Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Evil Genius?

DESCARTES' EVIL GENIUS
by O. K. Bouwsma

THERE WAS ONCE AN EVIL GENIUS who promised the mother of us all that if she ate of the fruit of the tree, she would be like God, knowing good and evil. He promised knowledge. She did eat and she learned, but she was disappointed, for to know good and evil and not to be God is awful. Many an Eve later, there was rumor of another evil genius. This evil genius promised no good, promised no knowledge. He made a boast, a boast so wild and so deep and so dark that those who heard it cringed in hearing it. And what was that boast? Well, that apart from a few, four or five, clear and distinct ideas, he could deceive any son of Adam about anything. So he boasted. And with some result? Some indeed! Men going about in the brightest noonday would look and exclaim:
"How obscure!" and if some careless merchant counting his apples was heard to say: "Two and three are five," a hearer of the boast would rub his eyes and run away. This evil genius still whispers, thunder ing, among the leaves of books, frightening people, whispering: "I can. Maybe I will. Maybe so, maybe not." The tantalizer! In what follows I should like to examine the boast of this evil genius.

I am referring, of course, to that evil genius of whom Descartes writes: "I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, the colors, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but illusions and dreams of which this evil genius has availed himself, in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things." (Philosophical Works of Descartes, trans. E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1912), 1, 147)

This then is the evil genius whom I have represented as boasting that he can deceive us about all these things. I intend now to examine this boast, and to understand how this deceiving and being deceived are to take place. I expect to discover that the evil genius may very well deceive us, but that if we are wary' we need not be deceived. He will deceive us, if he does, by bathing the word "illusion" in a fog. This then will be the word to keep our minds on. In order to accomplish all this, I intend to describe the evil genius carrying out his boast in two adventures. The first of these I shall consider a thoroughly transparent case of deception. The word "illusion" will find a clear and familiar application. Nevertheless in this instance the evil genius will not have exhausted "his whole energies in deceiving us." Hence we must aim to imagine a further trial of the boast, in which the "whole energies" of the evil genius are exhausted. In this instance I intend to show that the evil genius is himself befuddled, and that if we too exhaust some of our energies in sleuthing after the peculiarities in his diction, then we need not be deceived either.

Let us imagine the evil genius then at his ease meditating that very bad is good enough for him, and that he would let bad enough alone. All the old pseudos, pseudo names and pseudo statements, are doing very well. But today it was different. He took no delight in common lies, everyday fibs, little ones, old ones. He wanted something new and something big. He scratched his genius; he uncovered an idea. And he scribbled on
the inside of his tattered halo, "Tomorrow, I will deceive," and he smiled, and his words were thin and like fine wire. "Tomorrow I will change everything, everything, everything. I will change flowers, human beings, trees, hills, sky, the sun, and everything else into paper. Paper alone I will not change. There will be paper flowers, paper human beings, paper trees. And human beings will be deceived. They will think that there are
flowers, human beings, and trees, and there will be nothing but paper. It will be gigantic. And it ought to work. After all men have been deceived with much less trouble. There was a sailor, a Baptist I believe, who said that all was water. And there was no more water then than there is now. And there was a pool-hall keeper who said that all was billiard balls. That's a long time ago of course, a long time before they opened one, and listening, heard that it was full of the sound of a trumpet. My prospects are good. I'll try it." And the evil genius followed his own directions and did according to his words. And this is what happened.

Imagine a young man, Tom, bright today as he was yesterday, approaching a table where yesterday he had seen a bowl of flowers. Today it suddenly strikes him that they are not flowers. He stares at them troubled, looks away, and looks again. Are they flowers? He shakes his head. He chuckles to himself. "Huh! that's funny. Is this a trick?  Yesterday there certainly were flowers in that bowl." He sniffs suspiciously, hopefully, but smells nothing. His nose gives no assurance. He thinks of the birds that flew down to peck at the grapes in the picture and of the mare that whinnied at the likeness of Alexander's horse.  Illusions! The picture oozed no juice, and the likeness was still. He walked slowly to the bowl of flowers. He looked, and he sniffed, and he raised his hand. He stroked a petal lightly, lover of flowers, and he drew back. He could scarcely believe his fingers. They were not flowers. They were paper. As he stands, perplexed, Milly, friend and dear, enters the room. Seeing him occupied with the flowers, she is about to take up the bowl and offer them to him, when once again he is overcome with feelings of strangeness. She looks just like a great big doll. He looks more closely, closely as he dares, seeing this may be Milly after all. Milly, are you Milly?--that wouldn't do. Her mouth clicks as she opens it, speaking, and it shuts precisely. Her forehead shines, and he shudders at the thought of Mine Tussaud's. Her hair is plaited, evenly, perfectly, like Milly's but as she raises one hand to guard its order, touching it, preening, it whispers like a newspaper. Her teeth are white as a genteel monthly. Her gums are pink, and there is a clapper in her mouth. He thinks of mama dolls, and of the rubber doll he used to pinch; it had a misplaced navel right in the pit of the back, that whistled. Galatea in paper! Illusions!

He noted all these details, flash by flash by flash. He reaches for a chair to steady himself and just in time. She approaches with the bowl of flowers, and, as the bowl is extended towards him, her arms jerk. The suppleness, the smoothness, the roundness of life is gone. Twitches of a smile mislight up her face. He extends his hand to take up the bowl and his own arms jerk as hers did before. He takes the bowl, and as he does so sees his hand. It is pale, fresh, snowy. Trembling, he drops the bowl, but it does not break, and the water does not run. What a mockery! He rushes to the window, hoping to see the real world.

The scene is like a theatre-set. Even the pane in the window is drawn very thin, like cellophane. In the distance are the forms of men walking about and tossing trees and houses and boulders and hills upon the thin cross section of a truck that echoes only echoes of chugs as it moves. He looks into the sky upward, and
it is low. There is a patch straight above him, and one seam is loose. The sun shines out of the blue like a drop of German silver. He reaches out with his pale hand, crackling the cellophane, and his hand touches the sky. The sky shakes and tiny bits of it fall, flaking his white hand with confetti. Make-believe!

