Home           Wicca 101/FAQ           Glossary            About the Author           Email the Author        Questions of the Day         Email List

Questions to the Author

Due to time constraints, I am no longer accepting questions for this section. However, I am leaving the previous answers online for people to read at their leisure.

I've wondered about the Necromancer or Necromancy. I'm tired of what they're doing on Diablo2, that's just stupid. But I want to know where the idea originated from. The only real understanding I have is from Greek/Latin roots Necro=death Mancer=Mage.

"Mancy" refers to specifically to divination, not magery. Hence, there is divination by palm (chiromancy), divination by book (bibliomancy), divination by cards (cartomancy), etc. Historically, necromancy has been divination though the dead, such as speaking to the spirits of those who have passed on.

The necromancer of modern fiction, who frequently animates corpses, seeks to become undead, etc, therefore has very little to do with his historical counterpart.

Hi i was wondering who is the "Horned God"? and Is wicca a form of Devil worship as i have read this in many books befor? and how can i gain my powers as i do believe in magic(good)?

The better question is...if I tell you it's not Devil worship, will you even believe me? The only books that describe Wicca as Devil worship are those published by certain fundamentalist Christians, and most of those people think anything non-Christian is Devil worship. Yes, we are non-Christian. No, we do not worship anything called the Devil or Satan.

The Horned God is generally depicted with antlers. He is frequently equated with Cernunnos and sometimes also with Pan. He is the Traditional patron god in Wicca.

"Your" powers? Magic isn't something we possess. There are hundreds of books of magical practice. Read one. No, scratch that. Read Many. Or even click on the link that says "Magic" on my site.

Is a Solitary Wiccan really valid? Does self-initiation even matter? Someone told me that the only way to become Wiccan is to be initiated by a lineaged Gardnerian.

What you ran into is what some refer to as a "Hard-Gard." I don't think there are a lot of people who are that conservative, but there some. What is more common is for people to believe that you have to be initiated into a lineaged Tradition, of which the Gardnerians are but one of many.

Certainly, the religion of Gerald Gardner was lineaged-only, so a logical argument can be made that the word Wicca refers to a very specific community of people, not just anyone who shares similar notions of faith. However, in Gardner's mind initiation was only for priests. Theoretically, there were plenty of people who followed the Old Religion more generally who were not initiated. Do we need a different word for the priests and the followers? Moreover, as Wicca has entered common lexicon over the last several decades as meaning a wider religious practice, how long can the Traditionalists reasonably object to such word use?

While I sympathize with the Traditionalists, I believe Eclecticism (which is what Solitaries are generally practicing) is a natural and reasonable evolutionary branch of Wicca. Maybe in the future we will come up with a separate name for it, but I personally am not going to lose sleep over it either way. "Self-initiation," however, is a contradictory in terms. Initiation is something conferred upon you by others. You cannot confer it upon yourself and thus cannot "self-initiate." What Solitaries do is go through a dedication ceremony, which is their declaration to the gods of their intent and, well, dedication to them. Some Traditionalists recognize Eclectics as Wiccans and thus recognize dedications. Traditionalists that believe that initiation is mandatory do not recognize dedication as having a place in Wicca, but calling it a self-initiation will win them over even less. For the moment, it is a matter on which we simply have to agree to disagree.

Say that you were binding someone's negativity that you don't particularly enjoy being in their company. So obviously, when you do that you tread on that person's free will. It is, in my perspective, a good thing for everyone and it doesn't harm that person. The karmic debt is my question. Since it is generally good, would you get good or bad karma for doing this?

There is no such thing as good karma or bad karma (I don't care how many cute little rhymes saying otherwise get posted on the Internet). Karma is the consequence of actions. Every action has consequences. These consequences are rarely moral-specific. Negative consequences can come from actions done for the greater good. If you jump in front of a car to push a child out of the way, you're still likely to be hit by that car and break bones. Those are the consequences of jumping in front of a car. The universe does not generally give you a break because you did it for the "right reasons." So, yes, you can definitely experience negative consequences from binding someone.

Here's a simpler suggestion. If you don't enjoy a person's company, how about not keeping company with them? Do you really think (regardless of the consequences) that it is appropriate to tailor someone's personality to your likes and dislikes? Negativity is a subjective term. Some people consider me a pessimist. My boss at a previous job, however, called me the "reality check" for the department: after the managers were through over-inflating expectations, I would poke holes in the plan and highlight more reasonable outcomes.

Often you will hear someone say that they are a certain element. Is it truly part of wicca to associate yourself with an element? I have read books and haven't heard mention of it in any of them. And my second question is: Do you personally think that if you aren't part of a coven, you aren't truly wiccan? I've read that many many people think so.

