My previous
paper on the current Theology of Body (TOB) movement (hereafter referred to as West-TOB,
after the name of its leading ideologist), ‘A pure gaze of lust’, was the
outcome of my attempts to understand why my encounter with it was so
destructive to my prayer life and especially to my relationship [or
attachment?] with Jesus Christ. I rationalized in the end of that paper that
the major reason for this was the West-TOB’s profanation of the most sacred, of
the love of God for a human soul, via muddling the sacred with what they call
“bold talk about sex”:
“I have been into Carmelite spirituality for some time now, with St John
of the Cross being my spiritual guide. Until I heard and read “the TO” my mind
was free from the obscene associations discussed above. It means that when I
read the lines of St John of the Cross from his ‘Spiritual Canticle: Songs
between the soul and the Bridegroom’:
“In the
inner wine cellar
I drank of my Beloved, and, when I went abroad through all this valley, I no longer knew anything, and lost the herd that I was following.”
I drank of my Beloved, and, when I went abroad through all this valley, I no longer knew anything, and lost the herd that I was following.”
I see the spiritual reality of the
pure intimacy of a soul with God and the transformation that causes, to the
soul. I still perceive those lines in this way. However, the TOB of West made
me aware of other possible interpretations. After hearing and reading about
“God and sex, sex and God” I had to labour for days to get rid of the dirt
which got stuck to my soul. Please notice that I have been studying Christian
mystical tradition for years now – and still I was profoundly affected. It is
really hard to address God along the lines of ‘Song of Songs’ if ‘Song of
Songs’ was turned, by a “theologian”, into the “centrefold of the Bible”
because “centrefold” and God do not go together! Imagine then someone who has
never read anything of the Christian mystical tradition (and it appears to me
that it is the condition of the majority of lay Catholics now, in the English
speaking world at least) but instead reads/listens to TOB. The ability of such
a person to perceive any spiritual reality conveyed by the language of human
love is ruined, probably forever. Why? – Simply because the sex drive is an
instinctive, primary, and very powerful force, and for a human being it is much
more natural/ easier to see “sex” instead of the “sacred” everywhere; unless
they are educated properly so that their inherent sense of the sacred is not
ruined.”
In my
experience of working with destructive states of a psyche an identification of the
original source of a state usually drastically diminishes that state or at
least begins the process of diminishing it.
I was quite sure that identifying the West- TOB’s profanation of God [via
muddling Him with sex] as the source of the pollution of my relationship with God
would relieve my subjective sense of the loss of intimacy with Him. Yet it did
not happen. Examining myself I realized that I was not just suffering the loss
of an intimate connection with Our Lord (a periodical experience familiar to
any Christian) – something in me was also
resisting the very possibility of that intimacy. I was longing for the intimacy
with the Lord I knew before and at the same time I was terrified of something
else, something inexplicably dirty, forbidden, even evil that now was attached
to it somehow. By no means could it be just “the sexualisation of God” like,
for example, a transformation of Christ the Bridegroom of the soul into a fleshy
lover. Why am I so sure about that? – Because although to think of Christ as just
of a human lover is inappropriate it is still normal – not normal and desirable from a Christian point of view
but normal if one thinks of Christ as just a man (and He is the Son of Man). A thought
about Christ the Lover is a thought every mystic has but it is always “more
than earthly”, “other than earthly”, “the early term points towards the greater
metaphysical reality” etc. “Christ the Lover” is an entirely normal concept of romantic love between
God and the soul hence the fact that someone thinks of it in very earthly terms
cannot wreck another person’s relationship with the Lord.
‘A pure gaze
of lust’ dealt with the West-TOB
disembodied. laying down the critique of its concepts, hence it is highly
desirable that the reader reads it, first, before proceeding with this paper
that is its practical counterpart. Quite deliberately, it says nothing about my
personal encounters with West-TOB adepts, both before and (naturally) after writing
it. The encounters that followed after its completion especially convinced me
that the West-TOB itself would never make such a big impact at me if I did not
have several opportunities to see it “embodied” and “in action”. Neither would
I be able to understand what is there that so effectively blows off not only the intimacy of God with the soul but inserts into the
soul an overwhelming – and entirely “insane” – dread of that intimacy. This
is why, for the sake of providing the reader with the sense of “lived experience”
which I credit for my understanding of it, I decided to speak about my highly
personal West-TOB related experiences, including bodily responses. For the same purpose, I kept a chronological
order of the events.
Metaphysical rape
I happened to
attend four lectures on the TOB given by a Catholic priest. There was nothing
of note about the first two, apart from a curious mismatch of the extremely undemanding
intellectual take of the lecturer and the complex and murky Wednesday audiences
of Pope John Paul II. The only thing that stuck in my mind were the strange
statements of the priest which punctuated an otherwise monotonous discourse.
One of them was that a priest (the lecturer himself) was the bridegroom of the
Church. Another that the seminary is
called “seminary” because it produces priests who “inseminate their congregations”.
The third lecture dealt with marriage and various sexual deviations; that
priest also briefly spoke about ‘Song of Songs’ treating it exclusively as
sexual, purely bodily affair entirely omitting its symbolic meaning. The
discourse was sufficient to cause a listener, a man in his late sixties to
blurt out “some say there is porn in the Bible!” with the fire and enthusiasm
of a teenager – the lecturer nodded approvingly. ‘Song of Songs’ thus became
porn. And then (a quote from my notes):
“The last lecture, called
‘Responsible Parenthood’, proved to be the climax, for the lecturer and a
revealing point, for me. The setting: a relatively small room. The lecturer, a
priest in his black cassock, was discoursing about the sin of Onan, withdrawal,
condoms, natural family planning, and so on. My body, the body of a person who
is used to naming phenomena as they are, somehow felt very uncomfortable – to
the point that it could hardly resist the urge to leave. My reaction, quite
atypical of a married woman in her forties, became understandable to me when I
realized the sheer absurdity of the situation: the lecturer, a male, a priest
dressed as a priest was talking, in great depth and physiological detail, about
contraception and sexual acts before an audience overwhelmingly consisting of
seventy-eighty year old people, mostly women. Somehow I feel pressed to repeat
with astonishment “in a black cassock!” This picture, to my mind, while being
entirely absurd and quite shameless, matched the TOB somehow. What I could not understand about the TOB before
[I glimpsed at the
work of JPII in the past] suddenly made
sense in this absurd frame: I realized that the TOB, designed for “married
couples” makes much more sense for those to whom the idea of the marital
relationship is deemed, for the variety of reasons, to remain an abstraction.”
Now, when I
read what I wrote at that time, I find it quite comical. Obscene, stupid
perhaps but not anything that could warrant the lines followed the description
of the farce:
“I suffocated, felt being squashed
and raped.”
Now I have a
fairly good idea why I had that bizarre, seemingly disproportionate reaction.
If I simply name it here the reader is not likely to be convinced. I also have
a point to make that is better conveyed by an example.