He retreats, crinkling, creaking, hiding his sight. As he moves he misquotes a line of poetry: "Those are perils that were his eyes," and he mutters, "Hypocritical pulp!" He goes on: "I see that the heavens, the earth, colors, figures, sound, and all other external things, flowers, Milly, trees and rocks and hills are paper, paper laid as traps for my credulity. Paper flowers, paper Milly, paper sky!" Then he paused, and in sudden fright he asked "And what about me?" He reaches to his lip and with two fingers tears the skin and peels off a strip of newsprint. He looks at it closely, grim. "I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, or any senses." He lids his paper eyes and stands dejected. Suddenly he is cheered.

He exclaims: "Cogito me papyrum esse, ergo sum."

He has triumphed over paperdom. I have indulged in this phantasy in order to illustrate the sort of situation which Descartes' words might be expected to describe. The evil genius attempts to deceive. He tries to mislead Tom into thinking what is not. Tom is to think that these are flowers, that this is the Milly that was, that those are trees, hills, the heavens, etc. And he does this by creating  illusions, that is, by making something that looks like flowers, artificial flowers; by making something that looks like and sounds like and moves like Milly, an artificial Milly. An illusion is something that looks like or sounds like, so much like, something else that you either mistake it for something else, or you can easily understand how someone might come to do this. So when the evil genius creates illusions intending to deceive he makes things which might quite easily be mistaken for what they are not. Now in the phantasy as I discovered it Tom is not deceived. He does experience the illusion, however. The intention of this is not to cast any reflection upon the deceptive powers of the evil genius. With such refinements in the paper art as we now know, the evil genius might very well have been less unsuccessful. And that in spite of his rumored lament: "And I made her of the best paper!" No, that Tom is not deceived, that he detects the illusion, is introduced in order to remind ourselves how illusions are detected. That the paper flowers are illusory is revealed by the recognition that they are paper.

As soon as Tom realizes that though they look like flowers but are paper, he is acquainted with, sees through the illusion, and is not deceived. What is required, of course, is that he know the difference between flowers and paper, and that when presented with one or the other he can tell the difference. The attempt of the evil
genius also presupposes this. What he intends is that though Tom knows this difference, the paper will look so much like flowers that Tom will not notice the respect in which the paper is different from the flowers. And even though Tom had actually been deceived and had not recognized the illusion, the evil genius himself must have been aware of the difference, for this is involved in his design.

This is crucial, as we shall see when we come to consider the second adventure of the evil genius.  As you will remember I have represented the foregoing as an illustration of the sort of situation which Descartes' words might be expected to describe. Now, however, I think that this is misleading. For though I have described a situation in which there are many things, nearly all of which are calculated to serve as illusions, this question may still arise. Would this paper world still be properly described as a world of illusions?

If Tom says: "These are flowers," or "These look like flowers" (uncertainly), then the illusion is operative. But if Tom says: "These are paper," then the illusion has been destroyed.  Descartes uses the words: "And all other external things are nought but illusions." This means that the situation which Descartes has in mind is such that if Tom says: "These are flowers," he will be wrong, but he will be wrong also if he says: "These are paper," and it won't matter what sentence of that type he uses. If he says: "These are rock"--or cotton or cloud or wood--he is wrong by the plan. He will be right only if he says: "These are illusions." But the project is to keep him from recognizing the illusions. This means that the illusions are to be brought about not by anything so crude as paper or even cloud. They must be made of the stuff that dreams are made of.

Now let us consider this second adventure. The design then is this. The evil genius is to create a world of illusions. There are to be no flowers, no Milly, no paper.  There is to be nothing at all, but Tom is every moment to go on mistaking nothing for something, nothing at all for flowers, nothing at all for Milly, etc. This is, of course, quite different from mistaking paper for flowers, paper for Milly. And yet all is to be arranged in such a way that Tom will go on just as we now do, and just as Tom did before the paper age, to see, hear,
smell the world. He will love the flowers, he will kiss Milly, he will blink at the sun. So he thinks. And in thinking about these things he will talk and argue just as we do. But all the time he will be mistaken. There are no flowers, there is no kiss, there is no sun. Illusions all. This then is the end at which the evil genius aims.

How now is the evil genius to attain this end? Well, it is clear that a part of what he aims at will be realized if he destroys everything. Then there will be no flowers, and if Tom thinks that there are flowers he will be wrong. There will be no face that is Milly's and no tumbled beauty on her head, and if Tom thinks that there is Milly's face and Milly's hair, he will be wrong. It is necessary then to see to it that there are none of
these things. So the evil genius, having failed with paper, destroys even all paper. Now there is nothing to see, nothing to hear, nothing to smell, etc.

But this is not enough to deceive. For though Tom sees nothing, and neither hears nor smells anything, he may alsothink that he sees nothing. He must also be misled into thinking that he does see something, that there are flowers and Milly, and hands, eyes, flesh, blood, and all other senses.  Accordingly the evil genius restores to Tom his old life. Even the memory of that paper day is blotted out, not a scrap remains. Witless Tom lives on, thinking, hoping, loving as he used to, unwitted by the great destroyer. All that seems so solid, so touchable to seeming hands, so biteable to apparent teeth, is so flimsy that were the evil genius to poke his index at it, it would curl away save for one tiny trace, the smirch of that index. So once more the evil genius has done according to his word.

And now let us examine the result.

I should like first of all to describe a passage of Tom's life. Tom is all alone, but he doesn't know it. What an opportunity for methodologico-metaphysico-solipsimo! I intend, in any case, to disregard the niceties of his being so alone and to borrow his own words, with the warning that the evil genius smiles as he reads them.

Tom writes:
Today, as usual, I came into the room and there was the bowl of flowers on the table. I went up to them, caressed them, and smelled over them. I thank God for flowers! There's nothing so real to me as flowers. Here the genuine essence of the world's substance, at its gayest and most hilarious speaks to me. It seems unworthy even to think of them as erect, and waving on pillars of sap. Sap! Sap!

There was more in the same vein, which we need not bother to record. I might say that the evil genius was a bit amused, snickered in fact, as he read the words "so real," "essence," "substance," etc., but later he frowned and seemed puzzled. Tom went on to describe how Milly came into the room, and how glad he was to see her. They talked about the flowers. Later he walked to the window and watched the gardener
clearing a space a short distance away. The sun was shining, but there were a few heavy clouds. He raised the window, extended his hand and four large drops of rain wetted his hand. He returned to the room and quoted to Milly a song from The Tempest. He got all the words right, and was well pleased with himself. There was more he wrote, but this was enough to show how quite normal everything seems. And, too, how successful the evil genius is.