Is it "truly" a part of Wicca, as in integral to the practice of Wicca? No. Do Wiccans do it? Frequently. Is there a problem with Wiccans doing such? No. Do I think Wiccans need to identify their personal element? No. I think it can be a useful exercise, but I've also seen it go horribly the wrong way. Someone classifies themself as a certain element, and suddenly they feel that every aspect of their life should be brought in tune with that one element. We're comprised of four elements. While many of us have natural tendencies (and weaknesses) toward certain elements, the answer is not to skew one's entire life toward one extreme.

For the second question, no, I don't. Some Traditionalists hold that a true Wiccan is only one who has been initiated - something that can only happen in a coven. Essentially, to them Wicca is more than a religion. The word reflects a very specific community as well. I can certainly sympathize with their position, but IMHO, the word Wicca has entered common lexicon as meaning something quite a bit wider. Perhaps one of these days a term will evolve to reflect the division. "Eclectic Wicca" already does that to some extent. But I refuse to force the term "neo-Wicca" (the term Traditionalists frequently use for the practices of us un-initiated folk) upon Eclectics nor do I accept their term for myself. The coven isn't the issue here. It's the initiation. If a bunch of your friends decided one day to form a coven, a hard-core Traditionalist would not suddenly think you were more Wiccan.

I was wondering, which author do you think as more merit? Philip Hesselton's 'Wiccan Roots' and Ronald Hutton's 'The Triumph of the Moon' are both highly influential works, and both have their flaws. Admittedly, I like Hutton's work better, as I view a lot of the evidence Hesselton gives to be based on subjective interpretations (particularly in the matter of Dorothy Clutterbuck's diaries). However, 'Wiccan Roots' was written more recently than mr. hutton's book, and goes into more details about Gardner's life and associates, to the extent that I consider it more useful than the biography 'Gerald Gardner : Witch' by Idries Shah. While I have my quibbles with Mr. Hesselton's work, I can say that he is delightful in person and bears an uncanny resemblance to Gerald Gardner himself! Incidentally, Silver RavenWolf has *so* many more books deserving of your attention. I'd love to see you pick apart 'Teen Witch'. I know it's been done before, and quite possibly to death, but I have no doubts you'd be excellent for the job!

I highly recommend "Triumph of the Moon" over "Wiccan Roots." Hutton is an established historian who clearly lists his sources so that you know where he is coming from and can, should you wish, verify the information that he is working with. Hesselton, as you point out, is much more subjective. His "evidence" is frequently hearsay and many steps removed from the original supposed source. My particular quibble is with the chapter about those who supposedly died raising a cone of power to stop Hitler from invading England. Even if his reasoning for suspecting those he names is sound (and I have strong doubts as to that), those people wanted their identities to remain secret, and I see no reason why we should "out" them as witches, particularly on such speculative evidence.

Hesselton also way over-emphasizes "Gerald Gardner: Witch." If the author (or the estate of that author) cared, they could surely sue him for plagiarism due to his overuse of quotes, which far exceeds what is considered "fair use." He quotes a passage, then talks about it; quotes another passage, then talks about it. It's more like a gigantic book report in that regard than a work of research. Moreover, from what I know of "Gerald Gardner: Witch," everything in it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Hutton did this, frequently pointing out things from "Gerald Gardner: Witch" that contradicted Hutton's own claims and then explaining why he discounted that book or particular issues. Hesselton is not nearly so discerning about his evidence.

As for Ravenwolf books, I do not acquire books merely for the purpose of slamming them. I tore apart one of her books, and I've highlighted a few of her more disturbing statements from "Teen Witch" and her former website. If people still want to read Ravenwolf's other books after that, I don't think more angry reviews are going to sway them.

have u read the Da Vinci Code? though this book is a piece of fiction, there are statements in it that give me pause: Constantine the Great saw paganism failing and chose to merg it with christainity, so then were the two traditions originally so similar?

Oh, the topic that makes the history teacher in me cringe: The DaVinci Code. Take nothing in that book as gospel (no pun intended). Some of it is very much Dan Brown's personal and/or fictional take on facts, and some of it is just plain wrong. Christian mobs were not, for example, pulling down pagan temples in the middle of Rome at the time of Constantine, for example. Constantine also, incidentally, did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome - he simply made it legal (the emperor before him, after all, was regularly throwing Christians to the lions), and he encouraged the Church's growth.