Let us
imagine that the lecture about the West-TOB is given by a man who is not a priest.
The context of Christian mystical theology is removed. He says “I, John Smith, am
the bridegroom of the Church. I am not a priest but I went to a seminary. There
they make priests to inseminate congregations; this is why a place is called a
“seminary”. ‘Song of Songs’ is about good sex, read it to your wives – it is
good for foreplay. And also, do not forget that coitus interruptus is a sin!
Remember how Onan did it? – I will remind you, like that, and like this, and
like that… Yes! And watch out for your fertile periods, old hens!”
Sounds
comical. Compare that to the real encounter then. I will retell it now, putting
the words and actions of the lecturer together and interpreting them
symbolically. It is not me who brings the symbolic interpretation to the
situation; it is the priest who is, apart from being a man, also a symbol,
especially when he is dressed accordingly and even more so in the ecclesial
environment. With keeping all that in a mind see how the picture changes.
A Catholic priest dressed according
to his status proclaims
to the ecclesia (a group of Catholic believers) that he is the Bridegroom of
the Church i.e. he takes upon himself the celebrated title of Jesus Christ,
“Christ the Bridegroom”, of the Church and of each individual’s soul. By doing
that he becomes Christ, symbolically, just like he does during the Eucharist –
this is the only context which actually sanctions his becoming such a symbol. In
the case of the Eucharist he does not proclaim anything, it is given by the
Mass itself; here he does so outside of that context hence he needs to announce
it. Being now “Christ” he then states that his vocation is to inseminate the
congregation. It means that Christ now is turned into “an inseminator” [albeit
spiritual, at that stage]. An action (sacrificial love) of Our Lord towards a
believer thus becomes a [spiritual] ejaculation into him. Then he engages in
foreplay with the audience unfolding, in his take, “the centrefold of the Bible”,
‘Song of Songs’. Apart from titillating the audience, this also pulls God into
a human bed so to speak. It is the end of the pure relationship of the soul (as
bride) with her true Bridegroom, Christ. The message: “What you knew before is
romantic nonsense, some shy kisses – now I will show you the real thing!” The
theme of semen then is picked up again and developed in the detailed discourse
about the sin of Onan. This action, taken out of context, is just obscene but within
the context it serves as something that gives the “physical reality” to the
previously “spiritual insemination”, enforcing the notion of “Christ the
inseminator” even more.
There is no
difference between these two situations, in what was said. The only difference
is that in the second case there is a symbolic figure, a priest who gives the
ideas of the West-TOB their symbolic meaning. He does it via his words i.e. referring to himself as the Bridegroom of
the Church and also via simply being a priest; this aspect is highlighted
by his priestly robe. It is the latter that allows him to “pull off” the former
statement, because of the reference to his role as Christ the High Priest during
the Eucharist. Remove the notion of “priest as Bridegroom” and the episode
loses all its potency – that potency I admit will be entirely lost on
non-Christians or even on non-Orthodox and non-Catholics and on those who know little
or nothing about Christian mysticism that is all about the Beloved, Christ the
Bridegroom. It also makes full sense only in the context of ecclesia, the
Church that is the Bride of Christ.
Hence, being
considered from the angle of that knowledge, the actions of a priest, can be read symbolically like this: an imposter
of Christ attempted to corrupt His Bride, the Church, profaned Christ’s
sacrificial love for her and then raped her.
And finally,
a personal touch. The indecency of the discourse made me physically suffer[1]
and that fact was clearly visible via my words and gestures which conveyed
disdain, disgust and protest. It did not stop the priest however and he went on
with the same topic, up to the climax of his discourse. This gives the whole
story the subjective sense of violation; being done via the sexualized content,
it can be defined as “verbal sexual violation”. It is more understandable then
why I wrote in my notes:
“I suffocated, felt being squashed
and raped.”
And later
on:
“The shock was not because of the
outwardly matters but because of the inner reality which I did not understand
on a conscious level yet (now I do). It was all about “the Bride of Christ
being raped”.
The result
of that encounter was quite unexpected. I was plagued by an irrational fear of
sexual violation and also by the mental image of a fake Christ, The Impostor.
The sight of
the real Christ on the icons triggered fear in me and I gradually grew numb to
Him. To my astonishment, I seemed to exhibit typical signs of being abused –
sexually abused albeit metaphysically.
As it happened, at that time the Church was dealing with the aftermath of child
sexual abuse scandals yet again. It suddenly became clear to me what makes
child sexual abuse, when it takes a place within the Church, a true pinnacle of
evil. It is not that a priest “does not live what he preaches”, along the lines
of the common wisdom of this world. It is not even what only a Christian can comprehend
and be horrified by, that a priest partakes Christ in communion and then rapes
– non-priests partake and rape or partake and murder and it is not yet a
pinnacle of evil although it comes close. It is that a priest symbolically
becomes Christ during the Eucharist, distributes that very Christ among the
faithful, and then rapes one of those to whom he gave Christ, often in the
proximity of the altar. Being a symbolic figure, he brings into what is already
an evil action something I can only define as “the triumph of inferno over the
Church”, the symbolic rape of the Church. But this is not all. Being a father
figure, by the nature of his vocation and by his official title, he brings into
this sexual abuse a distinctive flavour of incest. Symbolically, in him the
imposter, “Christ the rapist” and “Father the rapist” come together. This
unplugs the bottle of wild associations like “father figure – God the Father”
together with “Black Mass”, “children sacrifices” and so on which naturally
pull the mind away from Christianity and back to the dark mysteries of the dawn
of humanity like fertility cults and so on. And then a mind which is already
troubled enough by all those associations is presented with a striking
similarity between the god of primitive fertility cults, that is, sex and god preached
by the West-TOB.
The
similarity between the West-TOB and the fertility cults was discussed in ‘A
pure gaze of lust’ hence there is no need to repeat the argument. I only wish
to note briefly another strange feature of the West-TOB, that while speaking much about “sex oriented towards procreation” it is somehow silent about its
fruit, children. Neither does it discuss the relationship between parents and
children; “responsible parenthood” is understood strictly as an issue of birth
control. This depersonalisation and zero family relationships creates an even
stronger impression of similarity with fertility cults.
However, for
now I would like to make quite an outrageous move. Namely, to consider some of the details of the ‘Gnostic
Mass’ set forth by Aleister Crowly.
Phallus, Candle, Lance
I am not
sure how to satisfactory explain to the reader how I ended up looking into the
“golden standard” of Satanism and, even more so, why what I found there made me
keep looking further. If I say that the way the West-TOB treats Christian
symbols reminded me the way contemporary Gnosticism/Satanism does it and therefore
“the West-TOB is Satanic” I would probably fall into the category of the Bible
bashers who consider the depiction of fleur-de-lis ornament decorating the
floors of the Catholic churches to be an ample proof of theirs conviction that
the Catholic church is “Satanic”.
