big Love(pleroma) because he wants us to worship him instead of the real Love above him. He wants to keep us in fear and suspicion over every little move we make and every thing we think, saying they're sins and that we're too stupid to learn from our own mistakes and we need to blindly trust in Him to think for us.  Instead of allowing free will, his apostles feel they have to threaten humanity with tales of brimstone and fire to keep us all under their thumb and giving tithes to churches which revel in sins themselves. We already know what's right and wrong! We have a conscience. We don't need man telling us right from wrong. We can teach and influence one another but ultimately we are very intelligent beings and can sort this out for ourselves.
7. We co-opted the Garden story to argue with fundamentalist Christians. (Our Genesis story is drastically different, see #1.) We don't even believe it really happened. It's a metaphorical story.  Humans didn't magically 'rise up' from any garden. When gnostics have talked about it historically it is to create a dialogue about the differences between Jehovah(demiurge) and the Good God(pleroma/fullness/totality/the All) for visual and demonstrative purposes. Like using puppets to get the point across as to the intent of the subjects. Sophia was the puppet for pleroma, saying to Adam and Eve, "Hey! This jackass is lying to you! You live in a much livelier world than he's telling you about. There are colors you've never even seen before and they're all available if you remove the choke collar from your neck. Choking something you love isn't good or loving."
8. The material world is bad. Greed is bad. The material world is a distraction from the Good God who waits one day to fully merge with us again after death. Our lives do have meaning and it is to experience all we can of in this world and this existence so we learn from it; so we can grow more steadfast in our knowledge that good is worth living for and worth searching for. People are good at the core and will acknowledge it if you give them half a chance. 
9. Our purpose is to propagate good in people and let them see that greed in the material world hinders them from true and lasting happiness, not just after death, but here and now.  
10. We don't worship the 'inner self.' We worship pleroma, which we are divinely connected two and have always had access to.  Everyone has access to pleroma. He is the Good God attached to us by a spiritual umbilical cord. 
11. Narcisism is looked down upon in gnosticism. There isn't really such a thing as a 'person' when I look at you and then a 'person' when I look back at myself in a mirror. There is only 'us.' We all make up the body of pleroma. We have joint causes, not individual one. We are all connected and we all affect the growth of one another. Personal ambition is perpetual spiritual failure when taken to the extreme and for the wrong cause.
12. Lower level gnostics(psychic) do sometimes perform magic acts until they grow out of that need to use props to focus their energy. Ascended gnostics(pneumatic) have no need for that ceremony to understand the divine. Once fully initiated they are able to connect to pleroma with no ceremony, thus making them ascended. This is known as entering the bridal chamber. Understandably, this diversity in the ranks causes confusion to outsiders.  Some neo-pagan groups like Wicca can be seen as lower level gnostics. Some pretend that they are capable of gnosis but are not; they may even use some of the same names for spirits. They hold the same snare and hooks as dogmatic religion and fully intend to keep their practitioners there at the same level. It depends on the intention and the path being taken.  The lower deities and imaginative emmanations from humanity's past are merely footstools to ultimately arrive at the truth of pleroma and once that truth is realized those lower spirits become trivial. The goal is to use the power of one's own soul and mind to connect to the Good God, not to use magical props as a spiritual crutch.
13. Gnostics believe in reincarnation but not in Hell as literalist Christians have written about it. No fire and brimstone await us. The closest we come to 'Hell' is when we have lived a bad life and made bad choices and when we die we are put in a place furthest out from the Good God while we await to be reborn. Distance from the Good God isn't pleasant, it is painful because we're so jealous of those closer to him, but it is of our own choosing. When we choose to get closer to him in life then we enter into a ring of afterlife closer to him in distance. This is more pleasant because we can see him and sense his warmth and love for us. The ultimate goal is to finally merge with him completely and stop being reborn in the material world. To get there, you have to do GOOD!

The whole point is really this: Satanists/and Luciferians are inspired by gnosticism but they have taken one kernel truth of gnosticism(Jehovah being bad) and run so far out into Candyland with it there's no turning back. They're evil because they want to be evil. Period. They can't see any possibility for the existence of the Good God because they're so hell bent on hating Jehovah.

Protect the natural world? This sounds like a PR line. What are they, Greenpeace for the Morning Star? Ritual animal and human sacrifice. Sex magic with unwilling minors. Yes, they're really humanitarian in nature.

Gnostics do not collude with the Devil. (We leave that to the very capable hands of the Catholic Church.) Gnostics are heretics by definition of the Roman Catholic Church but only because the Church is so jealous and greedy. There is no money to be made in gnosis. They can't control us, they've never been able to. They've only ever been able to kill us. There is only personal understanding to be had; no power even, in gnosis. The only power which exists in this world is that of the Evil One because he rules this world but not our spirits.

The most pure hearted gnostics have always been dirt poor and lived in the gutters of their community.  Or, they've created communities which revolved around gnostic concepts and then had them razed to the ground by the Church. Read about Pope Innocent III and his rationale for wiping out the south of France.

I hope this article has helped dispel the myths. If you can think of anything I can add to make this even better please leave me a comment.

PS. Please pardon me for using Wiki as a source. Concerning Satanism/Luciferianism, all the other sources I found were basically saying the exact same thing as Wiki. So we know who's editing Wiki, right? 

Satanic Vatican

I tripped across another blogger's page a few days ago discussing the "Austrian Bishop supports call to disobedience" and was inspired to comment on the article. Below I am recounting the comments and have separated out my responses to make it easier on the eyes.

Brantigny writes: "Disobedience comes from pride."

I answered: "Disobedience can come from pride. But it can also come from a realization and awakening through gnosis, that things are stagnant. The world is changing and Christianity has changed with it through time. The All is constant but our human hearts need to soften up from all the self-imposed dogma and see the light that's trying to shine through from Him to us."

 

He responded: "I have looked at your profile and it confirmed that which I read. You have gnostic point of view. We will shall have to part with ideas there.

Christ founded his Church on the Rock of Saint Peter, gave the apsotles the facility to forgive sin (or not) and began the line of succession for the head of His Church. This is the beginning of the Church. Straying (disobediance)from the Church's teaching puts one outside HIS Church. The Church remains constant, God never changes his mind, therefore what he has revealed remains the same. Disobediance to the faith therefore is disobediance to God.

This Bishop is the most basic essence has placed himself out side the Church, and by extention an anti-Christ.

This is what s meant by Ex Eclesia, nulli salus. Outside the Church there is no salvation.

The Bishop has sworn a vow, that is, not to the Pope but to GOD that he will be obediant. If I were going to break a promise it would not be to God. Lastly, The Church is not a democracy nor is it a cafeteria where one can pick a disciple or an obediance, or a doctine not to follow and those you choose to follow.

Jhesu+Marie,

Brantigny

I wrote back: 

 

Keeping that 'obedience' in mind, watch this documentary on just what a beautiful past the Catholic church has professed and the satanic idolatry which lies at it's very heart:


(Over four hours long)

Yes, we'll disagree about dogma vs. freedom, Brantigny. I'll keep my freedom to enjoy God's direct lessons on love and morality. I don't need someone who is just as human as I am to dictate to me what is right or wrong. I prefer to go directly The Man Himself and bypass any misunderstandings in interpretation along the way.

I find something so perplexingly beautiful about gnosis in that no matter what century, no matter what language one uses, and no matter what level of understanding one has before searching directly for gnosis we all find that He teaches the same thing: Love. Cohesion. Marriage of the heart and soul with Him. To enjoy beauty in not just the earth but to search for the beauty in others because we recognize that divine connection in them. We celebrate it because we recognize that we are all One in spirit.

What is cohesive and loving is not bad. What professes to teach a human being to grow into an adult relationship with Him and not keep us children forever shouldn't be so scary that one should feel they have to run toward strict dogma because it is so much simpler to understand and practice. But that is the way most literalists feel. It's so much easier to believe than it is to reach out and hold the actual truth with both hands. It's so much less terrifying to go the easy road and sit, kneel, stand, sit, kneel, stand, etc.

The Beloved I love isn't archaic and dry and bent on forcing me into a mold. He lifts me up and teaches me to smile; showing me things I've never considered before. He shows me my errors and shows me in what ways he is proud of me. It's never hateful or judgmental, it is always gentle and understanding.

Please don't judge gnosis to be something to be brushed off. You're going to find that with the Nag Hammadi codices being published now for quite a few years, you're going to hear a lot more about us. The Vatican is tearing itself apart inside and for good reason: the truth will out. They can't keep up appearances any longer because the public is more discerning and knowledgeable.

I wish you all the best,

Angel

I fully expected that he'd ignore my comment and delete it. But no, shockingly, he did post it and then responded with:

"Listen Angel, fisrt and as sincerly as I possibly can say with out hate in may heart, I never agree to disagree. I write the truth. Obediance to the Church is disobediance to evil. Satan has furnished this idea that the Church founded by Christ Himself is inherently evil because it is not a democracy, of people can not choose this or that and pick and choose which dogmas to believe or to reject. Unfortunatly this is a rejection of Christ in its fullest form.

I think I wrote before this is post hoc ergo propter hoc pilosophy, meaning that because Catholic do this or that it must therefor be evil.

I think you will find the Vatican is in better shape than you think. It has lasted since Constantine, that is a long road to go.

One last thing I want to bring up since the 31st of October is the anniversary of the Reformation. It is also Samhain the pagan feast ot the dead. So my point is don't read into any statues and ritual as being from satan in the church, take it for what it is said to be.

Pax Domine,

Brantigny

~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~

I had to read his message quite a few times before the full scope of what he'd said sank into my brain. Did he not watch and read what I just did? The Luciferian motif within the Catholic Church is so blatant they're smacking people in the face with it while calling people forward to run on up and get their sacramental wine. I've already sworn off aspartame and high fructose corn syrup, I just don't think Jesus Juice is the way to go anymore. My communion with the divine is just that- divine! It is one-on-one, beautiful, fulfilling, and there's no need to get fruit involved in it or priests who can't keep their wandering hands to themselves.

The Reformation 'coincidence' in the calendar just makes me shake my head. So the Pope has an upside-down cross carved into his throne, carries a Satanic figure on his staff, wears a pagan symbol/shaped hat which is encrusted with jewels while the majority of his flock are just about starving to death. Phft. You couldn't get me to bend down on my dimpled knees to that man if my ass was on fire and he held the last cup of water on Earth.

Forcing Gnosis

A friend has expressed for some time now frustration in trying to keep to a certain practice to find enlightenment. To force gnosis is like trying to force a brick through the eye of a needle. I don't think we're hardwired to accept the daily grind on top of a completely open connection to the divine 24/7. We're too distracted by our responsibilities, family and friends... FOOD! Our body needs sustenance and by gosh we have to work for a living.

Keeping a spiritual calendar seems to inhibit some people's growth. Mandatory time set aside or scheduled ...eh. It's not very organic feeling after a while. And so we find excuse after excuse and emergency after emergency to delay or reschedule our 'practice.' How do you practice for life, exactly? In my experience gnosis comes in fits and starts, droughts-a-plenty when everyday responsibilities have to be taken care of, and a torrential flood has to be harnessed when we are calm and open to possibilities.

So what is a contemplative person to do? Do we become nuns and monks? Do we throw ourselves out on the streets and live in an even more precarious place? Viktor Frankle has a few sage words in Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy:

"What is called self-actualization is, and must remain, the unintended effect of self-transcendence; it is ruinous and self-defeating to make it the target of intention. And what is true of self-actualization also holds for identity and happiness. It is the very "pursuit of happiness" that obviates happiness. The more we make it a target, the more widely we miss.

It may now have become clear that a concept such as self-actualization, or self-realization, is not a sufficient ground for a motivational theory. This is mainly due to the fact that self-actualization, like power and pleasure, also belong to the class of phenomena which can only be obtained as a side effect and are thwarted precisely to the degree to which they are made a matter of direct intention. Self-actualization is a good thing; however, I maintain that man can only actualize himself to the extent to which he fulfills meaning. Then self-actualization occurs spontaneously; it is contravened when it is made an end in itself...

We have to beware of the tendency to deal with values in terms of the mere self-expression of man himself... If the meaning that is waiting to be fulfilled by man were nothing but a mere expression of self, or no more than a projection of his wishful thinking, it would immediately lose its demanding and challenging character; it could no longer call man forth or summon him.... I think the meaning of our existence is not invented by ourselves, but rather detected."

Alright, so if gnosis can't be forced and only detected then how do we go about detecting it? How do we sniff this thing out? How do we call it out from wherever we think it's hiding from us? It's not like a dog who'll come hither with a little doggy treat and a "Here boy! Here ya go! Come get some treats and a scratch behind the ears."

Gnosis is more like a sneaky feline hiding under your bed reaching out to swat your ankles every once in a while. You jump in shock, turn around, and yell at... no one? And yet you still sense the cat in the room. You know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is there. Otherwise you wouldn't keep tip toeing past the bed, right? And in the deepest part of your soul you wouldn't be reaching out to it asking for more information. Heck, if you didn't know it was there you wouldn't be asking about it!!

