Skip to content

The T-Rail vs Terrorism

July 11, 2014


Yesterday, I posted an essay called Are You My God? and although it had its moments of humor, which we fully intended, what I read of Bishop Dolan’s statements to the Albanian Islamic Cultural Center on Staten Island were not so humorous (article follows). It is interesting what man (institution) will do to get what he wants to keep his ego from being exposed, but what he does not realize is that he is exposed. Let’s look at the article in more detail, but first, I want to have a look-see at one of the poster’s comments to Kilpatrick’s article, and btw, the author is Catholic.

Post: “Cardinal Dolan’s actions/words come as no surprise to me. He is an appeaser at any price. Non-confrontational, even with evil. He has missed the boat, the plane, the train and the ship…Pope Francis seems to be equally uninformed (either by accident or design.)”


There is something about a member of a religious denomination scrutinizing (intelligently) about his religion that is exciting, and valid, and sometimes even vital. Honestly, it really catches my eye, and allows me a more honest look at the complexity of a person’s faith from both the inside and the outside. If members slog along in a faith without ever questioning the acts of his leaders, including teachers and those managing the parishes, along with the doctrine of the faith, then he gets what he pays for. In the Wisdom of Sirach it says: Partake of instruction with a great amount of silver and gain much gold with it. And I speak not of mankind’s understanding on gold, but the Spiritual Wellness in the TRUE BODY. 

What the poster touches on is what I see and sense in the Papal Office and offices of the superiors of the RCC: non-confrontational, even with evil, and uninformed. I have expressed this with the following: Spiritually Immature. I think that if Pope Fran truly understood what it means to shepherd a flock, he would not behave as he has. I believe he is a puppet for the work at present, and not able to come into his own unique gift. I believe this was decided from the start, and I find it a dangerous move on the part of the Vatican. So, given this presentation, the Malachy Prophesy rings supremely true. Whether one agrees or not with what a “leader” institutes is not the point here; it’s the usage and parlaying effect that we are reasoning. And please understand, to say one is not a shepherd to the flock in this category is not necessarily a “bad” thing, but more of a hearing problem.

There is no question in my mind that God has allowed for a period of repentance and transition for the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church, but the hanging question is this: DOES THIS COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE? I will not hesitate to answer NO to this question. Why? Because they are like toddlers clinging to a diseased vine. I think of the rhyme … when the wind blows the cradle will rock. When the bow breaks the cradle will fall … 

If my children were attending a school run by an institution of set dogma, and it came forth that children were being sexually abused throughout these schools, even if it was not the school where my children attended, I would either be in the face of the top office so fast, they would never have a chance to think about how to evade the crimes committed in this, or would immediately take my children out of the parish and the school of this institution. Likely both. If everyone did this, think how quickly the Vatican would act!  I had a choice long ago to join the RCC, but I chose not to because of the institutional head. It is patriarchal and it is discriminatory, and later, when I learned more on the doctrine, I said, “Thank God! Absolutely no way could I have aligned myself with this belief system.” You see, I am NOT WILLING to support a system claiming itself of Christ when I find that it misses the message on what is Christ, what is God, and what is Life in the Spirit, but, you see, this is where and how I am so different from religious, and not aligned with any “religion”— I do not need religion to believe as I am—to live as I believe. This, I understand is of gnosis, and not fully understood by the average layperson, but it is a significant factor in my Spirit Gifts, and I cannot betray God.



Where Agl. Paul speaks on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 …

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you[b] to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?


Now, you may say, “You have jumped topic.” No, this is what I ask you to see. First, the original suffers from the translation, but what Paul is reaching for in this teaching is that Paradox on Love (see essays in SPIR). In looking at verse 15, GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE … what is misunderstood is how this is achieved. One cannot know peace unless he first enters Love. These words are not just the Language of the Prophet ON Truth, but the Language of the Mystic. What Paul is ministering in … here, is this relationship of the two, both Prophet and Mystic, which is understood as a Collective Reasoning in the Spirit. THE PLACE is SHE—the ESSENCE OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF CHRIST. Paul does share in basic behavior on societal morality, but I rarely if ever use the word moral, or morality, because it is so vastly undefined in the world. Many will say not to murder if a person changes to another religion. This seems an obvious and moral way to behave in the society of the United States, but there are many who see it differently. Will this ever change? Will mankind ever see the “moral” way to behave in these matters? No. Here’s why …