The matching
details of two phenomena prove nothing by themselves, unlike the similarity of
the spirit of the phenomena. However, while the details do not prove anything
the way those details are organised and used usually reveals something about their
author i.e. the spirit which I would define as “the spirit of an attitude,
methods, and purposes”. For example:
“The fact that the Blessed Mother's womb
became fruitful indicates that a masculine act of giving life occurred. It
doesn't have to be in the natural order of sexual intercourse any more than we
have to think that God had intercourse with our mothers to give us spiritual
life. But, the marital embrace is an earthly SIGN of life-giving love which
points to the spiritual life-giving love that God bestows on us.
I still do not understand why this cannot all apply to the Easter vigil liturgy. If the candle is a symbol of Christ on the Cross, which is the marriage bed on which Christ consummates His marriage to His Bride where He gives His spiritual seminal fluid to her, wouldn't it make sense that there would be some sort of phallic imagery there? Rahner and Bux use the terms procreative and fertilize which are both masculine actions. Phallic images denote the masculine act of fertilizing since they are used in relation to crops and animals as well as human fertility.” [2]
I went a bit
ahead though. I must state here plainly that, being an ex-occultist I found it
startling that the West-TOB discourses would bring to my mind lines from the
occult literature I had studied in the past. And not just lines but the vague,
general spirit of Gnosticism which, while operating under Christian symbols and
names, is making out of them something else. That “something else” is most
noticeable in its take on “someone else”, Jesus Christ.
Here is an example of “something being not exactly right” taken from ‘The
Perfect Matrimony’ by Samuel Aun Veor.
It is deliberately lengthy because the length is necessary for the full
effect of “immersing” into modern Gnosis. I italicized
the notions which overlap with the West-TOB, at least by association.
“The betrothal of the Soul and the Lamb
is the greatest feast of the Soul. That Great Lord of Light enters her. He becomes human,
while she becomes divine. From this mixture of divine and human develops that,
which the Adorable so aptly calls: “The Son of Man.”
When the Internal Christ enters the
Soul, He is transformed into Her. He is transformed into She and She into Him. The Alchemists say that we must
transform the Moon into the Sun. The Moon is the Soul.
The Sun is the Christ. The
transformation of the Moon into the Sun is only possible with the Fire, and
this can only be lit in the amorous connubium of the Perfect Matrimony.
The Son of Man is born of Water and
Fire. Water is the Semen. Fire is the Spirit. God shines upon the Perfect
Couple.
The
semen is the astral liquid of man. In the semen is the
Astral Light. The semen is the key of all powers and the key to all empires.”
The Bible also has many allusions to the phallic cult. The oath from the time of the Patriarch Abraham was taken by the Jews by placing their hand beneath the thigh; that is, on the sacred member. The Feast of the Tabernacles was an orgy similar to the famous Saturnalia of the Romans. The rite of circumcision is totally phallic.
The Bible also has many allusions to the phallic cult. The oath from the time of the Patriarch Abraham was taken by the Jews by placing their hand beneath the thigh; that is, on the sacred member. The Feast of the Tabernacles was an orgy similar to the famous Saturnalia of the Romans. The rite of circumcision is totally phallic.
We find much phallicism in Christianity. The
circumcision of Jesus, the feast of Epiphany,
the Corpus Christi etc, are phallic festivals inherited from the holy Pagan religions.
The dove, symbol of the Holy Spirit and
of the voluptuous Venus Aphrodite, is always represented as the phallic
instrument used by the Holy Spirit to impregnate the Virgin Mary.
“The
phallic cult is terribly divine. The phallic cult is scientifically
transcendental and profoundly
philosophical. The Era of Aquarius is aleady
approaching and then even laboratories will discover the energetic and mystical principles of the phallus and
uterus.”
“It
is impossible to receive the initiations of the Major Mysteries without the
phallic cult and
without Sexual Magic.
Many single students receive the
initiations of the Minor Mysteries in their superlative and transcendental consciousness when
they are chaste. Nevertheless, the initiations of Major Mysteries cannot be attained
without Sexual Magic and Kundalini.
Sex
is the foundation stone of the family, because without it the family could not
exist.
Sex
is the foundation stone of man because without it man could not come into
existence.
Sex is the foundation stone of the Universe because without it the Universe could
not exist.
The force of the Holy Spirit must
return inwards and upwards. It is urgent that the sexual forces are sublimated to the heart.
In this magnetic centre these forces are mixed with the forces of the Son, to
rise to the superior worlds. Only the person who completely develops Kundalini
is totally christified. Only the person who is christified can incarnate the
Father. The Son is one with the Father and the Father is one with the Son. No
one reaches the Father but through the Son. Thus it is written. The forces of
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit descend, to later return inwards and
upwards. This is Law.
The
energies of the Holy Spirit descend to the sexual organs. The energies of the
Son descend
to the heart, and the energies of the Father, to the mind.
We return via the energies of the Holy
Spirit, and on this return there are marvellous encounters. In the heart we
meet the Christ and in the mind, the Father. These encounters signify the
return in wards and up wards. Thus we pass beyond the fourth, fifth and sixth
dimensions of space. Then we liberate ourselves completely.
The four Gospels are really four texts
of Alchemy and White Magic. Initiation
begins with
the transmutation of the water of life (semen) into the Wine of Light of the Alchemists.
This miracle is realized at the Wedding
of Canaan (sic!); always in wedlock.
The
four Gospels can only be understood with the key of Sexual Magic and the
Perfect Matrimony.
Christ can do nothing without the
Snake. This only develops, evolves and progresses by practicing Sexual Magic.
All the priests of all religions,
teachers of all schools, the worshippers of Christ, the lovers of Wisdom, can
traverse the Path of the Perfect Matrimony. The Synthesis harms no one and
benefits all. This is the Doctrine of the Synthesis. This is the Doctrine of
the New Era.
We, the members of all schools,
religions, sects, orders etc., would do well to agree on the basis of the Perfect Matrimony as
the foundation for a new civilization based on the Wisdom of the Serpent.
Jesus was a complete man. Jesus was not
castrated as depicted by many religions. Jesus followed the Path of the Perfect
Matrimony. Jesus formed the Christ within himself by practicing Sexual Magic with his wife.”
I
could sum up the similarities between this modern Gnostic text and the
West-TOB, like the insistence on the “phallic underlining” of the Gospels,
interpretation of the Gospels mysteries as sexual, preoccupation with “seminal
fluid” and so on but I am afraid doing that would cause the reader to come too
close to the texts, so to speak, concentrating on the details instead of grasping
the whole. Instead I ask the reader to step back as if he is looking at an
Impressionist painting so the rough brushwork would blend and make a whole – an
impression. To aid this process, I will
provide two sets of quotes, with two quotes in each set.
1.
“Initiation begins with the
transmutation of the water of life (semen) into the Wine of Light of the
Alchemists. This
miracle is realized at the Wedding of Canaan (sic!); always in wedlock. The four Gospels can only be understood with
the key of Sexual Magic and the Perfect Matrimony.”