Human life is rough. Most of the time we don't know which ends is up and which end is down. So what do we do about this? How do we sort out these emotions concerning what we Want and what we Need in order to lead a learning life? I say a learning life instead of a good life because  we don't become wise without stepping in a few mud puddles or even crashing head first into a few walls. We learn by making mistakes; trying things out to see how they feel to us. How do we make progress, to climb up out of the well of frustration we feel we're always in?

I believe that fear holds us back as well as ignorance. It's like being told that there are no monsters under the bed and yet we continue to watch scary movies which scare the crap out of us. I can also equate this to reading literalist holy books with the mindset of Fear(of God) leading to Redemption. And so mentally we live life in fear, huddled with our blankets covering our heads(and hearts). 'If I can't see it then it can't see me,' type mentality. Or worse yet, 'if I am scared of everything then I've got all the bases covered.' But if you're truly reaching out for something good what must you do to overcome this fear? The answer is to read, listen, and relax.

First, I got over my fear of being exposed to the pathogen of anything not accepted by a literalist faith church. (This took years. It did not happen overnight.) I actively sought out books which they condemned. My curiosity has not led me astray yet. When you read the texts which a literalist considers evil then it gives you a new perspective on the people who say that these ideas are bad. When you realize that you don't have to have faith in something unseen but that you can truly BELIEVE in something you KNOW is real(gnosis) and have daily experiences with him(the good god/pleroma/the All, etc is not silent. He's a chatterbox, actually) then the literalist argument turn to dust and you're left with the truth.

Here are a few activities I've participated in which have brought me peace and helped develop a closer relationship with the good god:

• Yoga: it forces your brain to shut up and opens your heart to possibilities. We store stress in our bodies like we store energy from the food we eat. To find peace you must find calm. Yoga is detoxifying, confidence building, and creates a calm place in your heart to retreat to when the world becomes too much. www.yogajournal.com is a wonderful resource. Their articles are fantastic. Start with baby steps and you'll really surprise yourself!
• Meditation: there are several methods. Meditation on the very cusp of sleep seems to work the best in the beginning for most. The more relaxed you are the easier it is to find that quiet spot in your mind. Make sure you keep a notebook and pen handy. Breathe naturally and slowly and don't be freaked out by the light shows and nonsensical seeming dramas going on in your head. It's simply your consciousness waking up; like jump starting a dead battery on a car. Just relax and enjoy the sound of your own heart beat. If you start with yoga and then try to meditate at a different time that day, don't be surprised if during your 'dutiful lotus position meditation' you suddenly feel the urge to get up and stretch your body into a yoga position(asana) with your eyes still closed. Go with it. You'll find that you're letting yourself dive deeper into your consciousness by the movements. Your mind will still with your body's movements. Go with your instincts. If you feel the urge to lay in Child Pose during a portion of your meditation and then some modified version of Downward Dog... go with it! There are no rules written in stone for finding a place of peace-- however you will find a great deal of success to be had by trying out some suggestions by people through the ages who have struggled with the same struggles you are. You don't have to sit still in order to meditate.
• Reading: definitely! Dig deep into philosophy, the arts, and comparative religion books. If you're truly struggling then grab a philosophy 101 book. See a person or topic of interest? Research them! Dig deeper and wander around to your heart's content.
• Painting: Color is powerful to the human psyche. Let go. Don't paint between the lines- make your OWN lines! Or better yet, don't let lines exist. Let the color flow.
• Write: keep a dream journal. Also, keep track of your process and progression by giving yourself a small writing assignment on topics as they come to mind. Some beginning topics can be "what I think about ____this____ religion or philosophy" and you can move on to other philosophies and schools of thought. Really though, any religion IS a school of thought. It has structure and confines; it is a school. You've got your mascots(crucifixes, Star of David, a moon and star, etc), your cheerleaders(clergy), and then you've got your students(parishioners). Can you stay within the confines of the school? Do you want to? What do you get out of it? Do you live in fear or do you live in love? You can also write reviews of books you've read and try to put into words your feelings about their ideas.

Gnosis isn't a school of thought, though. It's a process and a path. It rips the roof off the schoolhouse of literalism and turns the walls into dust. There are so many sects of gnosticism that one would think wars would have broken out though so many millenia. No, no wars and no Crusades of any sort. Gnostics don't kill non-gnostics. 