Constantine did not do this because of some great war between Christians and pagans. The Roman empire was failing in Constantine's time. There was a lot of pressure from invading forces and much of the empire's organization had long since crumbled. Constantine saw Christianity as a great potential uniter. Regardless of his own personal religious beliefs, he thought Christianity was Rome's only chance of survival. Which is why he pressured the Church to get more internally organized - codify its beliefs, reinforce its hierarchy - so more people would take it seriously and then use the Church as a sort of backbone to hold up the failing empire.

"Paganism" isn't a tradition. It means "Non-Christian." There were lots of pagan religions in Rome. Few of them preached the sort of universality that Christianity did, and those that might have were mystery cults followed by a few, select individuals. In sort, none of these religions could be a rallying point for Romans. Christianity was yet another religion of Rome. Various aspects of it are similar to various aspects of various other religions of the time. Overall, however, they are all separate religions.

I have a question about ritual tools. The athame is said to be a tool of Air, and I've always wondered about that, since it's used for "commanding", casting the circle etc. I'd say that would be Fire much more than Air. I've met a few people who would actually get angry with me when they found out I didn't personally assign the athame to Air. I assign the athame to Fire, because it makes so much more sense to me, and my mind stubbornly refuses to make a association that doesn't feel right. Now I recently found an explanation for this in a book called "The elements of ritual" by Deborah Lipp. The author says the fact that the athame is usually said to be Air, is due to the Rider Waite Tarot deck, where the suit of Air is Swords. She states that this is the case because the creator of this deck was a member of the Golden Dawn, had sworn secrecy and as such didn't want to reveal too much in his deck. So he switched 2 correspondences: Swords (which were Fire) became Air, and Wands (which were Air) became Fire. This sounds plausible, but is it then solely because of this Tarot Deck that this association between sword/athame and Air continued? I've read that Gardner based himself, in part, on the Golden Dawn when he "created" Wicca. If that is the case, why didn't we stick to the association of Fire - Athame, if that is how the Golden Dawn saw it?

To my knowledge, Gardner was never a member of the Golden Dawn. There was, however, plenty of information available about the Golden Dawn by the time Gardner was writing. This information leaked out in a number of ways, as is common with occult knowledge...and a problem with occult knowledge. Sometimes information becomes public without its original context becoming public, changing its meaning. Also, sometimes information might be deliberately changed to hide secrets, which is what is strongly rumored in the case of the dagger or sword being assigned to Air or Fire.

I'm not sure that the confusion comes from Waite's tarot deck. Besides the deck, A.E. Waite published a handful of books, and he might have changed the assignment in one of them. Gardner could have read that book (or studied his tarot deck) just as many other occultists did. Gardner certainly did incorporate many Golden Dawn ideas, but that doesn't make him a a Golden Dawn member or imply he was privy to their secrets. (Through much the same mechanism, Eclectic Wicca is certainly based upon Gardnerian Wicca ideas, but that doesn't suddenly make us Gardnerians...or imply that we are privy to their secrets!)

Ceremonial magic (like that which the Golden Dawn practiced) is highly ritualized and laden with correspondences. To ceremonial magicians, it is very important to use the correct tool, herb, color, time of day etc for a working to be successful. Wicca, witchcraft and other pagan paths are generally less ritualized and stress personal responses and symbolism. If the athame represents Fire to you, it is more effective for you to use it as a representation of Fire than as a representation of Air, no matter how many books (or people) say otherwise. It's important to listen to other people's reasoning for their correspondences, because they might hit upon something that has never occurred to you, but at the end of the say, if athame=Air makes no sense to you, then there is no sense pretending otherwise.

Incidentally, I also associate the athame with Fire and the wand with Air, largely for the reasons you have listed. I can certainly see the logic in reversing the associations as well, but that arrangement continues to fail to click with my subconscious. More specifically, I very strongly associate the sword with Fire, and the athame just follows along. The pentacle seems obviously Earthy, and the cup is clearly Water, which means the wand (which I never personally use anyway) gets Air by default.

I've read most of the pages on your site and there are some things I agree with, and some that I don't. My question is this: You state in your historical section that the pagans in europe were not converted to christianity at sword point. The history records we have were mostly written by christian priests, who would have been, perhaps a little biased on the subject? history is written and even re-written by the victors... so how can you state anything in ancient times as historicaly true? no one knows what really happened, but the fact is that the old religioin was stamped out, and the pagan gods were demonized or completely changed and absorbed into the new religion? I hope my question is clear... It seems a little fuzzy after a readthrough, but Im not going to rewirte it

First, to clarify: I did not say that no one was converted by sword point. I said that most were not.

Everything written is biased. Some sources are more biased than others, but all sources are biased, including our modern day newspapers. This is because all people have an opinion. However, just because we have an opinion does not mean that we will consciously invent stories that agree with our opinions. If you want to say we cannot trust anything written in the past, then you have to also distrust everything written now - which makes for a very conspiracy-laden, uninformed, paranoid life.