“If the [Easter] candle
is a symbol of Christ on the Cross, which is the marriage bed on which Christ
consummates His marriage to His Bride where He gives His spiritual seminal
fluid to her, wouldn't it make sense that there would be some sort of phallic
imagery there?
2.
The
Alchemists say that we must transform the Moon into the Sun. The Moon is the
Soul.
The
Sun is the Christ. The transformation of the Moon into the Sun is only possible
with the Fire, and this can only be lit in the amorous connubium of the Perfect
Matrimony.
The
Son of Man is born of Water and Fire. Water is the Semen. Fire is the Spirit.
God shines upon the Perfect Couple.
The
semen is the astral liquid of man. In the semen is the Astral Light. The semen
is the key of all powers and the key to all empires.”
“I forgot
to mention that Christ's baptism in the Jordan is also part of that
metaphysical sexual pattern. Whether carnal or virginal, it's the same pattern.
A husband 'knows' his wife.
The flame (or Christ candle) plunges into the font.
Christ plunges into the river Jordan.
The seed falls into the ground.
The Holy Spirit hovers over the waters.
The Holy Spirit overshadows the womb of Mary.
The Persons of the Holy Trinity all indwell each other in an eternally fruitful and blessed union.”
A husband 'knows' his wife.
The flame (or Christ candle) plunges into the font.
Christ plunges into the river Jordan.
The seed falls into the ground.
The Holy Spirit hovers over the waters.
The Holy Spirit overshadows the womb of Mary.
The Persons of the Holy Trinity all indwell each other in an eternally fruitful and blessed union.”
The spirit here is so similar (if not
identical) that it seemed even to cause the similarity of the style, of the modern
gnostic and of the West-TOB follower. An interpretation of the Baptism of Our
Lord as “metaphysical sexual pattern” appears to be a twin of the gnostic
approach “We find much phallicism in Christianity. The circumcision of Jesus, the
feast of Epiphany, the Corpus Christi etc, are phallic festivals inherited
from the holy Pagan religions.” But, while it is transparent why a gnostic = occultist
= pagan is trying to find in Christianity phallic symbolism of “holy pagan
religions” it is impossible to understand why the Christian authors of the
quotes above are doing just the same. Surely a phallus can add something to the
mystery of the Resurrection only for someone who has no idea what the Resurrection
(and whole Christianity) is. Is this an answer then?
The same sense of “something familiar”
that led me from the West-TOB to Gnosticism brought me then to the ‘Gnostic
Mass’ by Allister Crowley. Everyone knows that Black (Satanic) Mass is intentionally
a mockery of Catholic Mass hence it keeps the same structure and makes use of Christian
symbols and actions by the priest turning them into blasphemy. Below is the ‘Thelemic
Creed’, to illustrate how it is done:
“I believe in one secret and ineffable
LORD; and in one
Star
in the Company of Stars of whose fire we are created, and to which we shall
return;
and
in one Father of Life, Mystery of Mystery, in His name CHAOS, the sole
viceregent
of
the Sun upon the Earth; and in one Air the nourisher of all that breathes.
And
I believe in one Earth, the Mother of us all, and in one Womb wherein all men are
begotten, and wherein they shall rest, Mystery of Mystery, in Her name BABALON.
And
I believe in the Serpent and the Lion, Mystery of Mystery, in His name
BAPHOMET.
And
I believe in one Gnostic and Catholic Church of Light, Life, Love and Liberty,
the Word
of whose Law is THELEMA.
And
I believe in the communion of Saints.
And,
forasmuch as meat and drink are transmuted in us daily into spiritual substance,
I
believe in the Miracle of the Mass.
And
I confess one Baptism of Wisdom, whereby we accomplish the Miracle of
Incarnation.
And
I confess my life one, individual, and eternal that was, and is, and is to
come.
AUMGN.
AUMGN. AUMGN.”
Other texts of the Catholic Mass are
similarly turned into blasphemy. Two key figures of Gnostic Mass, Priest and
Priestess perform a ritual (symbolic) sexual act. During the preparatory part, the
priestess dresses the priest in a scarlet robe and then puts a crown on his
head. The priestess then undresses behind the veil. During the Gnostic Mass the
priests and priestess engage in various symbolic actions with the Lance. That the
context of the Gnostic Mass makes a mockery of the tool of the Passion is
self-evident; it is enhanced by its interpretation of the Lance as the Phallus and by acting this
interpretation out:
“Kneeling, she [Priestess] takes the Lance, between her open hands, and runs them up and down upon the shaft eleven times, very gently.”
“Kneeling, she [Priestess] takes the Lance, between her open hands, and runs them up and down upon the shaft eleven times, very gently.”
What stood out
to me in the Gnostic Mass was something I have not known before: it’s murky
references to the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom. The Priest dresses in a
“scarlet robe and a crown” bringing to mind the scarlet robe and the crown of
Christ during the Passion. The depiction of Him wearing them is called ‘Christ
the Bridegroom” or ‘Ecce Homo’. Dressed [let us assume] as Christ the
Bridegroom the priest approaches his “virginal Bride”, the priestess who is
undressing while proclaiming the lines which immediately brought to my mind
‘Song of Songs’:
“But
to love me is better than all things: if under the night-stars in the desert
thou
presently burnest mine incense before me, invoking me with a pure heart, and the
Serpent flame therein, thou shalt come a little to lie in my bosom. For one
kiss wilt thou
then be willing to give all; but whoso gives one particle of dust shall lose
all in that hour.
Ye shall gather goods and store of women and spices; ye shall wear rich jewels;
ye shall
exceed the nations of the earth in splendour & pride; but always in the
love of me, and
so shall ye come to my joy. I charge you earnestly to come before me in a
single robe, and
covered with a rich headdress. I love you! I yearn to you! Pale or purple,
veiled or voluptuous,
I who am all pleasure and purple, and drunkenness of the innermost sense, desire
you. Put on the wings, and arouse the coiled splendour within you: come unto me!
To me! To me! Sing the rapturous love-song unto me! Burn to me perfumes! Wear
to me
jewels! Drink to me, for I love you! I love you! I am the blue-lidded daughter
of sunset; I
am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky. To me! To me!”
Yes, it definitely is ‘Song of Songs’, a Satanic
version i.e. “sex strong as death”. Hence I conclude that the “scarlet robe”
and “crown” signify Christ the Bridegroom who, during ‘Gnostic Mass’,
de-virginizes his “virgin bride” – and then the result of this act, the
“communion” is distributed [there is no contradiction between the previous
statement about “Christ being killed by the Lance = phallus because it is the Christ
of Christianity who is killed and the Gnostic Mass shows “the real Christ who
screws”]. There is of course absolutely nothing surprising in the fact that the
Satanic Mass blasphemes via making out of the loving relationship between
Christ the Bridegroom and His Church an act of sexual intercourse, turning the Passion
and Crucifixion into sexual intercourse as well. What is surprising is that the
West-TOB, bybringing sex into the Liturgy seems to achieving the identical
result. Like here:
“So, is your sex life improving? It should
for those who have really understood and embraced the season of Lent. We said
last time in this column that the season of Lent was great for our sexual
lives. Now it gets even better!