Foul and abusive language can murder. Lies on and about those of innocence and purity can murder. Malpractice and deception can murder. Even misjudging can murder. I have seen where a court judge makes a decision on a case in which parent receives custody of a child, and the information given to the judge is untrue, and the judge, being of a discriminatory mindset, decides incorrectly, and the child suffers a slow and painfully abusive death being in the wrong hands. Was this a fair and just trial? This would be the same if one is accused of something untrue, and a life of this one is destroyed … affecting family, where many lives can suffer. This anguish can lead to all kinds of immoral acts, acts that have a serious and often times dangerous affect on many.

Okay, so how guilty has religion as a whole been on the topic of murder given this understanding? In the Realm of the Spirit, it is not a one act act. It is a serious of acts coming forth to be or become something other. There is always a backstory. In some cases, something has to die in order that something might live. This is a greater message in the Christ than marriage to institution, or even to another of the flesh. This is what Paul speaks on in 1 Corinthians, but as one of gnosis, he had to share it in such a way that it would make it into “The Good Book”, as they say. Did he know what he had written? Oh yes! He was in the Spirit, and he knew very well of not only the “two-fold message of the cross” but also that there is more than one way to view this. He knew the impact of what Jesus had brought into the world. He could see ahead—not completely, as this would not be ethical, and or profitable at that time—but he, as Prophet, one in the One, was of WORK AND WORTH THAT WAS “BEFORE HIM.”

Why does Paul speak of gifts? But each has his own gift from God. You see now why I share as I did? But I am not to go through each line and verse explaining what Paul is saying as this would not be Spiritually ethical, nor would it profit the one desiring to partake of a lot of silver … for the gold (Wisdom/She/Sophia). The understanding in these passages is one of purpose in PROPHESY: the evolution of God and Man. To take the Living God and fashion a male figure out of metal is misleading, suffocating, and  can endanger lives. I speak of the doctrines here, instituted according to man’s limited and partial understanding. Unless he unites with parenting Spirit, the child within, of WHOM Spirit Gift is born, he will not, cannot, be born anew. He remains in set institution, rambling, gambling, rearranging (shuffling of priests and bishops) … and generally speaking, causing more harm than good. This is NOT of that Good Book. This is what “Yeshua” came to tear down that CHRIST might RESTORE. I came not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, says He. What this preaches is this:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This isn’t just a pansy painted poster of fuzzy friendly acquisitions. This is a wake-up call telling you to get your acts together, for peace is not achieved unless LOVE IS IN THE BALANCE, and if you are heavy handed then cut off that hand, or cut some of it that another might be of Worth (not literally speaking but Spiritually Hearing). Here is where the RCC is heavy handed, and banded in such a way that ensnares others and keeps them from coming into Spirit Gift. But ask yourselves: What works within these that they would-should behave in such a manner for so many centuries?




The article (not in full):

New York’s Timothy Cardinal Dolan paid a visit last summer to the Albanian Islamic Cultural Center in Tompkinsville on Staten Island, where he met with a large group of Muslim leaders. As is often the case when Catholic prelates meet with Muslims, his theme was the common ground shared by the two faiths. Cardinal Dolan told his Islamic audience, “You love God, we love God, and he is the same God,” and he thanked them “for making me feel like a friend and a member of a family.” He went on to tell them how much they share in common with Catholics: “Your love of marriage and family, your love of children and babies, your love of freedom — religious freedom particularly — your defense of life, your desire for harmony and unity and your care for others, your care for God’s creation and your care for those who are in need.”

Perhaps this is true of the Muslims of Tompkinsville, but unfortunately the cardinal’s words will be taken as an endorsement of Islam in general. I say “unfortunately” because what he says about the common values and beliefs of Muslims and Catholics is highly misleading.

Two Fundamentally Distinct Faiths
Take the assertion that Muslims and Catholics love the same God. Of course, Cardinal Dolan’s statement can be justified in the broad sense: There is, after all, only one God. Whether prayer and worship are being offered to our Father in Heaven or to Allah or to the Great Spirit, there is only one God who is paying attention. But in that sense, anyone who offers up prayers is praying to the same God to whom Catholics pray.