And the evil genius said to himself, not quite in solipsimo, "Not so, not so, not at all so."

The evil genius was, however, all too human. Admiring himself but unadmired, he yearned for admiration. To deceive but to be unsuspected is too little glory. The evil genius set about then to plant the seeds of suspicion. But how to do this?  Clearly there was no suggestive paper to tempt Tom's confidence. There was nothing but Tom's mind, a stream of seemings and of words to make the seemings seem no seemings. The evil genius must have words with Tom and must engage the same seemings with him. To have words with Tom is to have the words together, to use them in the same way, and to engage the same seemings is to see and to hear and to point to the same. And so the evil genius, free spirit, entered in at the door of Tom's pineal gland and lodged there. He floated in the humors that flow, glandwise and sensewise, everywhere being as much one with Tom as difference will allow. He looked out of the same eyes, and when Tom pointed with his finger, the evil genius said "This" and meant what Tom, hearing, also meant, seeing. Each heard with the same ear what the other heard. For every sniffing of the one nose there were two identical smells, and there were two tactualities for every touch. If Tom had had a toothache, together they would have pulled the same face. The twinsomeness of two monads finds here the limit of identity. Nevertheless there was otherness looking out of those eyes as we shall see.

It seems then that on the next day, the evil genius "going to and fro" in Tom's mind and "walking up and down in it," Tom once again, as his custom was, entered the room where the flowers stood on the table. He stopped, looked admiringly, and in a caressing voice said: "Flowers! Flowers!" And he lingered. The evil genius, more subtle "than all the beasts of the field," whispered "Flowers?  Flowers?" For the first time Tom has an intimation of company, of some intimate partner in perception. Momentarily he is checked. He looks again at the flowers. "Flowers? Why, of course, flowers." Together they look out of the same eyes. Again the evil genius whispers, "Flowers?" The seed of suspicion is to be the question. But Tom now raises the flowers nearer to his eyes almost violently as though his eyes were not his own. He is, however, not perturbed. The evil genius only shakestheir head. "Did you ever hear of illusions says he. Tom, still surprisingly good-natured, responds: "But you saw them, didn't you?  Surely you can see through my eyes. Come, let us bury my nose deep in these blossoms, and take one long breath together. Then tell whether you can recognize these as flowers."

So they dunked the one nose. But the evil genius said "Hub!" as much as to say: What has all this seeming and smelling to do with it? Still he explained nothing. And Tom remained as confident of the flowers as he had been at the first. The little seeds of doubt, "Flowers? Flowers?" and again "Flowers?" and "Illusions?" and now this stick in the spokes, "Huh!" made Tom uneasy. He went on: "Oh, so you are one of these seers that has to touch everything. You're a tangibilite. Very well, here's my hand, let's finger these flowers. Careful! They're tender."

The evil genius was amused. He smiled inwardly and rippled in a shallow humor. To be taken for a materialist! As though the grand illusionist was not a spirit! Nevertheless, he realized that though deception is easy where the lies are big enough (where had he heard that before?), a few scattered, questioning words are not enough to make guile grow. He was tempted to make a statement, and he did. He said, "Your flowers are nothing but illusions."

"My flowers illusions?" exclaimed Tom, and he took up the bowl and placed it before a mirror. "See," said he, "here are the flowers and here, in the mirror, is an illusion. There's a difference surely. And you with my eyes, my nose, and my fingers can tell what that difference is. Pollen on your fingers touching the illusion? send Milly the flowers in the mirror? Set a bee to suck honey out of this glass? You know all this as well
as I do. I can tell flowers from illusions, and my flowers, as you now plainly see, are not illusions."

The evil genius was now sorely tried. He had his makebelieve, but he also had his pride. Would he now risk the makebelieve to save his pride? Would he explain? He explained.

"Tom," he said, "notice. The flowers in the mirror look like flowers, but they only look like flowers. We agree about that. The flowers before the mirror also look like flowers. But they,you say, are flowers because they also smell like flowers and they feel like flowers, as though they would be any more flowers because they also like flowers multiply. Imagine a mirror such that it reflected not only the looks of flowers, but
also their fragance and their petal surfaces, and then you smelled and touched, and the flowers before the mirror would be just like the flowers in the mirror. Then you could see immediately that the flowers before the mirror are illusions just as those in the mirror are illusions. As it is now, it is clear that the flowers in the mirror are thin illusions, and the flowers before the mirror are thick. Thick illusions are the best for
deception. And they may be as thick as you like. From them you may gather pollen, send them to Milly, and foolish bees may sleep in them."

But Tom was not asleep. "I see that what you mean by thin illusions is what I mean by illusions, and what you mean by thick illusions is what I mean by flowers. So when you say that my flowers are your thick illusions this doesn't bother me. And as for your mirror that mirrors all layers of your thick illusions, I shouldn't call that a mirror at all. It's a duplicator, and much more useful than a mirror, provided you can control it. But I do suppose that when you speak of thick illusions you do mean that thick illusions are related to something you call flowers in much the same way that the thin illusions are related to the thick ones. Is that true?"

The evil genius was now diction-deep in explanations and went on. "In the first place let me assure you that these are not flowers. I destroyed all flowers. There are no flowers at all. There are only thin and thick illusions of flowers. I can see your flowers in the mirror, and I can smell and touch the flowers before the mirror. What I cannot smell and touch, having seen as in the mirror, is not even thick illusion. But if I cannot also cerpicio what I see, smell, touch, etc., what I have then seen is not anything real. Esse est cerpici. I just now tried to cerpicio your flowers, but there was nothing there. Man is after all a four- or five- or six-sense creature and you cannot expect much from so little."

Tom rubbed his eyes and his ears tingled with an eighteenth century disturbance. Then he stared at the flowers. "I see," he said, "that this added sense of yours has done wickedly with our language. You do not mean by illusion what we mean, and neither do you mean by flowers what we mean. As for cerpicio I wouldn't be surprised if you'd made up that word just to puzzzle us. In any case what you destroyed is what, according to you, you used to cerpicio. So there is nothing for you to cerpicio any more. But there still are what we mean by flowers. If your intention was to deceive, you must learn the language of those you are to deceive. I should say that you are like the doctor who prescribes for his patients what is so bad for himself and is then surprised at the health of his patients." And he pinned a flower near their nose.

