Talk politics.

When the new Vicar of Caesar Jesus was on his way back to Rome from a visit to Latin America a few weeks back, journalists peppered him with questions about the existence of a "gay lobby" at the Vatican. I immediately thought of Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. There is quite a bit of gayety at the opulent H.Q. of Jesus, Inc. Of course, that was not what the journalists were inquiring about.

A number of people interpreted the frank pontifical response as a shift in Vatican attitudes toward homosexuality. They heard him speak of not judging people by their sexual orientation. They failed to hear him qualify his gracious restraint with a caveat about seeking Jesus and avoiding Masonry. More astute observers are concerned that the pope is more willing than ever to protect priests who have allowed their lower parts to get out of hand in the presence of youngsters.

I found it ironic that anyone would seek for a Jewish prophet at an opulent Roman palace. Some of our students pointed out that the Roman Jesus has been quite distinct from the genuine article for centuries. Freemasonry might be a better venue to seek out the real thing after all. I objected by pointing to Propaganda Due as an example of how Roman bishoprics and Freemasonry mix poorly. I shudder to think of what might happen if any of the red cap vipers caught up with a guy resembling Jesus.

A little digging around revealed a group, the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS), opposed to the pope's recent edict criminalizing leaks of abuse cases. They contend that the requirement of secrecy places the Vatican in the league of organized crime. This seemed somewhat absurd. After all the Vatican and organized crime have fit like hand and glove throughout its history. There is nothing new there.

Do you see any value in the campaign by ITCCS to enhance the reputation of the Vatican as an international pariah? Does their program stand a snowball's chance in Hell?

Links: The Guardian on the pope's gay lobby remarks. The NYT on a Vatican ordinance against leaks. The ITCCS Web page.

One of the problems that machine engineers face is deciding when a mechanical product is in a sufficient state of perfection that it is ready to be used by someone outside of the production circle. Most organizations employ a hierarchical process of verification that the machine must be put through before it is made available to the widest population of users. The person who encounters the machine for the first time is called a "naive user" because she is completely unfamiliar with the nature of the beast. The feedback that such a person gives about the machine is extremely valuable in the verification process. A good engineering organization seeks out such feedback and uses it to improve the quality of the machine for subsequent encounters with other naive users.

A social organization has mechanistic qualities. Political machines predate the dawn of "democratic" processes. Some of the pre-democratic political machines continue to function as machines behind the veil of public process. The British Bankers Club can be seen pulling and pushing various levers to maintain its influence in America. Likewise the original cult of Romulus and Remus can be seen preserving its own hide on the stage of global influence.

These machines depend on the naive user in more ways than one. There was a time when the Roman cult banned the publication of its esoteric literature in any language other than Latin. It did this in order to maintain the naivety of its users. Likewise, the British Bankers Club prefers to hide behind super PACs and off-shore currency laundromats. It actively opposes campaign reforms like a squid behind a cloud of ink. It has even gone so far as to promote the idea of a Jewish Bankers Club as a distraction to its own global machinations.

The Roman cult got some very good feedback when it encountered the truly naive users of Peru. The natives of America preferred to die rather than to become Roman. Natives also stood their own ground against the encroachment of British investment. Roman priests tried to alienate the Natives from the British Bankers Club by pointing to the deadly toxicity of British firewater. Nobody ever died of drinking French brandy. Liquor taxation was at the heart of the Hamiltonian machine and liquor debt was at the heart of Jeffersonian land expropriation. The naive users had an inkling of the devastation to come but knew not how to fend off the juggernaut.

What are your experiences as a naive user of Western political machinery?

Links: Pizarro on his conquest of Peru. George Healy on Jesuits and Natives in Canada. Richard Kohn on Hamilton's use of force against the Whiskey Rebellion.

During a discussion of US intervention in Southeast Asia, one of our students made the observation that where the US military goes, corruption follows. Another student raised the objection that corruption existed in Vietnam before American involvement. The French were a vector of corruption and before them Mandarins were a corrupting influence. The other student commented that she did not deny the previous corruption, but that the US involvement did nothing to correct the situation. In some regards, it made things worse.

A third student commented that the French and Americans shared the common fate of being below the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth. People with a corrupt consciousness cannot easily transcend corruption. They are indoctrinated into its dehumanizing precepts from an early age. A fourth student confirmed this observation with a comment from Tacitus that described the Brits as being enslaved by luxury. The description of American activity in Southeast Asia during the '50s reflects an imprisonment into a luxurious lifestyle of cocktail parties and low cost domestic servants. Academics from East Lansing Michigan lived much higher on the hog in Vietnam than they could back home.

The material Creator itself was crafted by the most corrupt clerics of the early Church. They were bishops from affluent families who led lives of luxury far removed from the hardships of life experienced by the hoi polloi. Many of them were promoted to their positions without working their way up the ladder of clerical promotion. Their family connections and material assets made them prime candidates for Church leadership. Rich kids with no share in primogeniture inheritance often dropped out of school to join the Church. It was less intellectually demanding than pursuing philosophy. The bishops of the fourth century were the Bill Gateses of their times.

A fifth student mentioned the corruption of Buddhism in Vietnam. Cleric Thich Tri Quang was seduced by the idea of waging war in order to achieve peace. The student pointed to an ossification in the Buddhist intellectual discipline that stifled scientific inquiry. Buddhist training continues to depend on a classical paradigm of physics that has long since been transcended by the West. Even Roman academics have come to embrace modern physics.

Finally, yet another student chimed in with a description of intellectual corruption in the ranks of the Maoists. She pointed out that they used dialectical materialism as a dogmatic religion. This type of thing can also be seen in Marxists in the US. She made a reference to my own encounter with a Marxist who accused me of blasphemy when I referred to Marx as "Uncle Karl."

What role does corruption play in US policy decisions today? How long do you expect it will take for Americans to transcend the material Creator?

Links: Tacitus on the Roman province of Britain. Lederer and Burdick on the American lifestyle in Southeast Asia. Ramparts article on American academics in Vietnam. Eusebius on Church history. James McAllister on Thich Tri Quang.

Events in Rome have stirred up a considerable amount of dander elsewhere on our shrinking planet. After cracking down on religious Catholic women to the extent of banning a book, Cardinal Lavada has moved to greener pastures. His replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a conservative German theologian by the name of Gerhard Müller. Some on the Right have questioned his credentials because he had collaborated on a work with Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian advocate of Liberation Theology. The installation of a new chief inquisitor prompted me to read what the man has to say.

Having grown up beyond the pale of the Jesus cult, but having grown up in the midst of cult members, the turmoil within their camp fascinates me. Müller opposes Sacramental Matrimony for anyone but a man and a woman. This should suit the gay community just fine becuse that community does not seek Sacramental Matrimony. What homosexuals desire is something far more meaningful. Where the conflict arises is in the misperception on the part of Catholic voters that a higher form of marriage inclusive of people of the same gender should not be permitted simply because Rome advocates the lesser institution of Sacramental Matrimony.

Müller also opposes the ordination of women to the Roman Order. He points to a number of reasons for his position including the fact that Jesus was a guy. The reason that most fascinates me is that Rome lacks the authority to ordain women to its "Holy Order." This implies that Lutherans and Anglicans have powers that Rome lacks. I'll toast to that!

In his treatise on why Rome also lacks the authority to ordain women to the diaconate, Müller makes the astute observation that today's deacons are not the same as the deacons mentioned in the literature of the Early Church. That literature mentions the existence of female deacons. Müller makes some allusion to differences in offices of priests and bishops, but does not pursue those differences to their obvious conclusion. Müller's treatise confirms the fact that Jesus did not institute the Church that professes to represent him. The Apostles were responsible for establishing followings of their own that eventually morphed into the Roman Church after generations of power struggles and internecine strife.

As for the "Jesus was a guy" argument, Gerd Lüdemann's thesis that Paul founded the Church would lead to a "Paul was a guy" rationale. Constantine made his mark upon the Medieval Church by presiding over the Nicene Council. One could also make a "Constantine was a guy" contention for the impotence of Rome to ordain women. Since Thomas Aquinas introduced the magic of transubstantiation, one could also say that "Aquinas was a guy" is yet another reason for Roman impotence.

Women have been ordained by members of the Roman hierarchy, so not all Romans lack the power to ordain women. Conservative Catholics might turn their noses up at a communion service conducted by a woman, but they are a dying breed. Younger Catholics lack the bigotry required to foster such disgust.

Some may argue that Roman policy is a purely private matter for Romans. Were it not for tendencies such as Catholic support for defrauding homosexuals and women of rights and dignity in the public sphere, I would agree. Do you see a silver lining in the dark cloud of Gerhard Müller's theology?

Links: Gerhard Müller's treatise on gender issues. Praise for the appointment from a blogger. Another blogger's concern over Müller's support for Liberation Theology. Gerd Lüdemann's work on Paul's role in the establishment of the Church. Gustavo Gutiérrez's work on Liberation Theology.

A few weeks back I heard a story of a Catholic nun who had been "silenced" by the Vatican. A reporter interviewing her asked how she could consent to the interview given her status with respect to being silenced. She remarked that tyranny only works when you cooperate with it. The story prompted me to check the Net for the latest antics of the Vatican with respect to Catholic women. What I found did not surprise me, but it may come as a shock to people who are naive to Roman interference in American politics.

The Vatican seems to be attempting to organize its forces for the coming election. They are using their despotic authority in an effort to get American Church officials to conform to the Vatican campaign platform. The power of excommunication has been threatened in the cases of Catholic officials who refuse to obey their Roman "superiors." It is clear that the forces of ignorance have their knickers in a twist over policy differences here in the US.

Those of us who have been raised outside of Roman ritual can not easily comprehend the significance of the process of excluding Catholics from communion. We can only imagine the fear that such an act inspires in the heart of the superstitious. I suppose it would be like having dad tell you that he will kick you out of the house if you do not stop smoking cannabis. Some kids would kowtow to the ban where others would hit the streets and camp out with the gang from Hippie Hill. "You can't kick me out if I don't live there anymore."

The latter day version of the Inquisition has issued a rebuke to American women in the Church who have failed to toe the Party Line from Rome on issues of interest to Roman domination (Full text here.). An organization of religious Catholic women was cited for not being adequately vocal in opposition to American civil liberties such as birth control and gay marriage. Members of the organization have even gone so far as to advocate the ordination of women clerics. The inquisitors from Rome (and San Francisco) have attacked the group for espousing "radical feminism."

Although some see this recent action as being the result of a lengthy process, the political timing points to an interference in American politics. The organization became a burr in the Roman saddle when it took a stand against Roman bishops in favor of health care reform. The inquisitorial action of imposing male supervision over the women's organization comes during the presidential election campaign season and is chartered to extend through the next presidential election in 2016.

There are a variety of perspectives on this action from lay leaders in the US. Some Catholic men side with the freedom of their female compatriots where others stand firmly behind the Vicar of Caesar Jesus and his inquisitors. Here is an opinion piece from a Catholic at the Washington Post on the totalitarian aspects of the Vatican's actions. A woman who lobbies Congress on social justice issues credits education for the position of women at the vanguard of social reform. Here is a humorous piece on the affair by a Dominican monastic.

Do you see this as a form of interference in American politics? Do you support the Vatican in their efforts to homogenize the message of the Church? What would Jesus say?