… The events of the week leading up to
Christ’s death on the Cross are like a mystical “foreplay.” In fact, Jesus is
even stripped naked during this process. What happens on the Cross is not just
the death of Christ but the consummation of a mystical marriage between God and
His Bride. This is why Christ looks down from the Cross at his mother and calls
her “Woman.” He echoes the name Adam gave to Eve because in this
climactic moment, Christ becomes the new Adam and his Mother becomes the new
Eve.
… This
is why in my church we sing with great exuberance on the days of Pascha
(EasterJ “Christ emerges from the tomb like a bridegroom from the bridal
chamber and fills the women with great joy!” Wow! Now is that sexual or what!?”[3]
I find it is
very interesting that the text of the Gnostic Mass and the standard discourse
of the West-TOB on the same topic [any Mass re-enacts Christ’s Passion and
Sacrifice] somehow clarify each other. For example, a standard West-TOB
argument against the accusation of indecency in putting together Our Lord and
sex, that the sexual intercourse described here is mystical, cannot withstand
the fact that the sexual intercourse performed during the Gnostic Mass is
mystical as well. Another argument, that “there is nothing shameful about sex”
and therefore, that it is fine to bring it into the Liturgy does not work when
put together with the fact that Satanists have a very positive view of sex, in
fact probably much more positive than most Catholics. Certainly they are not burdened
by any sense of guilt regarding sex; that sense of guilt the West-TOB is
seeking to release the Catholics from; hence sex in the Gnostic Mass cannot be
viewed as something shameful in itself. It seems to me then that Satanists use
sex in conjunction with Christian (and other) symbols for two reasons:
1) to
perform the “sex magick” and also to make a reference to some scraps of ancient
dark mysteries/Kabbala/Alchemy
2) “to blow
Christianity off” by marrying it with something that it cannot be married with.
Indeed, the discourse of Fr Loya about Christ’s “mystical foreplay of Passion”
successfully wipes off the struggle, pain, self-sacrifice, – in one word, Passion itself and also
death which is being turned now into the “climatic moment” of the consummation
of the marriage. The reference to the sexual life of believers which the
recollection of the Passion Week is supposed to improve completes the
“finishing-off” the reality of the suffering and death of Our Lord. The real Christ
is literally “killed with the phallus” as he is in the Gnostic Mass and then
the Church is presented with the Imposter, the god of sex who “fills the women with great joy”. Someone
like “Jesus Christ” on the “icon” ‘Jesus Christ the God of Dance’ by Fr Lentz.
This could be the end of this paper if I was interested only in establishing the nature of the West-TOB. My original quest, as the reader may recall, was not so much the West-TOB as an abstract phenomenon but to understand its impact on my prayer life and my connection with Jesus Christ. What I wrote above still could not explain my strange fear of Our Lord satisfactory/completely. While the Gnostic Mass made it clear to me why I was having the obsession about “a fake Christ, the Imposter” ever since my encounter with the West-TOB priest it could not explain why I continued being fearful even after this clarification. Furthermore, now not only icons of Christ triggered my fear but also the writings of Christian mystics which, before the encounter, were my staple.
This could be the end of this paper if I was interested only in establishing the nature of the West-TOB. My original quest, as the reader may recall, was not so much the West-TOB as an abstract phenomenon but to understand its impact on my prayer life and my connection with Jesus Christ. What I wrote above still could not explain my strange fear of Our Lord satisfactory/completely. While the Gnostic Mass made it clear to me why I was having the obsession about “a fake Christ, the Imposter” ever since my encounter with the West-TOB priest it could not explain why I continued being fearful even after this clarification. Furthermore, now not only icons of Christ triggered my fear but also the writings of Christian mystics which, before the encounter, were my staple.
The solution
of the enigma came from the special issue of ‘The Journal of Thelemic Studies’,
‘The Mysteries of the Gnostic Mass’:
“The
union of the Lance and the Cup as the Father and Mother united (the Father
“dying” in orgasm in the Mother; the ego is dissolved in the Absolute in
Crossing the Abyss; “'Jesus,' slain with the Lance, whose blood is collected in
a Cup”) are the Greater Mysteries. The Lesser Mysteries are those of the Sword
and Disk. The Sword and the Disk are the Mind and Body and refer to the Miracle
of Incarnation, the cycle of Birth-Life-Death that is celebrated in O.T.O.'s
Man of Earth degrees, which Crowley connects with “On, Oannes, Noah, and the
like.”
It is not that the mix of symbols “explained”
anything – something in it unexpectedly brought me back to the setting of a Catholic
cathedral and me, among others, listening to the homily on the day of Our lady
of Sorrows. The priest was the same West-TOB priest of my first encounter. And,
strangely enough, when I put the two together, I understood why my relationship
with the Lord went to almost nothing.
The
second encounter
I probably
have to remind the reader about the meaning of the feast Our Lady of Sorrows first.
Significantly, if before the second encounter I would simply convey it with my
own words now I somehow feel compelled to back up my understanding with the
regular/official/traditional understanding of the Church and, even better, to
provide the quote from the official Catholic resource: [4]
“The title, Our Lady of Sorrows,
given to our Blessed Mother focuses on her intense suffering and grief during
the passion and death of our Lord. Traditionally, this suffering was not
limited to the passion and death event; rather, it comprised the seven dolors
or seven sorrows of Mary, which were foretold by the Priest Simeon who
proclaimed to Mary, This child [Jesus] is destined to be the downfall and the
rise of many in Israel, a sign that will be opposed and you yourself shall be
pierced with a sword so that the thoughts of many hearts may be laid bare (Luke
2:34-35). These seven sorrows of our Blessed Mother included the flight of the
Holy Family into Egypt; the loss and finding of the child Jesus in the Temple;
Mary's meeting of Jesus on His way to Calvary; Mary's standing at the foot of
the cross when our Lord was crucified; her holding of Jesus when He was taken
down from the cross; and then our Lord's burial. In all, the prophesy of Simeon
that a sword would pierce our Blessed Mother's heart was fulfilled in these
events. For this reason, Mary is sometimes depicted with her heart exposed and
with seven swords piercing it. More importantly, each new suffering was
received with the courage, love, and trust that echoed her fiat, let it be done
unto me according to Thy word, first uttered at the Annunciation. (…)
Interestingly, in 1482, the feast was
officially placed in the Roman Missal under the title of Our Lady of
Compassion, highlighting the great love our Blessed Mother displayed in
suffering with her Son. The word compassion derives from the Latin roots cum
and patior which means to suffer with. Our Blessed Mother's sorrow exceeded
anyone else's since she was the mother of Jesus, who was not only her Son but
also her Lord and Savior; she truly suffered with her Son. (…)
The key image here is our Blessed
Mother standing faithfully at the foot of the cross with her dying Son: the
Gospel of St. John recorded, Seeing His mother there with the disciple whom He
loved, Jesus said to His mother, 'Woman, there is your son.' In turn He said to
the disciple, 'There is your mother.' (John 19:26-27). The Second Vatican
Council in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church wrote, A...She stood in
keeping with the divine plan, suffering grievously with her only-begotten Son.