Gnosis is inclusive, not exclusive, unlike literalist religions or the confines of philosophies. Gnostics everywhere realize that we are all in various states of awakening and that we must respect that process in one another in order to respect that in our self. To expect change is to live your life to the fullest and that is what the good god wants for us- to live and learn.

So it's vitally important that you learn about the differences between various world religions and philosophies. The more educated you are the more information will naturally flow to you from the All. Connections will be made which you couldn't have expected. You'll think you visited a library in your dreams. Guess what? You did!

No question is left unanswered, even the big ones. He wants you to learn. He wants you to not live in ignorance but instead to live in love. To live in love you have to learn about love itself. This requires study. So consider yourself a student in the school of love. This does not mean you will never cry again. This simply means that you will learn to dissect this experience we call life and not take it for granted; to live IN THE MOMENT with our heart wide open to possibilities. We have the potential to learn so much from one another but if we can't even look each other in the eye then there is a lot of learning lost and thus, a lot of love lost.  

A simple exercise in love can be resolving to look everyone you walk past today in the eye and give them an acknowledging nod and smile. Gauge their reaction. Keep a mental tally of who smiles back at you and who does not. You'll learn quite a bit about our society today with just this one simply action.

Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies trying to rein in his flock of Christians for control of an empire. He repeatedly states, "they have not examined the Gospels..." thus creating a circular argument that leads NOWHERE. No one is wiser. No one knows any more about life or death than what is supposedly in those hand selected Gospels. The clergy hold the door handle to Heaven and Jehovah help you if you don't pay your tithe or eat the sacramental bread.

The answer is so easy. You already know it. You've always known it! It's there, right there inside that bright spark you hold dear: your conscience. It speaks to us every day. But the Eternal Truth is not so easily seen or heard when we have blinders on with the so-called reality we see every day around us. So we must study, pray, and listen. And then we learn how to love.

 

Bishop + Family = Shameful Hush Money?

Blog author's comments below article.

Catholic bishop resigns, admits he has 2 kids

Archdiocese of Los Angeles assistant bishop had a secret family in another state

updated 1/4/2012 11:16:46 AM ET

VATICAN CITY — An assistant bishop of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles has resigned because he has a secret family, including two teenage children.

The Vatican said on Wednesday that Pope Benedict had accepted the resignation of Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop of the diocese which has been plagued by sexual scandals.

A brief Vatican announcement did not give the reason for Zavala's resignation, saying only that the pope had accepted it under the norm in canon (Church law) that says a bishop who is ill or otherwise unfit to carry out his duties should resign.

But Zavala's direct superior, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, has prepared a letter for the faithful in the archdiocese explaining the circumstances of the departure of Zavala, who was assistant bishop for the San Gabriel region of California.

In the letter, a draft of which was obtained from a Catholic Church source in Rome, Gomez said Zavala, 60, had informed him in early December that he was the father of two teenage children who live with their mother in another state.

The Catholic Church demands celibacy from its priests.

"Bishop Zavala also told me that he submitted his resignation to the Holy Father in Rome, which was accepted. Since that time, he has not been in ministry and will be living privately," Gomez says in the letter.

"The Archdiocese has reached out to the mother and children to provide spiritual care as well as funding to assist the children with college costs. The family's identity is not known to the public, and I wish to respect their right to privacy," the letter says.

Gomez asked for prayers "for all those impacted by this situation and for each other as we reflect on this letter."

Zavala's resignation under a cloud was the latest headache for the diocese, which paid a $660 million settlement in 2007 for cases of sexual abuse going as far back at the 1940.

Zavala was also the latest Catholic Church official who was found to have had a secret family.

The late leader of the Legionaries of Christ religious order, Father Marcial Maciel, who died in 2008 at the age of 87, lived a double life for decades that was not discovered until after his death.

Maciel, a Mexican, was found to have abused seminarians. He was also discovered to have had a mistress with whom he had fathered several children.

@@@~~@@@~~@@@~~@@@~~@@@~@@@

My most immediate concern with this situation was money.

"Since that time, he has not been in ministry and will be living privately," Gomez says in the letter.

Living privately. And supporting himself privately? Really? And then we learn that the Church is putting together a college fund for this bishop's children?! I am all for compassion but why exactly should faithful followers of the Church pay for this man's illegitimate(in his ex-employer's view) children? If I was one of those faithful I'd be frothing at the mouth mad. Compassion doesn't mean rolling over and handing people hush money. Not that it'd help in this case. The story would have gotten out any way. I do not understand the Catholic sense of 'compassion' here. Is it to make sure the kids don't get on the news circuit to tell what it was like having a bishop as a father?