There are many ways that historians verify their sources. One is if several sources talk about the same thing. If the writers are making things up, the versions will not agree with each other. We also have the records of pagans discussing Christianity and Christians, as well as records from some of the converted. We also have entire libraries of Christian theology, which portray a religion that generally finds more value and morality in peaceful instruction than forceful conversion. Why would they make up that fact, just to confuse later historians? You yourself describe the Church as the "victor." Who were they afraid of would judge them? Throughout the Middle Ages, pretty much the only people reading theology were clergy. Moreover, this was within a society that glorified violence. No one would have found them odd in promoting a more militaristic theology.

Furthermore, while we do have records of missionaries striking out on their own to teach Christianity to the barbarians (and of their martyrdoms!), we do not have records of armies sneaking across Europe, holding cities or kingdoms hostage, and forcing conversion. So which should I believe: the records we actually have of missionaries, or records that don't actually exist? How could everyone miss an entire army and not note it?

There is also our knowledge of sociology and the human condition. You cannot convert an entire population by force for any long length of time. Communists tried that in the last century. Communism itself has now largely died out, because most people just never had any reason to believe it worked. And the Communists tried suppressing religion, but still people worshiped secretly in the Soviet Union and even went to jail for it. And we know all this, despite the fact that the Communists didn't want us to know.

Contrary to this, we do not have evidence of people all over Europe (or the world!) blatantly worshiping older gods when they were supposed to be good Christians. We do see it in places (generally where we think conversions were more forced), but we do not see it everywhere. We see bits of paganism survive in their culture, but that is cultural assimilation, not pagan rebellion.

Clarification number two: there is no such thing as The Old Religion. Yes, the old religions (plural) of Europe disappeared, and Christians certainly had a deliberate hand in that, but they had a variety of approaches to doing that, and the most common method was talking to people. Modern Pagans simply have to get over the fact that many of their pagan ancestors willingly and cheerfully converted to a religion that many times offered them more comfort than their previous one. We can be a perfectly legitimate religion without inventing a nemesis to hate.

And here's a final notion to consider: if we can trust nothing historical to actually be true, how can one be so sure that the Christians converted the continent at sword point? If all evidence is suspect, what evidence can that opinion possibly be based on? How do you trust the evidence that says that pagan gods were demonized, but not the evidence that says most people willingly converted? You can't only suspect the evidence that doesn't fit your theory.

ok, so im new wih being wiccan, and i do not know how I can talk to my family about this, because they are all christians, and believe only one god isthe true god. What should I do, or say?

First, how new? If you've just started looking into it in the last couple of months, you might want to give yourself more time to be sure in this path and be able to answer your family's basic questions. If you do feel you are ready for this, here are some suggestions I recently laid out on a forum I'm on:

Remain calm. That will show that you are serious about this. Respect their opinions. You can disagree without getting angry. You want them to understand that this was a mature decision, not an act of rebellion (which some people think even when their kids are being serious). Be prepared to explain what you believe in, NOT what you disbelieve in. Saying that you don't believe in Satan or Hell or original sin are good reasons to not be Christian, but in no way addresses your interest in Wicca.

And maybe the most important point: answer their actual questions, not the questions you think should be answered. Sometimes people get so prepared for this conversation that they don't want to stray from their prepared speech, and you end up effectively lecturing your parents instead of talking with them. You may be surprised at what they know or don't know about Wicca, so don't make assumptions. Not nearly everyone, even devout Christians, associate Wicca with demons or Satan. There's no need to go through the "I don't worship demons" speech if your parents aren't actually concerned about that.

They may be more concerned about you leaving Christianity than joining Wicca, so be prepared to explain that to them as well. And remember that they are trying to do what's best for you, even if you disagree. To them, this decision jeopardizes your soul. They like your soul. They don't want bad things to happen to it. I'm not saying agree with them. I'm just saying try to understand where they are coming from.

Finally, I don't know how old you are, but if you're under 18, your parents have a right to tell you stop following this until you're an adult. If you're over 18, but you're still living with them, consider how far you want to push the issue. Is Wicca worth getting kicked out of the house? Wicca will be still there when you are independent. Losing the financial and emotional support of your family can be devastating.

I need some advice. I am in college and doing a research paper on pagan religions. My husband is Asatru and the study of that has led me to studying Wicca. I have been searching the web for days trying to find a true Wiccan in my area that i can interview for my research paper and have had no luck. I have been reading your website, great information by the way but you knew that already, and I have a question. When I do find someone to interview how will I know who is for real and who is only posing or dabbling. I am interested in talking to someone who is truly in Wicca because that is what they believe in their heart and soul and not because they want attention from the general public. Any advice can you give would be much appreciated. Blessings to you and thank you for your time.