There she united herself, with a maternal heart, to His sacrifice, and lovingly
consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth
(#58).
St. Bernard (d. 1153) wrote, Truly, O
Blessed Mother, a sword has pierced your heart.... He died in body through a
love greater than anyone had known. She died in spirit through a love unlike
any other since His (De duodecim praerogatativs BVM).
Focusing on the compassion of our
Blessed Mother, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, reminded the faithful, Mary
Most Holy goes on being the loving consoler of those touched by the many
physical and moral sorrows which afflict and torment humanity. She knows our
sorrows and our pains, because she too suffered, from Bethlehem to Calvary.
'And they soul too a sword shall pierce.' Mary is our Spiritual Mother, and the
mother always understands her children and consoles them in their troubles.
Then, she has that specific mission to love us, received from Jesus on the
Cross, to love us only and always, so as to save us! Mary consoles us above all
by pointing out the Crucified One and Paradise to us! (1980).
Therefore, as we honor our Blessed
Mother, our Lady of Sorrows, we honor her as the faithful disciple and exemplar
of faith. Let us pray as we do in the opening prayer of the Mass for this feast
day: Father, as your Son was raised on the cross, His Mother Mary stood by Him,
sharing His sufferings. May your Church be united with Christ in His suffering
and death and so come to share in His rising to new life. Looking to the
example of Mary, may we too unite our sufferings to our Lord, facing them with
courage, love, and trust.”
After establishing a quite obvious fact
that follows even from the name of the feast itself, i.e. that the feast of Our
Lady of Sorrows is about the pain of the sorrows = the unbearable pain of the
Mother watching her only Son dying an exceedingly painful death the reader can
appreciate my sense of unreality when the priest, after singing ‘Stabat Mater
Dolorosa’ said the following:
“Today we celebrate the feast of Our
Lady of Sorrows. On the paintings the Virgin
Mary is often depicted standing at the cross with the chalice in which She is
collecting the blood streaming from her Son’s side. There is a rich symbolism
in today’s feast. The Virgin Mary is the symbol of the
Church. The Church is the Bride. On the cross Christ consummated the mystical
marriage with His Bride. Mary is the Bride of the Lamb, Christ. Christ calls
her “Woman”, from being his Mother she is becoming “Woman”. Mary is the New
Eve; Christ is the New Adam. From their union the Church is born. Those symbols
are worthy to think about.”
I did not need to think: if the Virgin
Mary, Mother of Christ is the Bride of Christ that makes her the Bride of her own
Son. If the Cross was “a marriage bed” then, following this line of thought, it
is incest.[5]
I predict the argument that the
marriage is “mystical” [and “virginal” as Cristopher West adds elsewhere]. The
words “mystical marriage” however cannot remove the connotation of incest
inherent in this context because the absolute taboo against “a mother engaging
in sex with her son” is engrained in normal human conscience to such a degree
that any hint to that possibility causes a sense of disgust and horror [and
also the rejection of everything that is connected with that incest].
Similarly, the words of Christ on the
Cross “woman, behold your son; [son], behold your mother”, which the West-TOB
stresses to smoothly move on to the “mystical marriage of the New Adam and the
New Eve” addressed to Apostle John,
cannot remove the connotation of incest because they cannot alter the fact that
the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. The words of Christ indicate that:
1) on the earthly level, He wishes His
beloved disciple to take care of Her because She does not have anyone else
2) on the metaphysical level, those
words indicate that now, in His death that is about to take a place, He is
acting as God, atoning for humankind, that is He is no longer just the Son of
Mary. And yet He is. [If he wasn’t it would undermine His humanity, the ground
reality of His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection and all Christian dogma
including the Atonement. He would effectively become the Christ of Gnosticism.]
She is His Mother for all eternity hence any hint of her “spousal” relationship
with Christ [of whatever kind] always carries the air of incest with it. This is
probably why, although indeed Christian mystics speak of the Virgin Mary as
“Bride of the Holy Spirit” or even (much rarer) “the Spouse of God” they (and
the Church as a whole) never link Her directly with Jesus Christ otherwise than
as Mother and Son. This is evident in the reading and hymns of the feast of Our
lady of Sorrows which are about the pain of the Mother (‘Stabat Mater Dolorosa”),
the Sacrifice of Her Son (Death of the Lord and Eucharist in the Letter of Ap.
Paul to the Corinthians) and also about the relationship of Mother and Son (the
Gospel of Ap. John). This is precisely why the words of the West-TOB priest
were such a shock to me.
There is something else disturbing in
all that: even if I attribute the insistence of the priest on the existence of
“many paintings depicting the Virgin Mary collecting the blood of her Son into
the chalice” to his lack of knowledge of Christian art I cannot get rid of the gnawing
thought: why is that that he cannot see, from a purely human point of view, the
utmost artificiality of such a scene? How can one expect a mother to hold a
chalice collecting the blood of her child while a Roman soldier is piercing the
flesh of her flesh? I imagine that all she could think of at that moment would
be her son, not some “ecclesia” [which, according to the West-TOB is meanwhile
being born from “God’s imperishable seed” (Christ’s) and “the New Eve” (her)]. It
appears that the artists shared my opinion because such depictions do not
exist. The blood, if it is collected at all, is gathered by an angel or the
symbolic female figure representing Ecclesia. Aha! – may say the reader, but the
Virgin Mary is the symbol of the Ecclesia, is she not? Yes, but somehow she is
never depicted as “an abstract figure” like the figure of Ecclesia. What we
have in Christian art are two distinct types of images, of the Crucifixion and
of the symbolic representation of the mystery of the Eucharist. The former
shows the Virgin Mary standing under the Cross together with the Apostle John
and St Mary Magdalen (with other women) who support her because she is unable
to stand on her own beholding such a sight. Occasionally an angel collecting
the blood of Christ is depicted.
The latter
is, essentially, a vision of the crucified Christ during the Eucharist. The
best known of such images is ‘The Mass of St Gregory’ that shows Pope Gregory
contemplating the Man of Sorrows during the Mass. Another and much less known
is the vision of St Hildegard of Bingen, which shows the Crucifixion together
with other Mysteries of God. The female figure symbolising Ecclesia collects
the blood of Christ (like in the vision of St Hildegard of Bingen) flowing from
His side into the Chalice; below the Crucifixion the same figure is shown
kneeling in adoration before the altar where the Chalice is now being placed.
The figure of Ecclesia here is in the place of St Gregory.