The evil genius, discomfited, rode off on a corpuscle. He had failed. He took to an artery, made haste to the pineal exit, and was gone. Then "sun by sun" he fell. And he regretted his mischief.

I have tried in this essay to understand the boast of the evil genius. His boast was that he could deceive, deceive about "the heavens, the earth, the colors, figures, sound, and all other external things." In order to do this I have tried to bring clearly to mind what deception and such deceiving would be like. Such deception involves illusions and such deceiving involves the creation of illusions. Accordingly I have tried to imagine the
evil genius engaged in the practice of deception, busy in the creation of illusions. In the first adventure everything is plain. The evil genius employs paper, paper making believe it's many other things. The effort to deceive, ingenuity in deception, being deceived by paper, detecting the illusion-all these are clearly understood. It is the second adventure, however, which is more crucial. For in this instance it is assumed that the illusion is of such a kind that no seeing, no touching, no smelling, are relevant to detecting the illusion.

Nevertheless the evil genius sees, touches, smells, and does detect the illusion. He made the illusion; so, of course, he must know it. How then does he know it? The evil genius has a sense denied to men. He senses the flower-in-itself, Milly-in-her-self, etc. So he creates illusions made up of what can be seen, heard, smelled, etc., illusions all because when seeing, hearing, and smelling have seen, heard, and smelled all, the special sense senses nothing.

So what poor human beings sense is the illusion of what only the evil genius can sense. This is formidable. Nevertheless, once again everything is clear. If we admit the special sense, then we can readily see how it is that the evil genius should have been so confident. He has certainly created his own illusions, though he has not himself been deceived. But neither has anyone else been deceived. For human beings do not use the word "illusion" by relation to a sense with which only the evil genius is blessed.

I said that the evil genius had not been deceived, and it is true that he has not been deceived by his own illusions. Nevertheless he was deceived in boasting that he could deceive, for his confidence in this is based upon an ignorance of the difference between our uses of the words, "heavens," "earth," "flowers," "Milly," and "illusions" of these things, and his own uses of these words. For though there certainly is an analogy between our own uses and his, the difference is quite sufficient to explain his failure at grand deception. We can also understand how easily Tom might have been taken in. The dog over the water dropped his meaty bone for a picture on the water. Tom, however, dropped nothing at all. But the word "illusion" is a trap.

I began this essay uneasily, looking at my hands and saying “no hands," blinking my eyes and saying "no eyes." Everything I saw seemed to me like something Cheshire, a piece of cheese, for instance, appearing and disappearing in the leaves of the tree. Poor kitty! And now? Well....

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

LOTUS? Is that "Priesty" a Buddhist or what?

The new LOTUS Sessions at A World Apart are quickly becoming one of our most popular services.  The LOTUS Session (Life Oneness Truth Understanding Serenity) is a service unique to A World Apart and Tranquil Oasis Holistic Living Community.  You may find other "lotus readings" on-line, however many of these readings are simply tarot card readings using a specialized deck (In these readings, readers use cards that have designs and card meanings different from a tarot deck, but you are still essentially getting a card reading only).  Our LOTUS Sessions have been created exclusively for A World Apart and Tranquil Oasis.  
Our LOTUS Sessions focus on the Chakra energies.  The reading begins with a psychic energy and Chakra scan.  Our provider has created a holistic energy balance modality that combines the spiritual principles of several ancient traditions with the theory of the Chakra system to give clients a truly holistic self-healing experience.  

If you are looking for spiritual and energetic balance in your life, this is the experience for you. Be warned, however, the LOTUS experience at A World Apart requires your effort in order to have the kind of impact on your life that will bring you into balance and out of the negative energy patterns that cause conflict in the spirit.  Our Spiritual Director, Tomas Martin, OPD conducts our LOTUS Sessions.  With more than 15 years of public ministry experience, Tomas uses the same techniques in the LOTUS Session that he uses in his one-on-one spiritual conferences.  This means that he goes into a place of deep prayer and connects with divine energies to give you spiritual assistance to help you unlock the power of your heart giving you the tools to create positive higher energy experiences and eliminate low negative energy setbacks in life.  

Even though our provider is a minister, don't expect a 'sentimental' experience.  If Tomas 'picks up' any negativity that you are creating in your own life, he expects you to face your own creation and take responsibility for your life.  This is not your 'boardwalk psychic' here! If you are simply looking to be entertained, this isn't the experience for you! If you are serious about coming to a place of balance in life...if you are looking for the tools and support to help you create a life of harmony with the world around you, the LOTUS Session is for you.  If you are tired of feeling out of control of your life situation and want the jump-start you need to take the first steps toward a life of confidence and serenity, this is the reading for you. 

This experience is truly a spiritual experience. Regardless of your denominational religious belief system, the LOTUS Session can help you along your spiritual life path and bring peace into your life.  

Does this experience conflict with Christian morals? 

"First let me say that it would be impossible for me to offer any spiritual service that would conflict with core Scriptural values.  My life is a reflection of the sacred scriptures of my tradition.  It took me more than a decade of Christian ministry to clearly see the ungodly limitations I was placing on my own spirituality and on my congregants by participating in what I call 'Christian spiritual bigotry.' For too long I placed 'God' in a Christian prison.  It wasn't until I realized a few important truths that I was able to experience the 'God of Christ' in a dynamic and personal way.  What are some of these truths?  First: God is not a Christian.  If that which we call God is limited to one human denomination, that is not the God of Christ that the scripture reveals to us.  The God of Christ is not limited in any way.  Second, God doesn't use one human language to communicate. Why is that important? It's important because our religious language is dependent on the language of the local people.  Language is cultural.  Words carry certain meanings that are dependent upon the particular history and experience of the people speaking the language.  Language is inherently prejudiced and if we rely on our understanding of Christian theology based only on our study of the 'English' language interpretation of divine words, we fail to overcome the curse of the tower of Babel.  After I studied the ancient languages of scripture (and specifically the Gospel of John) I discovered a God who had no boundaries and a Christ that embraced all life.  I saw for myself the meaning of the words of Jesus that remind us that there are 'other flocks' who are part of the Universal church.  I also remembered the admonition warning about sins against the Holy Spirit.  Sin against the Holy Spirit is commonly understood as 'seeing the work of the Holy Spirit and calling it evil.'  When I engage the various ministries and spiritual healing modalities I offer through A World Apart and Tranquil Oasis Community, I am working with the power of the Holy Spirit. Period.  Regardless of the human words attached to the services I provide in Pennsville, anyone who cannot see the Holy Spirit and the angels of God descending on my ministry, is blind to the faith of Christ.  Whether you are Christian, Pagan, Wiccan, Muslim, Jewish, or no religion at all, I will use the gift of Divine Love to help you on your path to peace. If you choose to judge and label what we do at A World Apart because you don't understand the words of your own theology, I leave you to the judgement of God." 
-Tomas Martin, OPD. 