Issues of who is a "true Wiccan" gets technical and ugly really quick. At best I could explain my use of the term Wicca, but my definition doesn't hold sway over all the other Wiccans. So, the best I can do is make some suggestions for approach and some things to look out for.

Get a good handle on Wiccan basics. As your interviewee about them. If they conflict with what you know, ask him why they believe such a thing. If the person is a dabbler, they may be sincere, but will be unable to provide you with solid answers. "Well, that's just how it is done," is a great dabbler alert line. Dodging questions is also a good indicator. Defensiveness is another warning sign, especially in the flavor of "Well, you wouldn't understand how that works, so I'm not going to waste your time."

Posers are generally identifiable my their egos and their interest in themselves. Some people are very person in their religion, preferring to state "I believe in..." Instead of "Wiccans believe in..." and that's fine, (although you then have to be wary that the person is telling you would actually be helpful for your paper on Wicca), but you've got a potential problem when someone just wants to talk about how great they are, how Wicca gave them magical powers, what was the last demon they vanquished, etc. Be wary of titles. If someone says they are a 3rd degree Wiccan, ask what Tradition. Degrees only exist in covens, and most of those covens are part of a Tradition. Someone who claims to be a 3rd degree Eclectic Solitary is just making things up.

Multiple, large pentagrams are a big giveaway that the person is seeking attention. Although you should realize that someone can be a "true Wiccan" AND be an attention-seeker.

Generally speaking, if you really feel the person is making something up, they probably are. We don't change our hair color through magic. We don't fight "assassin demons." We were not born specifically to vanquish evil powers. We do not deal with beings called "whitelighters," and I'm highly suspicious of anyone who offers classes called "Defense against the Dark Arts."

I was interested in finding out what your view is on breaking Circle. I know that a lot of Wiccans have a complete fit if Circle is inadvertantly broken, and expect much badness to come down from that. Even the priestess who was one of the officiants at our handfasting (which was kind of "Wiccatru" and there was both a Hammer Rite (For my husband's then Asatru side) and thrice cast Circle (for my Wiccan side), when my husband decided that instead of asking if anyone objects, that he should lay out a sword and the priest say, "If any here object, let them come forth onto this field of honor." She was concerned, "What if someone does come forth, they'll be breaking the circle!" While I try not to break circle, I can't say as any plagues have come down on us as a result.

I have to wonder if your priestess understood the point of the circle to begin with! While ceremonial magicians cast circles to keep bad things out, that is because they are generally summoning things that they want to keep at a distance. Wiccans, however, primarily cast circles to keep energy in, as well as consecrate the ritual area. Breaking the circle can thus disrupt its benefits, but there's no reason to think that it would suddenly generate a negative effect. And since this sounds like it was a public wedding, I'm guessing your circle was more symbolic than functional anyway: probably no building up cones of power inside of it, for instance. While I would not have wanted it broken, it would have been out of respect for the sacredness of the area, not out of fear that something horrid would result.

If the circle has no purpose, then there's no reason to cast it. However, we should understand our purpose for casting it when we do so. If I accidentally break my circle, I generally recast it, because it is, indeed, "broken." But I do not expect plagues of locusts to descend upon me for the error. And if I have to leave a circle after it has been cast, I likewise recast the circle, as I've never been able to take the whole "cutting a door in the circle" seriously.

I've wondered about the Necromancer or Necromancy. I'm tired of what they're doing on Diablo2, that's just stupid. But I want to know where the idea originated from. The only real understanding I have is from Greek/Latin roots Necro=death Mancer=Mage.

"Mancy" refers to specifically to divination, not magery. Hence, there is divination by palm (chiromancy), divination by book (bibliomancy), divination by cards (cartomancy), etc. Historically, necromancy has been divination though the dead, such as speaking to the spirits of those who have passed on.

The necromancer of modern fiction, who frequently animates corpses, seeks to become undead, etc, therefore has very little to do with his historical counterpart.

Hi i was wondering who is the "Horned God"? and Is wicca a form of Devil worship as i have read this in many books befor? and how can i gain my powers as i do believe in magic(good)?

The better question is...if I tell you it's not Devil worship, will you even believe me? The only books that describe Wicca as Devil worship are those published by certain fundamentalist Christians, and most of those people think anything non-Christian is Devil worship. Yes, we are non-Christian. No, we do not worship anything called the Devil or Satan.

The Horned God is generally depicted with antlers. He is frequently equated with Cernunnos and sometimes also with Pan. He is the Traditional patron god in Wicca.

