During Spiritual War, What’s Your Job?

I’m looking forward to reading the articles in your May zine; with the references to spiritual war, your inner eyes bugging out, and Lucy’s picture, the articles are bound to be veeerrryyy interesting.

This is such a great place for discussions involving ethical or spiritual issues. Thanks for the forum!!

I am looking forward to this too. I have a new email address and subscribed with that address. Thanks for letting us know so that we can be sure to see it.

Dear Rose, thank you for this one…. You are a brave girl! I wouldn’t be so kind to the man in white. I may be wrong, however, I do not see ANY LIGHT connection in his 6th or 7th chakra – whatsoever!On the contrary, he is our leader’s protégée and has been put in place by the dark forces, to balance the effect picking a man from Communist World… as this all appears to be mathematics only. Now I can see that the previous man in white Paul II was also put in place by the same dark forces… For myself, I will cut out a remote corner so far away from politics as possible… You are on the mission.

Love, love and again love. Svetlana

Let’s the God’s protection and love and flock of His guardian angels’ be with you… in any sense of the word. I mean it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fascinating fascinating portrait of both the pope and Bush. Really enjoyed reading that and your take on the whole thing, not just the two men but the transformation happening in human consciousness and the role of the two men in that, as well as the role of all light workers on the planet.

“MARTY” offers this comment:

Wow!! If you leaned any further left you would be in China. Where have you come up with the descriptions of Bush and the picture you paint for your readers. The man has a 9/11 and its aftermath to deal with, a war in Iraq and other fronts, terrorism everywhere, jihads, homeland security, a disastrous economy, soaring costs everywhere and for practical purposes a recession. He didn’t make all of this, he certainly did not help getting us out of some of this and he did inherit a lot along with a congress that has been determined to play politics and ignore USA needs. He has a lot more priorities on his plate than hosting dignitaries or Pope’s.

How would you look or feel under these circumstances? Do you really think that Gore if he had made it the oval office would look or be better? Do you think his aura would be terrific, ever? Are you thinking Hillary will be our superstar?? Look at her aura….is she trustworthy, really warm and down to earth? Personally motivated?? Honest? Shall we believe her fight for the people and ignore her 109 million earned fees etc……. Puppets? There are as many hugely wealthy Democrats as Republicans. Buffett??Gates?? The reality is that nobody has been able to make things happen because everyone has their personal agenda. The “big fat” oil companies are owned by stockholders, trusts, funds, etc. that are invested into by common folk. Higher profits, higher dividends, more expansion, more investment, more hiring…… look at the percentage of taxes on gas not “profits”. Oil is thru the roof because capitalism and democracy have taken off in other countries and they are demanding more services and oil for their growth. Its market driven not a conspiracy. Get the lead out of gov’t and start drilling and using our resources so that the other producers will say whoops, if the USA gets independent then they won’t buy our oil and pay our prices. The market needs will go down and their economy will crash. At that point we could see a smiling Bush (but he won’t be around) so it will be a smiling Hillary or McCain taking the credit.

Anyway, thanks………..just think you have wandered so far off the path on this one that it reads like a political thesis and not an education of “readings”. Just my two cents.

JIM CURRY offers this comment:

Your e-zine interested me particularly. On the one hand, I was actively trying to practice my face and aura-reading on the Pope while he was here (as a learner). On the other hand, I have at least second hand connections to him in his life at the Vatican.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was, in his day, certainly the finest theologian in Europe and most probably the finest living Christian theologian in the world. His intellect was extremely formidable, and his writing was precise in a way that is particularly delicious to mathematicians.

His Papacy will not succeed at all based on accomplishments in theology.

Theologians think about God in ways that are formal and have their own hint of logic. A true Papacy is pastoral. Its sine qua non is stretching. Can this person stretch in such a way that the Divine is comfortably implicit in all that he says and does while, at the same time, the human aspect of the Pope makes the experience directly available to the faithful?

Can the person bridge the Divine/human experiential gap? That is the great question every Pope has to answer, and the answer will always be, “obviously not” unless something big happens.

In his first days of the Papacy, it did not appear that the new Pope understood the profound nature of his pastoral mission. He just gave no evidence of understanding.

The Church is a big place indeed. However, for the Church in the English speaking world, the response to the pedophilia scandals (still ongoing) and the whole area of teaching on human sexuality is a big pastoral problem.

The Church, to this time, has handled this in an exceptionally bad way indeed.

The Pope is welcome to shoot Divine light out either side of his throat chakra (and, for that matter, out of any and all bodily orifices—Divine light is always welcome). However, until he understands and acts positively on a few simple facts, nothing good is going to come of it.

First, it is not suitable to make the “brother priests” so overwhelmingly important—even when they’re actually pedophiles—that nothing whatever happens to them.