During a full LOTUS Session, Tomas will design a seven-day re-creation plan for your life.  This is the heart of the reading.  Your LOTUS experience continues for one full week, helping you to balance your mind, body, and spirit.  The reading also includes a 15-minute follow-up that you schedule within two weeks of your reading.  

The cost of the session is $49. 
We have priced this service to be accessible to all who need it.  

The session takes an average of 15 to 30 minutes depending on how many Chakras need to be addressed.  
Call 856-678-2444 to make your appointment! 

Why does that Priesty act so Witchy?

As part of our Priesty and the Witch in the Morning episode that featured the background and work of our "Priesty" and our "Witch" we re-post this article about the "readings" Tomas (Priesty) offers through his ministry.  

One of the most popular services offered through the Tranquil Oasis Holistic Living Community is known as an Angel Reading, but what exactly is it?  Over the past few months we have been trying to write a generalized description of the experience but to no avail since each Angel Reading is different depending on the needs of the client. 

We make an effort to ask the clients to describe the experience of their first Angel Reading.  Our favorite description came from a client whose daughter recommended the service to him.  He told us that the Reading taught him how to be a better listener.  He said that some of the information he received was familiar to him because his intuition recognized it as expounding on the faint whisperings he would ‘hear’ during times of confusion or stress.  He told us that the Reading made him realize that his own ‘angels’ were in fact ‘speaking’ to him throughout his life, but he dismissed this as fleeting random thoughts only.  The messages Tomas gave him during the Reading confirmed for him the power of the ‘unseen’ and the potential of the human mind to connect with ‘something greater.’

The Angel Reading is not like a psychic reading, although the ‘psychic’ senses certainly come into play.  It is also not ‘mediumship,’ although it is common that some of the advice calls to mind loved ones who have crossed over.  Tomas theorizes that our loved ones live on in our hearts and so it’s not uncommon to associate certain life advice or emotions with the ‘spirit’ that our loved ones have left us as an eternal reminder of their presence.  When a significant person from our life crosses to the unseen, Tomas believes that we sometimes associate their memory with the idealized father, friend, or teacher.  In the reading clients will often say things like, “…that sounds just like something my father would have told me.  I can feel his guidance with us.”  However, if you are looking for someone to ‘channel’ a loved one who has passed, this isn’t the reading for you!

It is important to note that Tomas does not use “angel cards” as many other ‘angel readers’ do.  These cards are used in a way similar to ‘tarot cards.’  We certainly respect those readers who use guidance tools in their readings,  but our Angels Readings aren’t like any others.  In our Angel Readings, Tomas uses the contemplative techniques he has learned in over fifteen years of spiritual ministry.  Drawing from his experience of Judeo/Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic Mysticism, Tomas has developed a way of ‘going to that inner place of deep prayer and listening for divine guidance’ in the way of the mystics rather than in the way associated with popular psychics.  In our Angel Readings Tomas establishes what he calls ‘a connection with your highest good.’  The Reading becomes a dialogue between the client and those ideals that make one’s life experience unique and sacred. 

So if our Readings don’t involve cards, what is being ‘read’?
The Angels are being ‘read’ directly!  So what does ‘Angel’ mean?  Well the world itself refers to ‘divine messenger.’  In the spiritual traditions of most major faith systems we see the belief in angels.  These angels are beings which communicate messages from the Divine to humanity.  We believe Angels (with a capital ‘A’) to be spirits sent directly from the Divine with a mission to guide, protect, and enlighten.  Consider these spirits (‘spirit’ means ‘intellect and will’) to be the divine thoughts of the Universe sent directly to those who seek divine guidance.  We sometimes refer to these ‘Angels’ or ‘divine thoughts’ as ‘Archangels.’  It’s important not to think of these ‘Angels’ in a ‘humanized’ form.  In other words, we are not ‘communicating’ with ‘unseen personalities.’  When Tomas uses the term ‘Raphael,’ for example, he is referring to the idea of ‘the healing power of the Divine.’  ‘Rapha-el’ is an ancient Hebrew expression that means ‘Healing of God.’  These are the angelic ideas that Tomas ‘reads’ in a one-on-one session.  Tomas uses his spiritual abilities and theological background to help the client align their own thoughts and decisions with those divine, primordial ideas that shape our universe.  It is the ultimate thought balancing session!

During the Reading you will have those unexpected ‘ah-ha’ moments that will help you get the guidance and confirmation you need concerning life’s issues.  Readings ‘go where they need to go.’  There is no set outline or form for our Angel Readings.  Tomas’ technique is the same for each Reading, but no two readings are alike.  (This is especially evident in Group Readings.  We can accommodate four to ten people in a Group Reading.)  You will be amazed at how the Reading seems to ‘hit all the important’ points in your life. 

Energy is the Key!
Our clients all seem to enjoy the start of the Readings and the use of dowsing rods.  Tomas uses dowsing rods to give the client an idea of the type of thought-energy being ‘read’ during the session.  The rods are not used as a ‘divination tool’ in this reading.  Tomas simply demonstrates how thought-energy affects the material world around you in an amazing way!  This part of the Reading truly mystifies most clients! 