The figures, of the Virgin Mary and of
Ecclesia, never overlap/interchange in the context of the Crucifixion; if
anything, they are deliberately separated, via highlighting the role of the
Virgin Mary in the Incarnation and her motherly love and sacrifice, like this
very common juxtaposition of the Virgin with Her Child (‘Nativity’) and
Crucifixion:
Apart from theological reasons for
that, I am quite sure it is so because the purpose of Christian art is to
express the truth, both of God and of men. Christianity is not some abstract
[Gnostic] teaching but the faith of Incarnation, meaning there cannot be
anything contrary to the normal human psyche as it is intended by God. While,
abstractly speaking, one could depict the Virgin Mary collecting the blood of
her Son in a chalice “because she is a symbol of Ecclesia” such a depiction
would always have something very odd about it because, to a healthy mind, the
sight of a mother collecting the blood of her child for the purpose of
distributing it among others conveys not the Christian truth but something
else, quite opposite to what the Crucifixion and Eucharist are supposed to mean.
It is so because such a depiction would deny the normal humanity expressed in
the relationship of the Mother and her Son.
It is probably fitting to add here this
strange numbness to the realities of the “parent – child” relationship of
Virgin Mary and Her Son appear to be entirely in a harmony with the West-TOB
take on fatherhood as “insemination” and motherhood as “being inseminated”,
phallus and womb (as it already was stated in the beginning, the West-TOB
speaks neither about born children as persons nor about the relationship of
their parents with them, as anything personal). In this context, and also in
the context of the extreme and senseless sexualisation of Christian theology,
the transformation of “mystical marriage” into “mystical incest” seems to be a
logical end of the development of the West-TOB.
The
end of Christian mysticism
As it
was stated in the very beginning, this paper is the record of my desperate
attempts to identify what first damaged and then completely blew off my
relationship with Our Lord. In case the rather heavy material of the previous
chapter obliterated an already emerging answer I will sum it up: the transformation
of Christ the Bridegroom into a “sexually obsessed fake Christ, the Imposter” during
the first encounter with the West-TOB
embodied by a priest caused the cracks in the relationship; the notion of incest,
being attached to the “mystical marriage” during the second encounter, ruined
the relationship completely. The mechanics are easy to understand if we turn to
the true Christian mysticism.
A
human soul, according to the Christian mystical tradition, is a bride of
Christ. In baptism, she is betrothed to Christ; life after baptism is the run
towards her Beloved, towards an ever fuller possession of Him (a process that
lasts for eternity, according to St Gregory of Nyssa[6]).
The term “mystical marriage”, apart from conveying the supernatural reality
that is “somewhat like human spousal union but immeasurably more and not the
same”[7],
also signifies the perfect conformity of her will with the will of the Beloved
that is only possible through sacrificial love.
As a result of this conformity with Jesus Christ, a human person enters
into a blissful eternal communion with all the Persons of the Blessed Trinity,
something that numerous Christian saints were granted already in this life.
Both
the language of mystical theology and the realities it conveys may sound “esoteric”
and appear to have little to do with the life of a common Christian. The
mystics however do not say anything different from the statement made by Jesus
Christ Himself, “Anyone who loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love
him, and we shall come to him and make our home in him.”[8]
As for the language of the mystics, it is also entirely scriptural, that is of
the ‘Song of Songs’.
Basically,
the whole body of writings of various Christian mystics boils down to the
following: God touches their hearts; they fall in love with Him; being on fire,
they run after Him; this run, punctuated with the moments of reunion with God,
would stretch towards what is called “mystical marriage”. It is a passionate
love story, between God and man; being such it is fitting to write about it in
terms of the love story of human lovers. A mystic’s soul falls in love with
Jesus Christ, her Beloved Bridegroom, both human and divine and through Him she
is brought to the loving union with the other two Persons of the Most Holy
Trinity.
It is only natural then that ‘Song of Songs’, which is the song
between Bride and her Bridegroom, a soul (or Israel, in the Old Testament) and
Christ (or God, ibid) and also the love story of human lovers is the staple of
all who desire God.
It is also
natural for those who long for intimacy with God and find help and inspiration
in the writing of the mystics to begin adapting their language, including symbols,
and to begin thinking accordingly because mystical writings are anything but
“academic”; they are practical maps of the journey with God and to God. Even if
a person does not make use of the notion of Christ the Bridegroom of his soul
the bride in his relationship with the Lord i.e. even if he does not think
about his relationship with Christ along those lines this notion will
nevertheless convey to him something of the nature (or taste) of the objective reality
behind those symbols. Our Lord, when he speaks of Himself as Bridegroom, quite
naturally alludes to the meaning of the betrothal in the ancient Israel. That
is, the bride and bridegroom are already promised and given to each other but
the marriage as such is not consummated yet; all the other realities [“love as
strong as death” or even stronger than death, in the case of Christ and a soul]
apart from consummation are already there. The spiritual reality which the terms “Bride
and Bridegroom” convey is of both passionate love and purity, and also of the
security the Bride has in her Bridegroom (as the Church has in Christ). I
repeat, this is something that one who regularly reads Christian mystics
becomes accustomed too, as a glimpse into
the reality of the love of Christ for her soul and of what she may hope to attain.
Like this, expressed by St John of the Cross:
One dark night,
fired with love’s urgent longings
– ah, the sheer grace! –
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.
…
O guiding night!
O night more lovely than a dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her
Lover.[9]
fired with love’s urgent longings
– ah, the sheer grace! –
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.
…
O guiding night!
O night more lovely than a dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her
Lover.[9]
It is, as St
John puts it, “songs of the soul that rejoices in having reached the high state
of perfection, which is union with God, by the path of spiritual negation”. To
put it simply, it is the joyous experience of the union with God a soul was granted
after long days of being deprived of Him.
It is of
course an extremely exulted state. However, in its meaning and aspirations it
is not so different from the experience of a Christian who fasts and contemplates
the Passion of Our Lord during the bleak period of the Great Lent so then he
could die with Christ and be resurrected by Him again and be united with Him in
communion [the most intimate union with Our Lord] on the day of the
Resurrection. Regarding which another West-TOB author writes:
“So, is your sex life improving? It should
for those who have really understood and embraced the season of Lent. We said
last time in this column that the season of Lent was great for our sexual
lives. Now it gets even better!
. . . . The events of the week leading up to
Christ’s death on the Cross are like a mystical “foreplay.” In fact, Jesus is
even stripped naked during this process. What happens on the Cross is not just
the death of Christ but the consummation of a mystical marriage between God and
His Bride. This is why Christ looks down from the Cross at his mother and calls
her “Woman.” He echoes the name Adam gave to Eve because in this
climactic moment, Christ becomes the new Adam and his Mother becomes the new
Eve.
. . . . This is why in my church we sing with
great exuberance on the days of Pascha (Easter) “Christ emerges from the tomb
like a bridegroom from the bridal chamber and fills the women with great joy!”