This makes it clear that lay people are not even in the family. Whether the pedophiliac priests are brotherly or not brotherly, they need to be brought to standard justice for what they do.

In this, the Vatican has received, for years, evidence against particular priests in diplomatic pouches. Many were sent by Umberto Madeiros, late cardinal of Boston, and many more by Cardinal Law, his successor.

These should be trotted out and used in open prosecutions.

If the Church likes its own dignity so much, they can be open prosecutions in the courts of canon law (our own courts).

If not, they can happen in secular criminal courts. This needs to be done in an appropriate court, and it needs to be done at a scale similar to the problem itself.

Second, we need to think of the hierarchy. It is very possible to understand that some priests may succumb to one or another sexual difficulty out of human frailty. We understand human frailty—even when it stinks.

However, the real villains of the piece are not the pedophiliac offenders.

The real villains of the piece are bishops and archbishops who shield and protect the offenders. These people are not acting out of some immediate frailty, something like a small child who is not yet properly toilet trained. They act out of a malign will.

For these people, open jurdical procedures in courts of canon law should reclaim their status as bishop and should reclaim the status of cardinal. These people should be deprived of their positions of power and influence in quite a public way. They may be our brothers in Christ, and they may be abundantly forgiven, etc. etc. etc.

All that’s fine. They also have to endure consequences commensurate with their extreme and serious errors.

If the Pope is unwilling to pursue that kind of redress, I think he might channel holiness all day—he needs to connect to people.

Third, the Church’s formal position on homosexuality is quite negative. In lay people, homosexuality is just against our system and not part of the game. So, the true teaching is “No, No, No, Never, Not for you, Notime, Nohow, Noway, Not Now, Not Ever, NEVER!!!!” That’s the teaching for laity.

I do not suggest or pretend to suggest that this teaching should change. I know nothing about human sexuality, and each year I lose interest a little more in the whole issue. (Why did I care at one time?)

At the same time, in English speaking countries since World War II, the clergy has made its own seminaries not only safe places for homosexuals of all different sorts, but actually very often quite extreme homosexual sub-cultures. So, we have a policy of “none for you” but “Fine for me.”

Personally, I don’t understand human sexuality at all, so I turn my attention to reading mathematics books instead (occasionally less amusing, but always more hygienic).

This is great hypocrisy.

Some of this hypocrisy has certainly been addressed (one of the Kansas dioceses has done that fairly well). Some have not. We have no idea how Chicago or Los Angeles is really doing.

The bad news is that it has not been done evenly across the English speaking world, and it has not been done in a transparent way. So, no one can tell what has been accomplished and what not. It is not visible, but it could be made visible.

If your readings are correct, and I have no wish or reason to doubt them, then Pope Benedict is doing well indeed at connecting to Divine Light.
That’s good. I like that. I want that. Yes to that.

More is required to make a Papacy. It is necessary to make the full human connection, too. That full human connection is not possible without addressing the whole of the dirty laundry and not simply ignoring it.

Thank you for your reading on the subject of the Pope. I can use that and, I admit, I had not gotten the whole of it in my own readings. I saw the changes, and I considered some of them for the better.

However, I thought his throat was weak in the lower left center (his left, not mine). I thought it meant he was not yet willing to speak in an unrestricted way on important matters, but was still retaining some of his “diplomatic” speech from his days as cardinal. That will not do in a Pope.

LITTLEFEATHER, it’s great that you have been reading this post and following it up with your comment. However, I would strongly recommend that you read the zine articles which are a basis for the conversation.

The zine is, after all, free, and you can access it by the link in the main post.

Hi Rose & Blog-buddies:

I have been lurking for quite a while, but this is the first topic that compelled me to comment. Rose, these aura readings raise so many issues that they could serve as discussion catalysts for a long time.

What struck me is the concept of “the power of the office,” not just power officially given for the holder to wield but an energetic blueprint that the holder steps into. That blueprint then transforms the aura of the individual office holder. In the E-zine, through your readings of the Pope and President Bush, we get views of the blueprints for the office of the Pope and the office of the U.S. President.

The office of the Pope, in your reading, seems to be infused with the intention to channel the light of the divine to humanity collectively. Individual connections do not seem to play a large part in the life of a Pope. The Pope’s energetic job seems to be to channel that great light for the world as a whole. Based on your readings, when the being formerly known as Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope, he stepped into that blueprint and allowed it to transform him. In other words, he accepted the energetic job and let the energy/grace flow through him.

While the energetic blueprint for the office of the Pope seems clearer to me now, I’m perplexed about the office of the U.S. President. Is it so new, in comparison to the office of Pope, that is very malleable and subject to the forces of those who put the man in the office? Or is it that the energetic concept of the U.S. is one of change and the office is not well-defined for that reason? Why is there no intention of service to the U.S. in the blueprint?