"Your" powers? Magic isn't something we possess. There are hundreds of books of magical practice. Read one. No, scratch that. Read many. Or even click on the link that says "Magic."

Although I realise that there are different pentagrams for the different elements, I was wondering why the direction for an invoking pentagram seems to go in an anti-clockwise manner and vice versa. Surely an invoking pentagram would go clockwise? or is it supposed to be from our point of view or the 'invokee'?

I think you may have suggested the answer yourself. I'm always wondered the same thing. I've even seen it explained that invoking pentagrams should go clockwise...and then the accomplanying illustration depicts a movement I can only describe as anti-clockwise! But your point is excellent about the "point of view" issue.

is it true that the Christian devil is based, in part, on Pan?

Satan has been depicted in many, many forms over the centuries: a man; an angel with batwings; a many-headed dragon; a blue, bloated monster, and the currently popular horned fellow with cloven hooves. Sometimes his penis was replaced by a second face tucked between his legs. Satan comes in many, many forms, so the fact that one of those forms resembles one polytheistic deity out of many thousands is really not so surprising.

Was a Christian artist looking at an ancient image of Pan when he first decided to draw Satan with horns? I don't know, and I don't know that anyone does know. Pan can be a creepy-looking thing. The Christian may have even been ignorant of the image's original meaning and simply borrowed the look.

What we don't have is a document of Christian officials going "These Pan worshipers are out of control! We must convince them to stop!" Pan was a very minor deity in pagan times and a bit of a joke to many of the other gods. If the Christians felt it necessary to discredit a god by equating him with Satan, Pan would have been very far down on the list of likely targets.

I was wondering is there any possible way that the christian bible has some things in it based off of mythology? because alot of things in it kinda sound like twisted versions of things in mythology.

By "mythology" I will assume you mean non-Christian mythology, as the Biblical stories are certainly mythological in their right. (mythology: A collection of stories belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.)

It is extremely important to understand that NO religion develops in a vacuum. It emerges from within a culture that has its own values and stories. As such, some similarity between mythologies are common as stories and values are assimilated across religious boundaries.

Also, there are certain themes that are extremely common in religions and/or storytelling in general. Death and rebirth is but one example. Just because other religions happen to have similar themes hardly means that Christianity had to have stolen and twisted other stories.

The Bible also has plenty of mentions of the pagan deities present in the areas in which the books were written, and they are depicted as such. While ignorant Bible-thumpers may swear up and down that the Bible states that Baal, a local Canaanite god, is Satan, it is simply not there. God warns the Hebrews not to worship Baal, but that is because of the "worship only me" commandment, not because of any Satanic implications.

What exactly is "Drawning Down The Moon"? how much experience does it require to perform and can it be done with specific deities?

Drawing Down the Moon is a ritual in which the High Priest draws the Goddess into the High Priestess, who acts as a channel. And, yes, it can be accomplished with specific deities.

The popular concept of this ritual has become totally fluffed over the last couple of decades by books that discuss it as if Solitaries can learn it over a weekend. People who are High Priestesses in Traditional covens generally get that title only after many years of training and experience, not to mention being judged by her elders as being qualified for elevation to that title. We're talking about channelling a power greater than ourselves.

We're talking about opening ourselves so fully to this power that the HPS frequently does not remember much of the experience. And we're talking about having the will, the ability, and the trust to set one's own identity completely aside in order for this to happen. The entire logic of the Traditional ritual simply does not work for Solitaries. The HP is a crucial partner, and even if it is possible to do it on one's own, I've never met a Trad Wiccan who would be willing to try.

Some people have gotten the idea that Drawing Down the Moon is largely symbolic, where the HPS says "Ok, now I'm the Goddess," and continues a ceremony as normal. Worse, sometimes they expect greater respect for having done this! Quite frankly, what is the point of that, other than inflating our own egos?

A friend of mine has recently come to me with a problem, she has spoken to her friends about a spirit that has "perched" on her dresser, it has been staring at her for the last two weeks. This started about the time her and her husband separated, and we feel (her close and sensitive friends) that she may be the cause of this intruder to her house. HOW DO WE GET RID OF IT?? The three of us she told her story to all got the same feeling from her and we all knew without talking to her or each other, it was a Gargoyle.

If you all really came to the same conclusion, I can only think that you all have been watching the same television show way too much.

Gargoyles are not creatures. They are statues. The word is derived from a French word meaning "throat" or "waterspout," because that was frequently the function of such statues.

Then again, if a statue has perched on her dresser, that would explain why it hasn't moved. Unfortunately, spells work very poorly on gargoyles. However, picking them up and placing them in the trash has been shown to be remarkably effective.