Confidentiality in Angel Readings
What Tranquil Oasis and A World Apart term ‘Angel Reading,’ is a one-on-one Spiritual Conference for Tomas who has engaged in public ministry for more than fifteen years.  This means that all one-on-one Readings fall under the ministerial covenant for Tomas and are in the ‘internal forum’ or private spiritual matters.  He will only discuss your Reading with a third party if you give permission (and even with permission, he must feel confident that discussing the Reading is for the highest good).  Group Readings, however, fall into the ‘external forum’ meaning they are public by nature.

What are some of our clients saying about Angel Readings?
“Had an angel reading today and was completely amazed by what I experienced. It solidified what I knew I needed to do and helped me find closure in the things that I have been holding onto for far too long. Fantastic, fantastic time....amazing place. Will be back for more readings with friends and family!”–Jennifer

“My angel reading was 2 days ago and I'm still floating from it. Truly amazing. Whatever you believe, get on down to A World Apart in Pennsville for a reading. Seriously. Dude is on point!” –AP

“Had my very first angel reading today. AMAZING!! Thanks for introducing me to something so.....wow!!!” –Jeanne

“With the way I am raving about Wednesday, you may have a sudden influx of angel readings. It was wonnnnnnnnnnnnderful! :D” –Stephanie

“Thank you Eden and Thomas for my angel reading tonight. Words cannot express how I walked out of there feeling” –Belinda

“During one of my last angel readings, I was given a warning. And although I knew better, I didn't heed this warning. At the moment it all clicked, and I said out loud, ‘watch out for the young one,’ I looked up at the moon. It was about half full, and peeking through the clouds. The clouds parted, forming the 3 Goddesses symbol around it. Before I could verbalize what I saw, it dissipated. It was like a message for me saying, ‘YES! Listen next time!’ ” –Amy

“I just wanted to thank Tomas for the Angel Reading. Changed my whole outlook on my life. Seriously life changing.” –Tara

“Its hard to explain in just a few words, its really something you have to experience. You might be familiar with angel card readings but this is totally different. To try to sum it up, Br. Tomas connects with the Angelic energies that are aound you and the reading takes on its own form from there. It truly is amazing.” –Eden

“The entire experieince was great. I learned some things about myself and left knowing exactly what I had to do. I also felt a lot closer with myself, if that makes any sense, and felt an over all sense of peace and well being and clarity. I highly recommend these readings, especially with Tomas and A World Apart. He's an amazing person and it's a great place.” –Blair

To schedule your in-person Angel Reading, call A World Apart at 856-678-2444.  Ask for the Tranquil Oasis Services receptionist to reserve your time-slot!   

One-on-One and Group Angel Readings ~ Guided Mediation Sessions in Stress reduction, Pre-natal Bonding, Goal Focusing, and Reconciliation with Self techniques ~ Angel Reiki sessions ~ Psychic Attunements ~ Angel Reiki Aura Clearing ~ One-on-One Spiritual Direction ~ One-on-One Pastoral Coaching ~ Family Energy Balance ~ Crystal Clearing sessions ~ Spiritual Conflict and Grief Purging (four session cycle) ~ Angel Energy Development ~ Mythology of Me course facilitator ~ Holistic Living Workshops facilitator 

"Priesty" of Priesty and the Witch in the Morning!


Tomas Martin Bell, OPD
"Priesty" of Priesty and the Witch in the Morning!
As Spiritual Director for Tranquil Oasis Holistic Living Community and Spiritual Consultant at A World Apart, Tomas helps members and clients find the spiritual tranquil oasis within.  He offers one-on-one and group programs aimed at giving participants the knowledge and skills to eliminate confusion and disorder in their spiritual lives.  Tomas draws from a background of formation in many spiritual paths.  Tomas has been a spiritual facilitator since 1994.  He began teaching grammar school level faith formation and in 1999 began teaching adult faith formation.  

Tomas completed his studies in Human resource management and went on to five years of Religious formation, making perpetual profession in the Dominican Community in 2003.  In 2004, Tomas developed the Community of Ecumenical Brothers and Sisters as an independent non-denominational community of believers which was formally recognized in 2006.  He engaged in advanced studies in Sacred Theology. His work focused on a study of Ancient Aramaic Christian teachings and Hebrew spiritual formulae. After completing Masters level work in biblical studies, Tomas went on to doctoral studies in Pastoral Ministry; and after becoming a consecrated bishop in apostolic succession was awarded the doctorate in Divinity in 2009.  Tomas went on to study holistic healing methods such as Angel Energy Healing, Reiki, and Manifestation techniques.  

Tomas has helped build fresh water drinking wells in Uganda, Africa and provided assistance to missionaries in need. Tomas has engaged in Deliverance Ministry, Homeless Ministry, Ministry to the Sick and Dying, Private Spiritual Direction, Holistic Healing Ministry, and an active ministry to those searching for their own healing power within. Tomas has offered courses to communities in the Catholic Tradition, Christian Movements, Independent Sacramental Movements, Wiccan and Pagan Communities, and Non-denominational associations across the country.

Tomas is co-developer of Angel Energy Reiki and is co-founder/facilitator of Priesty and the Witch both with Eden Kantrowitz.

Tomas’ current services through Tranquil Oasis at A World Apart:
One-on-One and Group Angel Readings ~ Guided Mediation Sessions in Stress reductionPre-natal BondingGoal Focusing, and Reconciliation with Self techniques ~ Angel Reiki sessions ~ Psychic Attunements ~ Angel Reiki Aura Clearing ~ One-on-One Spiritual Direction ~ One-on-One Pastoral Coaching ~ Family Energy Balance ~ Crystal Clearing sessions ~ Spiritual Conflict and Grief Purging (four session cycle) ~ Angel Energy Development ~ Circle of Self course facilitator ~ Holistic Living Workshops facilitator

"Priesty" without "Popie"? Yup.



In the wake of the disaster that contintnues to unfold in the mainstream Roman church, many parishioners have chosen to abandon their ritual practice and walk away from the traditions of the Church. I have been amused by the rantings of conservative Catholics who condemn their brothers and sisters who have left the Roman church. Those same conservatives "defend" the church and maintain that, despite the horrific effects clergy sexual abuse has had on countless families, Catholics have a moral obligation to remain in the Roman church and obey its leaders even if those leaders do not act in accordance with the divine mandate to love one another and to protect the children of God. They say Catholics don't have the right to challenge the hierarchy of the church. They say "faithful" Catholics should never question their bishops and certainly never reject their authority.