Wow! Now is that sexual or what!?”
It feels
unnatural to make a connection between the two texts even by comparison because
there are no real points of comparison there apart from the names: Christ, Bride,
mystical marriage and so on. There are two realities – true Christian mysticism
and the West-TOB’s “something” or even Christianity and “something”. I have no
idea how to call it, but one thing I know for sure: those two cannot be
combined. Even more so, they cannot be accommodated by the same mind or, as a
matter of a fact, by the same Church. If the Church sees the “the events of the [Passion] week leading up
to Christ’s death on the Cross are like a mystical “foreplay” [during which]
Jesus is even stripped naked during this process” and recognises in this
description “One Whom her soul loves” she cannot then miraculously turn from
the Whore-mode into the Bride-mode and exult in her Divine Bridegroom, the
Almighty, the First and the Last, “one Who is coming on the clouds; everyone
will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the races of the earth will
mourn over Him.” She really should make a choice with whom she is.
The “priest factor”
I
stated in the beginning of this paper that “the encounters that followed after
its completion especially convinced me that the West-TOB itself would never
make a big impact at me if I did not have several opportunities to see it
“embodied” and “in action”. Neither would I be able to understand what is there
that so effectively blows off not only the intimacy of God with a soul but also
inserts into a soul the overwhelming – and entirely “insane” – dread of that
intimacy.” Finally, we can turn to the key-figure without which the West-TOB
would be doomed to remain, as it is often said to excuse its existence within
the Church (i.e. “who cares about it?”), on the fringes and not known to the
common church-goer. That is, to the figure of the priest.
I am
absolutely convinced that, just as that figure was indispensable for me to
understand the most important things about the West-TOB, it was also
indispensable for the “insemination” of a congregation (as the West-TOB puts
it) and for the fact that that “the seeds” would fall on the fertile soil, not
dry, not shallow, and that no birds of the air would be around.
The upper
layer of my parable is quite obvious I think, namely that the presence of the
priest who endorses the West-TOB ideas makes it much more probable that a
common believer will encounter them. Given during a homily, in the frame of Mass,
the West-TOB ideas may easily pass as Church teachings. In such a context they
are not likely to be questioned, by most parishioners. Finally, the figure of the
priest has a natural air of authority about it and as such gives an additional
credibility to the message thus making a bigger impact.
The next
layer of the parable is the realm of symbols. As it was shown here, the
aftermath of my two encounters with the West-TOB priest was the invasion of my
mind by the two notions, of “metaphysical
rape” [a fake Bridegroom, the Imposter, rapes the Bride of Christ, the
Church] and of “metaphysical incest”
[the play of the West-TOB with the symbols of Bride and Bridegroom, Mother and
Son, in the context of its preoccupation with “sex” acquired the strong connotation
of incest, between Virgin Mary and Christ]. I am absolutely convinced that,
while I could see both notions of the West-TOB in the writings of its authors, I
would never be affected by them to the degree I have been. That is, I would
never become irrationally scared of “Christ the Imposter”, would never have developed
the symptoms of being sexually abused, and – most importantly – would never
feel as if there was something forbidden, terrible, dirty about intimacy with
Our Lord and by all means resist that intimacy. Finally, I would never experience
“the total destruction of meaning” which somehow enabled me to understand the
experiences of the victims of child sexual abuse within the Church. What blew
my connection with the Lord off was not the message of the West-TOB by itself
but the messenger which embodied or
acted the West-TOB out, the priest.
Let
us now play with the figures and symbols like the West-TOB does.
Priest is the Father. The congregation are his Children.
The father figure must not be sexualized; neither must he sexualise his children and his relationships with them.
Priest is the Father. The congregation are his Children.
The father figure must not be sexualized; neither must he sexualise his children and his relationships with them.
Priest/Father
who acts sexually (verbally in this case) towards his Children engages in
incest.
Priest/Father
who conveys the connotation of incest speaking of the relationship of Mother/Virgin
Mary and Son/Christ to his Children engages in “double incest”, not just
introducing some “sexual aspect” (that would be one) but also introducing the
story of another incest which he relays to his Children, of the Son of God and
His Mother.
Bad
as it is, the play still can be enhanced. Priest/Father who takes upon himself
the title Bridegroom/Son of God becomes thus Father/Son of God who engages in
incest with own Children/ Siblings while telling them about incest of Son of
God and His Mother in which he is involved as well, being now the Son as well
as the Father. I.e., he now (symbolically) engages in incest thrice: as Father
to Children; as a teller about incest of the Son of God with His Mother; by
participation in the latter, via assuming the identity of the Bridegroom, the
Son of God. I.e. it is now him who engages in imaginary incest with Mother of
God.
The
Priest hence “incarnates” the West-TOB incest. It is one thing to read the blasphemous
poisonous nonsense about God and another – to hear it in the context of the
Church, as an integral part of the Mass, between the readings of the Gospels
and the Eucharist, presented as some “deeper teaching of the Church” by the
priest, the teacher and the icon of Christ – and thus becoming, at the same
time, an active participant in the
mystery of God and an object of a sexually abusive action of the priest that
not only violates the faithful but also makes out of Christ and His Mother something
that they are definitely not.
But is it not what the Gnostic Mass is about? Definitely, apart from “sex magick” the Gnostic Mass is about the mockery of Christianity and Christ and His Mother, “the union of the Lance and the Cup as the Father and Mother united (the Father “dying” in orgasm in the Mother; “'Jesus,' slain with the Lance, whose blood is collected in a Cup”) are the Greater Mysteries.” There is a subtle difference though. The Gnostic Mass kills “Jesus” symbolically, via the penis (Lance) of Father who engages in a sexual act with Mother. The West-TOB also symbolically “kills” Christ with the penis of “sex” of a couple, father and mother, meaning it destroys God with sexualisation of God. The Gnostic Mass did not go so far as to make “Father” into Son and “Mother” into the Virgin Mary, to ensure that the already dead Saviour would not rise again.
[1] I
suspect not only me; someone, an old man, left at that point.
[3] Fr
Loya, ‘Holy Week mediation’ https://airmaria.com/2009/07/31/mystics-martyrs-and-rhetoricians/
[4] ‘Catholic Education Resource Centre’, Fr William
Saunders
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-feast-of-our-lady-of-sorrows.html ]
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-feast-of-our-lady-of-sorrows.html ]
[5]The
discourse of St Augustin of Hippo to which the West-TOB routinely refers to
back up their interpretation of the cross as “marital bed” speaks of “a bed of
pain, not pleasure” on which Christ “surrendered Himself to torment for his
bride” [that is humanity], excludes any sexual interpretations.
[6] St
Gregory of Nyssa, ‘On the Soul and the Resurrection’.
[7]
The words of St Teresa of Avila quoted by memory.
[8]
John 14, 23.
[9] St
John of the Cross, ‘The Dark Night’.
No comments:
Post a Comment