I've been reading about Wicca, and I'm interested to know what you think about the Great Rite and scourging within the circle. There seems to be a controversy between those who feel uncomfortable with literal intercourse between the Priest and Priestess and those that feel a symbolic enactment just doesn't cut it. What are your thoughts, and do you know anything more about this controversy?

I think these things are up to individual covens. Some covens require the Great Rite in actuality, and if you're not into that, then you shouldn't be a member of that coven. It's that simple. Conversely, if you don't think a symbolic Great Rite is worthy of the name, find a coven that practices it in actuality. I have never performed it, nor will I, because I am married and made pledges of monogamy, so I can't fairly make a comparison between actual versus symbolic.

I'm in the middle of Frederic Lamond's "Fifty Years of Wicca." He was a member of Gardner's coven, and he relates that even Gardner was willing to let the Great Rite be performed symbolically. Therefore, speaking down about those who do not perform it in actuality seems a wee bit antagonistic. Lamond himself believes that such people are missing out on a significant experience, and I'm not going to debate that, but there are more things in this life than just how to find significant experiences.

I'm far less familiar with scourging because very few books even mention it, and, as I am a Solitary, I haven't had the opportunity to experience it. Again according to Lamond, scourging was the only way Gardner could effectively raise power. His asthma kept him from using other methods such as dance. Even Gardner's own coven found his emphasis on scourging excessive and toned it down when Gardner was not present! Again, however, we're all adults. I just wish we would stop ignoring it all together out of fear that it sounds kinky.

i read your response to someone elses question regarding the goddess and god, but i'm still some what confused. for instance, though i've done work with several greek and egyption dieties- i'm not sure if i see them as actual beings or personified forces of nature/energy. i find it easier to think of deities in their human or animal form when calling on them, because it's familiar to me. At the same time i think, "This isnt who they really are, their part of something bigger" I've read books that mention an All or refer to dieties as bees preforming specific tasks for the hive. have i been feed fulse images by authors trying to make money?

Also, i was wondering if i could get your opinion on spells in general. if a person is sick and you do a spell for them and they get better, can u ever know if it was macgic or medicine. If magic only works if ur willing to go after what u want what's the point in spells or rituals at all?

I can state my own beliefs and my reasons behind them. Wiccan authors write all sorts of stuff, and some of it is completely contradictory. It's a young religion. We're throwing a lot of ideas around right now. I don't know of a reference to something called "the All" or "the One" that is older than Scott Cunningham's books, and suddenly people are repeating it like it's ancient wisdom.

How you "see" your deities may or may not be how they actually exist. For example, I envision my god and goddess in distinctly human forms, and I see no problem with that. I simply believe that is not their true existence. It's very hard for most humans to form a relationship with something they think of as a big blob of divinity. But I, personally, really can't believe that the gods are actually confined to "bodies" that have two arms, two legs, and a head. Especially since they don't actually even have physical bodies. But we do tend to relate to them through such imagery.

At least generally speaking, no, you can't know whether it was magic or medicine that made someone better. As to why one would bother with magic to begin with...why do you take medicine? It doesn't come with a guarantee either. Why go to college? It doesn't guarantee that you'll get the job or the salary you want. It does, however, up the odds. It may even significantly up the odds, even though other actions are still necessary. When you graduate from college, businesses do not start calling you out of the blue. You still have to write a resume and mail it to companies and interview at those companies in order to even have a chance at a job. But, if you do all that, the college degree then weighs heavily in your favor. Magic is the same way. It tips things in your favor, but it has to have a reasonable path through which to work.

[I]t would be good to have a single book on basic rules to not have the problem of not knowing who´s a wicca and who´s not. and then after all of that people would be able to concentrate into their magic skills instead of not knowing if they are a wicca or not. my question is... do you think it would be possible if, you could do this for the religion, because I think is important.

No, I can't. I can give you my definition of Wicca, and I can give you my reasons for those definitions, but I am not the Wiccan Pope. I absolutely, positively do NOT have the authority to dictate what Wicca is. The best we can to is throw out reasoned arguments and see what people gravitate toward. Well thought out definitions are going to be embraced over time, while illogical ones will be discarded. It is, however, a growing process.

This is not unique to Wicca. Many other religions have debated their nature and definition for much longer than we have. Christians have been killing each other over the argument for centuries, for example. So have Muslims. For that matter, the Muslim struggle between Shiites and Sunnis is still bloody today.

Who, besides the God, inhabit the underworld, and why? Who (or what) determines upon death whether the conciousness (soul) goes to the Summerland or the underworld? Are souls reborn of the underworld?