I wonder if any of these conservative Catholics have ever experienced the Gospel? A central element of the ministry of Jesus is the unflinching criticism of the hypocritical hierarchs of the church. The words of Jesus call on the people to continue to practice their faith, but to do this by loving one another, concerned only with obedience to God's voice, not the voice of hypocrites (whether or not those hypocrites are leaders of their church). The words of the scripture tell the people to remain faithful to the Divine Voice in their hearts. It seems to me that a "faithful" Catholic would recognize his obligation to live his life as Christ demands. So why do conservative Catholics fail to acknowledge the incarnation of Jesus as the life template for all who profess to be children of God and followers of Christ? Why not demand, as Jesus did, that church leaders act as good shepherds?

I am one of the people that conservative Catholics condemn for questioning church leaders and eventually leaving the Roman jurisdiction. I am always amazed at how easy it is for people who claim to be people of God to judge others. I am equally amazed by the hate-filled verbal venom these same "godly" people are able to spew from their "saintly" mouths. A recent conversation with a Roman parishioner is what inspired---or rather, incited---me to write this post.

The woman approached me as I was heading into the post to pick up my mail. She saw my collar and respectfully said, "Hello, Father" I greeted her and continued to walk by. She called out to me asking me "What parish are you from?" I explained to her that I was raised Roman Catholic but I am not a Roman priest and so was not based in any Roman parish. "Well what are you?" she asked with a bit of perturbation. I then simply said that I minister in a community that has the same Sacramental tradition but is not connected to the Roman Vatican and that I left the Roman church in good conscience. To which she replied, "Oh, so you're not a 'real' priest. You know you've got a lot of nerve wearing a priest collar. And you grew up a good Catholic? Your mother must be horrified."

I have to admit that I am not proud of how I responded, because I did so with the same arrogant attitude that she was giving me. I should have just walked away, but instead I said... "Well what really horrified her is the three Roman priests who sexually abused me ... pretty much she's okay with my choice of clothing." To my amazement she said, "Well at least they were 'real' priests. I'm glad your not at a parish, good riddance."

When I see all of the darkness in the mainstream church and when I encounter "good" Catholics like the one I just described, it feels like a dagger piercing my heart. When I vented my frustration over the situation to a close RC friend, she told me that "the woman did have a point. I mean your not a "real" priest anymore." ...as I felt that dagger twist. There was a time that I lamented my exit from the mainstream church, but now am grateful that God's own voice led me out of a group that never really loved me to begin with. I am blessed to have found the Independent Catholic Movement.

In this post I am going to discuss my reasons for leaving the Roman church and then I am going to provide some information on Independent Catholicism. At the end of the post I am going to briefly discuss the earliest independent movements. I am also going to quote from several binding Roman Catholic documents that show Independent Catholic bishops possess the same sacramental authority as any other Catholic bishop. I am not including the Roman documents because I think that Independent bishops somehow "need" to be justified by Rome. I am simply including the information so that the next time an RC parishioner questions my "realness," I can tell them where to go. ...uh, to this blog post that is.

Why did I leave the Roman Church?
What many of my quick-to-judge conservative RC critics don't know is that members of my faith community and I worked hard to remain with our RC brothers and sisters. The founding members of my faith community were all perpetually professed members-in-good-standing of a Roman Catholic Religious Order. We all had ministered for years in the Church. It wasn't until the local diocese failed to remove an abusive priest from ministry, that I came forward and publicly spoke about the abuse I suffered at the hands of priests. I requested a meeting with the bishop to report the names of the priests and the details of my abuse. I thought (foolishly, apparently) that the bishop would meet with me and respond as loving pastor of the Church. I thought he would do the right thing and remove the priests in question. I had no intention of suing the diocese, I just wanted the priests dealt with.


That didn't happen. The bishop refused to meet with me, but did (through the superiors of my religious community) order me to be silent and "docile to his authority." I was also ordered by my religious community to write a letter of apology to the bishop for acting disobediently. I was told that if I did not issue a letter of apology that I would be declared "out of communion with the diocese." I was then informed that the bishop would also take action against all members of my local ministry. So, was I expected to make a formal apology to the local bishop for not being the "good" kind of abuse victim...you know, the silent kind? Instead the local membership of my community and I responded with a letter asserting our canonical rights to continue to minister as members of our association of the faith in spite of his threats against our ministry.

In a matter of days, the diocese sent a letter to all parishes expelling my community and me from all participation in parish life. Just after that, I received a letter from the diocesan attorney telling me that as a result of making allegations of sexual abuse, I was barred from having any further communication with any priest of the diocese! It made it sound as though the priests had to be protected from such a person who would dare attack their character. When I read that letter, I cried as I wondered to myself...if I had the courage to come forward as a child, would the diocese have told me I was at fault for my abuse? ...that if I wasn't such a prayerful child I wouldn't have spent so much time in church and so the priests would not have had any occasion to abuse me?

During this ordeal it was a retired bishop of the Independent Catholic Movement who came to my aid. He was a former priest of the diocese who left the church in the 1980's. He too questioned the actions of the bishops and when he was faced with the decision to stay and remain quiet or leave and remain with Christ...he chose Christ. And so did I. I joined the independent movement and was eventually consecrated a bishop. Now I never have to beg any other man for sacramental crumbs from his table because God has blessed me with a feast of my own to share with the world.

There is another interesting part of my story. After I was consecrated a bishop, I wrote to Rome. I sent a series of letters directly to the office of the Holy Father. My letters explained my situation in detail. The Vatican acknowledged the receipt of my letters and I began a year-long effort of correspondence with the highest authorities in the church. At the time I thought that there was still some hope that some good could come of what had happened to me. I thought that being a consecrated bishop, I would be heard. You would think I would have learned my lesson a few years before. What made me think that being a bishop pleading with the pope would be any different from my experience as a member of a religious order pleading with a local bishop? It's all the same. The problem is not an isolated problem that exists in a diocese here and a diocese there. The problem is systemic. It took me too long to recognize that fact.


