One, I never was a wiccan. I was adopted into a Fam Trad family that was based on British Traditional Witchcraft, but my personal practice was one of druidism/celtic reconstructionism.

I was hardly what one could consider a *playgan* by any stretch of the imagination; indeed I helped found a local inter-religious pagan council here, was president of it for several years, helped write and perform many rituals; was head of the Witches’ Ball Committee for many years, and was even a pagan minister, ministering to the pagan group at the world’s largest faith-based prison.

I just hope I can be half a good a Christian, as I was a pagan.

As to “switching back and forth with ease” - I would hardly consider that the case, and if you had read any of my blogs, you too would have seen that’s simply not the case. In fact it was a very difficult decision to come to, it wasn’t easy at all, and that’s what the whole blog is about.

Once home, however, I found peace, love and a joy that I never experienced in the 13 years I was a practicing pagan.

As to making witchcraft illegal, I’m a firm believer in religious freedom. However, I am certain that if beginners to paganism were to welcomed from an enlightened soul such as yourself, the wise ones would high-tail it straight back to Christianity.

And you know what? We’d be happy to take them, with love, compassion and understanding as Christ taught us to do.

I’ll pray for you, Robyn. It surely seems as if you need it.

for some reason now, tho, st. theresa and her spirituality of imperfection is coming to my mind… my paleo pagan friend thinks neo-paganism is underground catholicism. maybe it is. what do good people do when their holy places are invaded after all? they go underground.

True, true
Diana Rigg is a fabulous actress; I’ll have to look up the movie now!

i’ve had to conclude the notion — that there were ever blessings of same-sex unions and that the unions were akin to marriage — is pretty dubious. i’ve also had to conclude, along the lines of foucault-the-philosopher, that the notion of “sexual orientation” is a modern construct.

not, mind you, that any of the activities people enjoy are new — but the idea of “orientation” and it being a prescriptive reason for taking action on the level of formal society. the connection between romantic love and marriage in general is a pretty new invention in historic terms.

i just watched the movie *painted veil*. diana rigg plays a nun who says, “when obligation and love are one, then you have grace.” i liked that. her character is even more interesting because she doesn’t really love god anymore, but remains a nun. in judeo-christian terms obligation is actually the minimum requirement. you get a pass for meeting your obligations without love; loving while letting your obligations go, and you get stopped at the gates.

or in other words, in catholicism, there is only one orientation: chastity in everything. acting on pure impulse is totally out.

i feel people should be openly gay. that’s who you are, that’s who you are. i think being gay or straight is irrelevant. what matters is if you act on impulse and if you think your impulses are a justification for doing anything.

one more, re. female priests: yeah, one takes it or leaves it. people have blamed eve for original sin, but original sin is actually termed “adam’s sin”. priests are a stand-in for jesus, and jesus is a stand-in for adam. catholicism doesn’t really paint males in the best of light; men are in need of replacement in the mythology.

i agree in not denying the sacrament of marriage to priests though.

but that’s me

i dont think that gender should have anything to do with being a church leader, nor marital status. *however*. it is my opinion that a woman with children could be distracted in her ability to serve a congregation, and that the raising of her family should come *first* and not after the needs of the community, so for that reason women should perhaps be only secondary leaders in church service.

but that’s me.