Another commenter to this article states: "So, a bishop who has consensual sex with an adult resigns. Priests who rape children are allowed to continue being priests. Really?"

Someone else responded with, "Celibacy, was instituted in the 4th century, to keep the clergy from gathering wealth to pass on to their family's and children, thus depriving the Church of it's revenue; it is out of date and must be changed; the Vatican has now allowed married pastors of other faiths to convert to Catholic and become Catholic priests and remain married; if the Catholic Church wants to exist in the next century it will do away with celibacy."

Hear hear! Get your grove on and then get into the organization of your choice! (sarcasm) But I agree that the celibacy yoke needs to be removed from their requirements. If you're in a position of authority over people's souls(supposedly) then why put this sort of stipulation in the job contract which most people can't keep to? I think it is a recipe for failure by its very nature. Celibacy should be a private choice, not part of a job contract.

Just gosh darn beautiful

I've been thinking about vampire author Anne Rice's erm... deconversion? if that's the word, from atheist to Catholic to just plain Christian. If not an atheist again. Not quite sure about that last bit. She may have just simply lost her temper in a really bad way saying,

"In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian."

Hmm... like I said, not too sure about her truly shedding the Christian mantle. Gnostics could claim all these things in her above quote. Some Gnostics call themselves Christians while others consider the word to be too ugly and tainted to use anymore as a true descriptive when speaking of spiritual gnosis. The Roman Catholic Church has spawned too many degenerate bastardized subsidiaries to know what's fact from fiction; the whole while claiming to have the patent and apostolic succession to divine grace. No wonder she's confused and pissed off! She may have sworn off the RCC but that does not mean she's an atheist once again.

Anyway, today I was sitting back a while ago and admiring my shelf of first editions from her vampire series (Thank you, hubby! XOXOXO you're the best! he's such an eBay whore. Very useful at times.) and a descriptive phrase from several of her books jumped into my mind.

"The totality of salvation."

Her vampire character, Lestat, uses the phrase several times throughout the series. The first time was, I believe, in Memnoch the Devil and the most recent was Blood Canticle. "The totality of salvation" is Lestat's personal vision of God. All mysteries solved and laid bare. The chaotic ripples and twists of the universe calm under the divine eye of Truth.

I like it. I've adopted it. It is now in my personal library of chosen ways to view the universe in all its complexity.

Statisticians have elegant formulas for supposedly solving 'chance encounters' and 'coincidence' problems but honestly, I can't think of anything more beautiful than this phrase. It rolls off the tongue like pure poetry and settles into the mind like a soothing balm.

The Totality of Salvation.

... even if, though gnosis, we don't really have anything to be saved from but our own inherent human blindness, it's still a beautiful credo.

If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion."

Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.

Excommunicated Catholic Nun

This has been an ongoing story since last year, however I really wanted a chance to share it with you as well as comment. What does this gnostic have to say about the Vatican's action of excommunicating a nun for caring about the welfare of a stressed out and dying mother? Simply this: it shows how much you care for your flock when you're willing to sacrifice two souls instead of one.

Imagine the emotional turmoil of knowing that your Church believes you don't have a right to live; that you should have died right along with your unborn baby.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion

updated 10:21 p.m. ET, Sat., May 15, 2010

PHOENIX - A nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.

Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported on its website Saturday. The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn't had the abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.

Hospital officials defended McBride's actions but confirmed that she has been reassigned from her job as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. They said in a statement that saving the mother required that the fetus be aborted.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," hospital vice president Susan Pfister said in an e-mail to the newspaper. She said the facility owned by Catholic Healthcare West adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.

‘Automatically excommunicated’

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said in a statement sent to The Arizona Republic. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Neither the hospital nor the bishop's office would say if Olmsted had a direct role in her demotion. He does not have control of the hospital as a business but is the voice of moral authority over any Catholic institution operating in the diocese.

Pulmonary hypertension

The patient, who hasn't been identified, was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.

"This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member," the hospital said in a statement issued Friday.

A letter sent to Olmsted Monday by the board chairwoman and the president and CEO of CHW asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. The pregnancy, the letter says, carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.

"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it," the letter says. "We are convinced there was not."