In any event, the picture of the office of the U.S. President during the Bush administration that comes through your reading is one of the use of power and force for destructive purposes and the good of the peopole is not in evidence. The sense I get from your reading is that when George Bush stepped into the office of the President of the U.S., he was in no way prepared for what the energy blueprint held. So, he is trapped in a blueprint that terrifies him, and he has stepped aside and become weaker as the destructive forces/energies that dominate the office have become stronger.

I’ve heard from many friends who are light-workers that they feel compassion for President Bush, that he was not ready for what the office held. Your readings helped me understand that from a new perspective.

My take-away lesson for today, is to concentrate on the office of U.S. President instead of on the being who holds it and work to clarify what I as a citizen of the U.S. and the world feel the energetic blueprint should be.

Incidentally, Karen, I don’t feel that Bush was taken over by a blueprint, or collective consciousness, belonging to the U.S. The problem does not emanate from the entire consciousness of the country but, rather, from very powerful moneyed interests that, in some ways, run this country, and now run it more directly than ever before in American history.

Really, I don’t know the details about who and how. I’m not a political conspiracy theorist. I’m just someone who uses deeper perception, and teaches it, as you know.

For perspective, I’ve been reading auras of U.S. presidents since Lincoln, the first for whom photos are available. None of these people was taken over, none, before George W. Bush.

According to my perception, Bush was way damaged aurically before he became president. I commented on it in every single media interview where I was invited to read auras about that presidential campaign:

“Bush is so damaged, he can barely think. The principal of your neighborhood elementary school has more leadership ability than this man.”

I believe that Bush was given great sums of money to run precisely BECAUSE he was such a puppet.

Since becoming president, he has just become way more damaged and puppetlike — and confident. The forces that run him have consolidated and darkened.

For the first chunk of his administration, about two years, as I remember it, there was always a small portion of Bush’s aura that was apprehensive, as in “I can’t believe I’m getting away with this,” (reading his lines, barely able to think, doing what he was “supposed” to do, acting as though he were a normal, psychologically well functioning human being).

I would walk away from the TV or newspaper photo I had been reading with such a strong perception of this, time and again, it couldn’t have been stronger if he had physically leapt out from his image and slapped my face. (In case you’re wondering, I never read this on any other human being in my life. This is not some ongoing delusion.)

Then, I saw that fear ebbed away, with his puppet-like performance accepted as business as usual. After I noticed that a couple of times, I stopped reading the aura of President George W. Bush. And I didn’t do it again until writing that article for the latest zine, some five years later.

To feel compassion for Bush because he wasn’t able to stay well functioning after becoming president really misses the point, IMHO (although compassion is surely never wasted). Personally, I’d rather send compassion (and light) to people who were so dull/confused/uninterested that they allowed the biggest scam in presidential history to happen right under their noses.

Yes, we do need to strengthen the collective consciousness in the country, and also it sure wouldn’t hurt (I believe) if we raised consciousness about the ability of people to read auras.

I can promise you, if we had 10% of the population reading auras, then telling others what they found, such a situation couldn’t happen again. Everybody can learn to read auras in depth and detail. I’m still waiting for that conversation to become mainstream.

Otherwise, it’s a matter of sending opinions back and forth. I think back to the previous comment by Littlefeather, well reasoned and sensible and compassionate:

” If indeed he is heavily medicated as you suggest and he is being led by the nose as some sort of puppet, then the people doing this are responsible for the moral evil not Bush himself. I do not agree with his stances, and I think his administration has been a disaster. That being said I do not see him channelling evil.”

The problem is that this isn’t a perspective gained by actually making contact with the experience with the auric field under consideration. Not every aura reader would have the same perception or interpretation as me, obviously, but I dare anyone to make contact with the experience of Bush’s aura directly and then come out with sentiments like these.

Rose,

Thank you for this reading. I agree that when aura reading becomes mainstream, or at least enough, that no candidate will be able to get away with what Bush did. And the only way that that will happen is if people spread the word about aura reading and their own perceptions with it. I am guilty of not doing this enough. It takes a lot of courage to speak your truth and be able to deal with ridicule or anger, even as seen in this thread. Pioneering Deeper Perception requires a lot of confrontation, yet it is the most sensitive of us who must do it. I have struggled with the dilemma of “spreading the word,” and I think that usually you can tell who is ready to listen and who wants to keep the conversation simple. But then I haven’t told many people.

From the time that Bush started running for President, I have lived in bewilderment that he has or has ever had supporters. Ever since I first saw him speak on TV, I have had to leave the room. I used to scream, “Turn off the TV! Make it stop!” I was sickened and horrified that he was our President, and I was so confused that everyone watching the TV did not share my sentiments. They would say, “What’s the big deal? He’s a good guy. He’s our President - show some respect. Be nice.” Or they would say, “You’re just saying that because you’re a Democrat.” I was speechless, angry, and confused.