What is Independent Catholicism like?
Most independent catholic communities are small. Many don't even own a church of their own. They minister wherever they are. Some "indy" bishops have relationships with pastors from non-Roman churches and have the benefit of having Mass for their community in a borrowed space. It's rare for an independent catholic priest or bishop to receive a salary from the community because few independent communities even have a bank account. So, most priests work secular jobs to support themselves. To many RC parishioners this is laughable. But to all those who think that a "real" church owns property, has an impressive bank account, and thousands of parishioners, I say this: In the first century Jesus sent out the Apostles with nothing, only the power of God's own Word. Jesus sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. They were told "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra coat. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake their dust off your feet"


If in this day and age one must possess riches and buildings in order to be considered a "real" priest or bishop of Christ, what of the Preacher of Nazareth? What of him who didn't even have a place to lay his head?

This must be something new in the Church, right?
Well that depends on what you mean by new. Certainly, the Gospels and the writings of St. Paul (see Galatians 1:11-24 with footnotes from the US Catholic Bishops Conference) confirm that priesthood of Christ and the creation of apostles (bishops) is not limited to any particular congregation. So, independent bishops (relating to the ministry of Christ) really started with St. Paul. Who is acknowledged as an Apostle even though his apostleship started independent of the first 12 Apostles of Jesus.

...But if that reference doesn't quite satisfy those who still believe that "outside of Rome, there can be no 'real' bishops" I offer this:

In 1145 Pope Eugene III granted the people of the Diocese of Utrecht, Holland the right to elect and consecrate its own bishops. The Fourth Lateran Council confirmed this in 1215. The Fourth Lateran Council is a recognized infallible council of the Roman Catholic Magisterium. Pope Eugene and the Council fathers essentially approved the creation of the ecclesiastical community that we call "Old Catholics." Referring to someone as "Old Catholic" has nothing to do with the age of the catholic in question; and it doesn't mean that they are part of any of today's break-away traditional Latin-language groups. It means that they are a part of the legitimate catholic entity that received papal and universal church approval in 1145. Many Independent bishops are a part of the lineage of the bishops of Utrecht, including two of the four bishops who by the laying-on of hands transmitted their apostolic lineage to me.

You may be curious as to how "Old Catholic" bishops now exist all over the world and are not limited to the original diocese. This has happen in the same way that many religious communities experience growth. As members and ministries of the community grew, the bishops sent priests (and eventually bishops) as missionaries to other places in the world. The movement became so vibrant and grew so steadily that Catholic Bishops from other parts of the world began to complain to Rome about the Episcopi Vagantes (which means "wandering bishops" the term was used to describe bishops who were not part of any geographically anchored diocese) who were claiming to be true bishops of the church and who were ministering in their dioceses. In the early 1500's bishops petitioned the Pope to declare that the wandering bishops were not validly consecrated and not true bishops of the Church. They also wanted the bishops in the diocese of Utrecht to be brought up on charges in a Vatican court and punished for ordaining bishops without papal approval.


In the year 1520 Pope Leo X brought an end to the conflict and issued a papal bull "Debitum Pastoralis." While many bishops thought that this would be the end of the Episcopi Vagantes, Pope Leo confirmed the authority, right, power, and privilege granted to the church of Utrecht to elect and consecrate its own bishops. The papal bull gave extraordinary powers to the presiding bishop of Utrecht (Bishop Philip of Burgundy) which would protect him and all bishops who would come after him from ever being forced to give up the infallibly proclaimed right to consecrate bishops to serve their communities. The bull made it impossible for any church authority to interfere with the ministry of the wandering bishops of Utrecht. The bull went so far as to state that no bishop in the future could ever challenge the validity of the bishops tracing their ministry to Utrecht, "not even under pretense of any apostolic letters whatever; and that all such proceedings should be, ipso facto, null and void." Meaning that not even a future Pope could impede the ministry of the "wandering bishops."

Certainly the fact that one pope sanctioned the group, one infallible Church Council confirmed the group, and another pope published a binding papal bull ensuring the validity of the future bishops should suffice to end all questions concerning the existence of true bishops (with the same sacramental authority as their Roman counterparts) outside of the Vatican-based church.

But, if a papal bull from 1520 still isn't "current" enough for you. I offer a few more proofs:
On June 16, 2000, Pope John Paul II ratified the document "Dominus Iesus." The document is a declaration of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document was written under the direction and supervision of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). In this official declaration of the Roman Catholic Church we see confirmation that Rome recognizes the validity of Orders and Sacraments of churches whose bishops were not consecrated by Vatican-based entities:
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church. (section IV, no.17)


The declaration goes on to quote the Second Vatican Council's Decree Unitatis Redintegratio: Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

In addition...

The Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law acknowledges that there are "non-Catholic" ministers who possess valid apostolic succession and the same sacramental authority as their Roman counterparts. Roman law tells us that when "necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid." The law goes on to confirm that Roman priests can also administer the Sacraments to the laity of other churches with valid Sacraments. see Canon 844, 2-5 from the Vatican web site.


So it is certainly possible to receive "real" Sacraments from non-Roman priests and it is permissible for Roman priests to administer the sacraments to non-Roman lay people.
Ask the average RC parishioner if it is possible to receive the "real presence of Christ" in the Eucharist from a church that is not Roman and you are likely to be told "no way." I believe If the average RC parishioner actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Canon Law, and the documents of the Councils they profess to be infallible, they would discover a very different church. Maybe I should start quizzing random RC parishioners about their knowledge of official Roman Catholic documents... maybe they aren't "real" parishioners.

The Beauty of Independent Catholic Voices
As the RC pews continue to empty I am happy that there is a network of true ministers of Christ who are able to shepherd the lost sheep. I am overjoyed that courageous Independent bishops are able to discuss: Same-Sex Marriage, Adoption of children by same-sex couples, Divorce and annulment, Ordination of married men, Ordination of women, and so many other subjects in a way that does not judge or alienate. I pray that more mainstream Catholics discover the reality of Independent Catholicism and choose the movement as an alternative to simply walking away from the traditions that bring them closer to the Divine.

Click this link to read an article by Cathleen Kaveny who teaches theology and law at the University of Notre Dame. She addresses many of the issues I've just touched upon.

I invite all the Independent Catholic bishops and priests who read this post to comment, suggest further reading, or post links to your own websites or articles supporting the Independent Movement.

With hope for the future, I am,
+Tomas Martin, OPD