McBride declined to comment.

Catholics Can't Say Yahweh Anymore?

On one hand I can understand the need to be a bit cautious about uttering the name of God-- if you believe that by uttering His name creation will be reversed, hellfire on earth, etc... etc... etc.... A name has power when you give it power, even if you're using a synonym. But this 2008 ruling of the Vatican also leaves me with an uneasy feeling of "just how PC can an organization become before slapping a "We Are PC" subtitle on their official logo?" (Besides, isn't that subtitle already taken by a certain software company?)

If the Pope did this to appease those who were appalled at uttering the name Yahweh, then shame on him. Now the freedom to say a deity's name doesn't exist any longer if you're Catholic. Congratulations, Catholics!

I'm expecting a 'leaked' report of the Vatican sending out a congratulatory letter to the Chinese any day now, for killing so many Falun Gong gnostics.

HYMNS-YAHWEH Aug-12-2008 (840 words) xxxn

No 'Yahweh' in songs, prayers at Catholic Masses, Vatican rules

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States.

At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.

Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, announced the new Vatican "directives on the use of 'the name of God' in the sacred liturgy" in an Aug. 8 letter to his fellow bishops.

He said the directives would not "force any changes to official liturgical texts" or to the bishops' current missal translation project but would likely have "some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the general intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments."

John Limb, publisher of OCP in Portland, Ore., said the most popular hymn in the OCP repertoire that would be affected was Dan Schutte's "You Are Near," which begins, "Yahweh, I know you are near."

He estimated that only "a handful" of other OCP hymns use the word "Yahweh," although a search of the OCP Web site turned up about a dozen examples of songs that included the word.

OCP is a nonprofit publisher of liturgical music and worship resources.

Limb said the company would be contacting composers to "ask them to try to come up with alternate language" for their hymns. But he said hymnals for 2009 had already been printed, so the affected hymns would not include the new wording for at least another year.

Even when the new hymnals are out, "it may take time for people to get used to singing something different," he added in an Aug. 11 telephone interview with Catholic News Service.

At Chicago-based GIA Publications, another major Catholic publisher of hymnals, no major revisions will be necessary, because of the company's longtime editorial policy against use of the word "Yahweh."

Kelly Dobbs-Mickus, senior editor at GIA Publications, told CNS Aug. 11 that the policy, which dates to 1986, was based not on Vatican directives but on sensitivity to concerns among observant Jews about pronouncing the name of God. As an example, she cited Heinrich Schutz's "Thanks Be to Yahweh," which appears in a GIA hymnal under the title "Thanks Be to God."

Bishop Serratelli said the Vatican decision also would provide "an opportunity to offer catechesis for the faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the name of God in daily life, emphasizing the power of language as an act of devotion and worship."

His letter to bishops came with a two-page letter from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dated June 29 and addressed to episcopal conferences around the world.

"By directive of the Holy Father, in accord with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this congregation ... deems it convenient to communicate to the bishops' conferences ... as regards the translation and the pronunciation, in a liturgical setting, of the divine name signified in the sacred Tetragrammaton," said the letter signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze and Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, congregation prefect and secretary, respectively.

The Tetragrammaton is YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew name for God.

"As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord,'" the Vatican letter said. Similarly, Greek translations of the Bible used the word "Kyrios" and Latin scholars translated it to "Dominus"; both also mean Lord.

"Avoiding pronouncing the Tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the church has therefore its own grounds," the letter said. "Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated."

The two Vatican officials noted that "Liturgiam Authenticam," the congregation's 2001 document on liturgical translations, stated that "the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew Tetragrammaton and rendered in Latin by the word 'Dominus,' is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning."

"Notwithstanding such a clear norm, in recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name," the letter said. "The practice of vocalizing it is met with both in the reading of biblical texts taken from the Lectionary as well as in prayers and hymns, and it occurs in diverse written and spoken forms," including Yahweh, Jahweh and Yehovah.

END

***********************

From a gnostic point of view, this little tidbit written about the hypocrisy of American politics made me cringe six different ways. I could tear that former papal aid's arguments apart but honestly, I hate American politics myself. So I'd only end up spouting a history book worth of comparative instances in which the Roman Catholic Church has been just as hypocritical. Not worth it. The 'net is full of that stuff. I'd spend days copy/pasting it and I've got more enlightening things to accomplish besides retelling two thousand years of blood-spilled treachery since the beginning of the papacy.