Once we move from the general to the particular, the “same God” thesis begins to fall apart. In the New Testament, God presents Himself as a Trinity (Mt. 28:19); in the Koran, God explicitly denies being a Trinity (5:73). In the Gospels, God refers to Jesus as “my beloved Son” (Mt. 3:17); in the Koran, God curses Christians for calling Christ the Son of God (9:30). In the Christian account, God accepts His only Son’s sacrificial death on the cross; in the Muslim account, God declares reports of Christ’s crucifixion to be “a monstrous falsehood” (4:157). In light of these significant differences, it is difficult to see how the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran could be one and the same.

There are similar problems with Cardinal Dolan’s other assertions, such as, “Your love of marriage and the family.” Yes, Muslims can generally be counted on to love their families. But in many respects, the Catholic and Muslim views of marriage and family are worlds apart. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament; to Muslims, it is a contract. Moreover, it is primarily a contract about sex and money. In fact, the Arabic language uses the same word, nikah, for both marriage and sexual intercourse. In Islam, marriage is an institution ordained to meet the sexual needs of men. Thus, a Muslim man can have two, three, or four wives at a time and as many different families. And four is not really an absolute limit because if a Muslim man gets tired of one of his wives, he need only say “I divorce you” three times and he is free to marry another. Although many Muslim men rise above their religion and stay faithful to one wife, the knowledge that one can be easily replaced creates an undercurrent of insecurity and instability that, in turn, leads to widespread family dysfunction in the Muslim world. In fact, a number of scholars contend that Islamic violence is in large part the result of Islamic family dynamics.

“Your love of children and babies.” Under Islamic law, women and children are little more than possessions of their husbands and fathers. Still, the bonds of natural affection often trump what Egyptian-born writer Nonie Darwish calls “the corrupting temptations” of Islam. Yet those religiously sanctioned temptations are ever present in the Muslim world. Take the matter of child marriage. Muhammad signed a marriage contract with Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. And Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the most perfect human being who ever lived! The Koran says ninety-one times that all Muslims are supposed to pattern their lives after Muhammad. Thus, when Islamic societies strive to return to their Muhammaden roots, there is a corresponding demand for a lowering of the legal age of marriage. For example, Iranian lawmakers are now seeking to lower the age of marriage for girls to nine. Mohammad Ali Isfenani, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, called the current minimum age of thirteen “un-Islamic.”

Then, of course, there is the matter of honor killings. An increasing number of Muslim fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers feel so strongly about family honor that they are willing to murder any female relative who calls the family honor into question. Some commentators say this practice has nothing to do with Islam but is merely an unfortunate tribal custom. But the fact is that Muslims account for the vast majority of honor killings worldwide. This is because honor killings are protected under Islamic law. Perhaps the most authoritative guide to Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveler, a nine hundred-page manual that has been certified as reliable by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Section O, which deals with “retaliations” (punishments) for killing a human being, explains that some killings are not subject to retaliation. For example, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” In other words, parents or grandparents who kill their children or grandchildren should not be punished. And so, in many places in the Muslim world, the perpetrators of honor killings are not punished or else are let off with a light or suspended sentence.

“Your love of freedom — religious freedom particularly.” Religious freedom? But what about the freedom to change one’s religion? This would seem to be one of the most basic exercises of religious freedom. Yet there is near unanimity among Islamic scholars and jurists that male apostates from Islam should be killed. And the average Muslim in the street tends to agree. A 2010 Pew Forum survey of public opinion found that eighty-four percent of Egyptians agree that apostates should be killed. A Pew survey of Pakistanis revealed that seventy-eight percent favor death for those who leave Islam.

Freedom of religion would also seem to involve the freedom to criticize one’s religion. But, as is now becoming apparent, most Muslims worldwide have little or no freedom to criticize Islam due to its blasphemy laws. Moreover, unlike some other aspects of sharia law, blasphemy laws also apply to non-Muslims. Numerous Christians in Muslim lands have been jailed or killed for making an offhand remark about Muhammad or Islam. Nor does living in the West necessarily protect one from the reach of the blasphemy enforcers. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed in the streets of Amsterdam for making a film critical of Islam. In Denmark, writer Lars Hedegaard was nearly killed by a would-be assassin for “insulting Islam.” Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and his granddaughter were forced to take shelter in a safe room when an armed Muslim attempted to break into his house. Meanwhile, death fatwas have been issued against a Seattle cartoonist, a Los Angeles filmmaker, and a Florida pastor — all for violations of blasphemy laws.