The problem, you see, was that I was an unskilled empath, and I would see and hear Bush and immediately enter into the experience of being him. Thus my reaction of running out of the room in horror and nausea. I simply did not understand how anyone could watch the TV and not have the experience of Bush that I did. One more example of unskilled empathy = pain and awkward social situations (in which I am the awkward one).

Incidentally, after reading Rose’s zine I watched the movie American Dreamz for the first time. It’s a parody of Bush, America, American foreign politics, and American Idol. Dennis Quaid plays President Bush, and the character has to take “happy pills” after pitching a childish tantrum and refusing to leave his bedroom in the White House for 3 weeks. Then Bush’s aid puts an earpiece in Bush’s ear so that Bush only has to repeat what he hears the aid saying: he is a puppet.

Someone in Hollywood is reading auras!

Great followup comments! Dana, what a great bit of perception you have. I’ve felt the same when I see him (and I’m a partially skilled empath) and it’s one of the reasons it is literally (I mean that) painful for me to watch or hear him. Because I don’t hear the words, I hear the energy and it’s 10 kinds of messed up. Now I understand why. (Yep, clearly some learning is needed by this girl!)

Karen, your comments are, as Rose said, full of wisdom. Please jump in whenever you feel called to do so. I’m hoping to hear more from you.

Rose,

I found your reading of Benedict very interesting. Having worked in the Vatican in the 90s I had interactions with then Cardinal Ratzinger from a distance (my choice).

Your characterization of him was accurate, I thought, before he accepted the palium. In the Vatican, I found him overly correct, distant and cold (and several other things). I’m far from a saint myself, but these qualities don’t find their roots in gospel values. I simply kept my distance from Ratzinger because of what I ‘felt’ from the man.

I can’t tell you how shocked I was to see this man in the media during his recent trip to the US. His demeanor had changed completely. He had appropriated to himself some of the mannerisms of John Paul II. I wondered to myself if Benedict had gone through intensive media training. Frankly, this would not be unreasonable, given his job. What it does point to is the confusion I felt in watching this man on television and comparing the energy to that which I felt when in his real presence just a few years ago. Also, I wondered if he was just mimmicking John Paul’s mannerisms because of his predecessor’s popularity.

I draw no conclusions here. One of the most violent things we can do to another human being is to deny him/her the opportunity/possibility of change. We’ve all had our breakthroughs and epiphanies in life. I don’t think I should deny Ratzinger his. I just couldn’t square what I was watching on TV with what I experienced in person.

As related to the issue of the priesthood and its intrinsic flaws, I found the pope’s response paltry. Yes, he was right to say that all those touched by this crime are deserving of healing. But, frankly, Benedict, most could arrive at this on their own.

If he really wanted to make a difference, perhaps he would have announced a comprehensive study on the nature of the priesthood and how it may be used in the modern world, so that it be an inclusive expression of the on-going love of Christ and his pursuit of peace.

Rather, he protected a profession laden with secrecy, elitism, mediocrity and non-accountability. Isn’t a profession with these parameters rather a magnet for those who are dis-integrated persons? Celibacy is for the most part foolish, let’s face it.

Media spin is just that, even if it’s swathed in fine watered silk.

Rose, keep reading those in prominent positions. Your work is valuable and necessary.

Kevin

MARILYN writes:

Rose, thanks so much for your perceptive insights on our leaders. The part that resonated most with me was in your “My Answers” section: Be grateful for everyone who works in the light, even if I don’t agree with them 100%.

This is such an important reminder that the glory of diversity is not always comfortable for individuals, but enhances the richness of the healing we can all offer the world.

Which, I know we all agree, could sure use it.

Thanks so much, Rose!

DIANNE EPPLER ADAMS writes:

Finally read your Pope/Prez article and loved it! Yup, hard to imagine, but there really is no one home at the top, just a robot on major meds.

JORDAN, thanks for ALL your recent blog comments.

I’m a fan of Dr. Michael Newton’s work and have had a regression with someone who trained with him. (You may know that one of my passions is past-life regression therapy, and I do a fair amount of this with clients as at the healing side of the table.)

I’ve read a photo of Bush while he was back at Yale. (Details are in a past issue of my blog.) Basically, he had plenty of energy back in the day, a brain that worked well enough, a well-developed habit of lying, and was as cute as a button. Comparing his aura later, when he campaigned for President, I suspected that he had experimented with chemicals (alcohol and drugs).

You, and other Blog-Buddies who missed it but are interested in Bush, might REALLY enjoy the past zine issue where I read him and the Pope. It was a very dramatic reading that knocked me over as the info. built up, one chakra databank at a time.

To find it, you would subscribe to my free zine off the home page at http://www.rose-rosetree.com Look through back issues and you can find it.

Meanwhile, thanks so much for writing, and keep those posts coming, Jordan.