Historically, there is more than one Underworld. The Underworld of the Greeks is quite different from the underworld of the Egyptians, for example. Underworld deities include (but are certainly not limited to) Hades, Pluto, Persephone, Osiris, Anubis, and Erishkegal. Other deities have various associations with the Underworld even if they do not reside there, such as Hekate. Wiccans frequently include Cernunnos among the Underworld gods, but that is mostly conjecture, not historical fact.

What happens to Wiccans after they die is a widely varying subject. The original belief appears to have been reincarnation. Some say that our souls rest in the Summerland before rebirth, but I do not know if that was part of the original theology. "Summerland" is a very new-agey term with no historical precedent, to my knowledge. If it was included in the original theology, it may have been called something else (possibly simply "the Underworld"). Many discount the idea of the Summerland and believe they go elsewhere before rebirth, and a minority believe in some sort of afterlife with no mortal rebirth at all.

I don't know of any Wiccan who sees an option between "Summerland" and "Underworld." One generally believes in one or the other, or possibly that the Summerland is a subset of the Underworld. Generally the belief is that everyone goes, just as in many ancient cultures. There is no Heaven-or-Hell type arrangement.

I was wondering your opinion in terms of deities -- do you consider all deities to be part of "the one" with each representing certain characteristics, or as separate and individual beings?

I personally am a relatively hard polytheist, seeing all deities as separate and individual beings. I think it is possible that one deity can be called by multiple names by multiple cultures, but that subject can only be approached on a deity by deity basis, and I largely consider it the business of those who actively worship such deities. For instance, perhaps Minerva and Athena are the same person, but as I do not have a relationship with either of them, that's really not for me to say.

I also acknowledge that deities are something ultimately beyond our comprehension by their very nature. We can seek to better understand their natures, but there will always be something elusive about them, which means that anything I believe about the subject is extremely subjective and probably, at best, a rough approximation. I see the gods as sharing a certain essence, a force that flows through the world, but I do not see this force as a god in its own right. I also think of the gods as something like "intelligent energy," whose fields may merge somewhat with others. For instance, goddesses of the earth may all share in a certain portion or resonance of energy, but that particular field is only a portion of any of them. Thus, they remain separate entities while partaking of similar spheres of influence. Even that, however, is a poor metaphor for what might be going on.

I am interested in knowing what the Wiccan viewpoint is on Suffering and the nature of evil (especially natural evil). I would greatly appreciate any information you could provide on this subject.

Evil is a subject that Wiccan books tend to avoid. My impression is that many Wiccans are afraid that acknowledging the existence of evil is the same thing as acknowledging a personified evil (which we do not believe in), and that others are afraid that acknowledging evil is too close to being judgmental or intolerant.

Certainly we have to be careful in discussions of evil: just because I disagree with something does not make it evil. But that does not mean that nothing is evil. It's a subject we tend to stick our heads in the sand about, at least publicly, and that is unfortunate. Because of this, I can only answer from my own personal perspective:

Good and evil are choices, not forces. Only being with free will can commit good or evil. I agree with other Wiccans who stress that Nature is not evil. However, I very strongly believe that nature is not good either. Carrots are good for you, but they are not morally good, just as a hurricane is not evil, even though it causes a lot of destruction. Likewise, death and destruction are not evil in and of themselves. We all die. It's a natural process. Old things make way for the new. Without death and destruction, there can be no growth or development. Only when these things come from malice, greed or similar motivations can they be classified as "evil."

Nature is in a state of balance, which we find to be the opportune existence. Again, this is good in the "pleasant" or "correct" or "beneficial" sense of the word, but it is not a moral judgment.

How would you suggest to contact or pray to the "God and Goddess". I guess what I'm trying to say is, I feel that I can be in constant contact with them and discuss things as they come. What I'm wondering is, is there more that I should be doing? Are there more daily rituals I should be attempting, or is my contact enough?

I think this is a question you should be asking yourself, not me. Is whatever contact you experience enough for you? If you're content with your current practices, then maybe that's exactly what you should be doing. However, many people are attracted to Wicca and other esoteric paths precisely because they are looking for something more. They don't want to just have casual chats with divinity. They want to feel it within them, they want to better understand it and grow closer to it, they want to explore beyond their current experiences. But there is no single magic pill - or, in this case, a magic ritual - that will give you these things. It involves study and meditation. Many do have some sort of daily routine, whether it is magical practice, meditation, or ritual, but there is no one ritual that I can say "do this every morning and the gods will be happy." The gods largely aren't interested in the rituals themselves anyway. They are interested in what is behind those rituals: emotion, determination, focus, discipline, etc.

(More Questions of the Day)