It’s a good bet that Muslims in Tompkinsville don’t take the blasphemy laws as seriously as Muslims in Pakistan, but there are reasons to believe that not all American Muslims are as enthusiastic about religious liberty as Cardinal Dolan suggests. For example, a 2012 poll conducted by Wenzel Strategies found that fifty-eight percent of Muslim-American citizens believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should not be allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Forty-six percent said that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face criminal charges, while one in eight respondents felt that such crimes merit the death penalty. Another forty-two percent said that Christians do not have the right to evangelize Muslims.



The hierarchy of the institution of the RCC has for centuries relied on the “poor” to remain “poor” and undereducated in order to keep itself top chef. One has only to look where this permeates at present. Look at the poor pouring across the southern borders into the US. These are predominantly Roman Catholic immigrants. The US Conference of Bishops is pushing that these be treated as refugees. Are these bishops and cardinals willing to give up THEIR HOUSE AND PAY for these Members? But why hasn’t the RCC affected change in these impoverished and crime riddled provinces? Look at Mexico. “The archdiocese is the largest in the world, with more than 7 million Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church in Mexico comprises sixteen ecclesiastical provinces each headed by an archbishop. The provinces are in turn subdivided into 70 dioceses and 16 archdioceses each headed by a bishop or an archbishop.” (Wikipedia)

Does anyone see the parallel in what this religion/institution is doing? Everywhere the enigma goes the “what” is sure to follow? Except that these as enigma are with a lot of money, wealthy establishments and billions poured into educating priests, housing, use of their indentured servants for political/religious gain (power mongering), and a multitude of businesses (check out the German Bishops and their version of Amazon, which they were told they had to sell when, finally, it was addressed! “Gee, let them go at it for another five years to make more money.” And what happened to the money once the business was sold?)

And the flow of babies … babies, babies, babies … THAT THE RCC DOES NOT FEED AND HOUSE PROPERLY WITHIN ITS DOCTRINE OF FAITH, OR CANNOT KEEP UP THROUGH USE OF THOSE INDENTURED TO THIS TASK (usually the nuns through their vows).




The RCC has for centuries played favorites without playing fair. If we look at the recent acts since Pope Fran came into office, we must ask what is the Vatican up to? Are non Catholics and non believers expected to foot the bill for all of these Roman Catholics pouring into the States? Seriously, the existing problems are no where near remedied. Is the Vatican think tank cozying up to those they believe will support their agenda? From my vantage point, the Vatican has been playing its own PRESIDENT in all provinces where it set up shop (hence all the bread and butter businesses and schools) for a very long time, and wants desperately to act as a governing president in other countries, especially the United States because it does not like its freedoms and laws for women. Now are they pushing for a “Roman-Islam-Evangelical Religious” to vote their ethics into house favoritism? Good grief!  They have sexual abuse of children, and discrimination AND abuse of women running rampant in their institution. They refuse to admit the size and scope of what this has done to both mankind and humankind—what has been infected into societies (feeding Mafia their Communion meal, as well as their diseased and broken clergy) … allowing these to have full and free use of every society while a carrier of this disease … all the while strutting around in their fine robes playing at a speculative oath of poverty, pretending to be godly men. Whose God, I ask? It’s papal bull, for sure. Give me a nonmilitant theist any day who knows how to clean his own room.


Read the articles. Religious freedoms? Based on what? Again, I ask, whose God?




And will we have an escalation of sexual abuse with the immigrants?

Seriously, it is really kinda weird that the Vatican would crack down on the nuns for honoring a Jesuit educated woman for her theological work and then have their pope, along with Bishop Dolan of New York telling the world that the Muslim God and the Christian God are the same God. DO ANY OF YOU FIND THIS ODD? Possibly a little scary?

What I focus on here is injustices within the organization itself. The hot button issues on contraception and marriage are not so much a reality when the fruit is of the Essence in the amending desire for Christlikeness.
















Peace and Love.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: