Oathbound in the Information Age

[taijiya]

(Disclaimer: I'm writing the below from the perspective of a Gardnerian, because that is what I have experience of.)

In a response to a previous thread, I mentioned the apparent elasticity of the bounds of the initiate's oath; and I say that only because I've encountered such a disparity of opinions as to what that oath actually covers. (Those variations could be based in anything from geographical location--i.e. the line of descent and what was taught therein--to personal perception.) There will always be variance of interpretation, because there is no one "official" statement of just exactly what is covered by the oath. But then I started to wonder...

(...and someone should stop me when I do that...)

Is it possible, do you think, for a thing to start out as a secret of the art, only to be "leaked" and to become such common knowledge that it can no longer seriously be considered a true secret? Let's take a hypothetical example. Say that Initiate X in 1974 gave an interview in which he revealed that Gardnerians always wear a pink ribbon in their hair when they perform a particular ritual. The interview is published in a magazine, and then reprinted for a paperback anthology which goes on to become a modest bestseller, itself in turn reprinted many times. The pink ribbon information is thus widely disseminated, repeated in other books, picked up by other practitioners of other traditions, etc. Then along comes Pre-Initiate Y, who in 2006 reads one or more of these documents attesting to the pink ribbon's usage in Gardnerian rites. Pre-Initiate Y becomes an Initiate in 2007 and learns that the pink ribbon is, in fact, utilised in just the manner described in all these various places. The question then becomes, is the pink ribbon still a secret of the art covered by the oath, even if the person was fully aware of its usage prior to initiation?

I read a lot, and I had read plenty of things prior to becoming an initiate myself. There were things I had come across as a teenager, reading weird old Hans Holzer (and other) paperbacks from the early 1970s, that were later confirmed in practice; and it was hard for me to think of those things as being secrets when I'd found them in a book I picked up at someone's rummage sale, or saw being enacted on a cable TV documentary or what-have-you. And I think that's only going to become more difficult in these times, when so much finds its way onto the internet, or into publish-on-demand books, and with the ease of distribution we now have.

Of course, there is still only one way to know absolutely for-certain-sure just what does or does not go on in a traditional coven, Gardnerian or otherwise, and that's to be initiated into one. Until you see it for yourself, there will always be doubt; and it's possible that there may still remain some doubt after that, since not all covens or lineages are exact carbon copies of one another. Still, it does make for certain challenges. I personally feel that to deny certain "common-knowledge" things to a pre-initiate would make me look like the world's biggest liar and idiot once the person got initiated and found out; but I also feel that there are other things that are allegedly public information that really are not, and don't need to be. If I'm at all iffy on a subject, I tend simply not to speak of it at all, and to decline to participate in discussions thereon; that seems safer, and to me more straightforward, than trying to do a neither-confirm-nor-deny dance and talk about a thing without actually revealing any information. That's exhausting, and I'm too lazy to get into such intellectual contortions.

At any rate, I was wondering how others see this. I'd love to hear the opinions of both initiates and non-initiates. My curiosity is wide awake now. :boing:

[skilly-nilly]

(Disclaimer: I'm writing the below from the perspective of a Gardnerian, because that is what I have experience of.)

The question then becomes, is the pink ribbon still a secret of the art covered by the oath, even if the person was fully aware of its usage prior to initiation?

I personally feel that to deny certain "common-knowledge" things to a pre-initiate would make me look like the world's biggest liar and idiot once the person got initiated and found out; but I also feel that there are other things that are allegedly public information that really are not, and don't need to be.

I am not Gardnerian, but I ran a medical clinic and was married to the health care provider in a small town. So I can speak to oath-bound information. I was prohibited from disclosing ANYTHING I knew from the practice, but if I could cite some other person's information I could disclose that, if I felt it was appropriate. Which (imo) would be like saying, "I have seen a pbs documentary about that pink-ribbon usage."

On the other hand, I think denying something isn't disclosative, unless there is an obvious either/or choice. (disclaimer: I am picking ridiculous examples to not imply that I know anything about Gardnerian practice---these are not meant to be serious examples)
I think that a Gardnerian could say, "No, we don't sacrifice babies." without disclosing anything, but if they were asked if they sacrifice chickens and answered, "Wellllll, we don't sacrifice roosters." there is implicit disclosure.

As well, there are things that one just doesn't want to discuss. There are things I won't discuss about my religion, not because I am oathbound not to, but because I think it's inappropriate. I don't say anything about those areas, I just don't discuss them.

[Desert_Witch]

I am a member of a BTW kinda Trad, and My Oath is my bond. I believe in maintaining the Spirit of my Oaths rather than splitting hairs in order to speak of more. I have noticed that it is the unspoken tradition within my Trad to be more...forthcomming with prospective students, and I would be leery of any group that wasn't willing to give you some idea of what you are getting in to.

All in all I am probably not the best guy to answer this as my personal practice is nothing like the practices of my Trad, so when someone asks me about my Craft, Oaths are not much of an issue these days.

BB

DW

[jetpiston]

Let's take a hypothetical example. Say that Initiate X in 1974 gave an interview in which he revealed that Gardnerians always wear a pink ribbon in their hair when they perform a particular ritual. ... snip ... Pre-Initiate Y becomes an Initiate in 2007 and learns that the pink ribbon is, in fact, utilised in just the manner described in all these various places. The question then becomes, is the pink ribbon still a secret of the art covered by the oath, even if the person was fully aware of its usage prior to initiation?

In my opinion: Yes.

If I take an oath not to discuss the pink ribbon ritual, then I don't discuss it, period. It doesn't matter whether it is common knowledge or not, if it has been incorporated into other Traditions, or even if it is written on a billboard outside my window. I have given my word to my Gods and my peers, and I will not break my word.

Another thing to consider is the context in which the pink ribbon is used in the ritual and the intent behind the ritual itself. Sure, a pre-initiate might know about the pink ribbon ritual, and may have even participated in a non-Gardnerian version of the pink ribbon ritual, but they still haven't been exposed to the pink ribbon ritual in the 'proper' traditional manner. Who am I to go spoiling it for them by spilling the beans? (Not that I can either confirm or deny that there are beans spilled during the pink ribbon ritual.) Exposure to the practices and lore in a certain way, at a certain point of their Gardnerian training, is an important part of that training. Even if the pre-initiate has previous knowledge of the pink ribbon ritual, experiencing it in it's 'proper' context can make a huge difference in their development. (By 'proper' I mean in the specifically Gardnerian context.)

-Jet
3rd* Gard. who had way to much fun typing 'pink ribbon ritual' over and over again.

[SailleSeeker]

My trad doesn't have material that applies to us that's oathbound (unless you get into specific rituals and individual groups and whatnot... nothing on a trad-wide level, though), but we've got pretty well-documented history about where the trad split from Gardnerian Wicca in the past and how it changed over the years. In discussing those changes and why the forefathers and -mothers of my trad disagreed with Gardnerian Wicca, a few things that are oathbound in GW come up. So we get this weird problem of having to watch out for keeping GW oathbound things oathbound, even though they don't apply to us because that's why we're not GW. Whew.

I had to think about this a lot recently because of a paper I wrote for one my religion courses in which I talked about Wiccan trads - something that I thought of including was, I'm pretty sure, still oathbound GW stuff, and I eventually decided that I couldn't use it and feel right about it. Don't even get me into trying to figure out a way to make a citation for it :P

[Greyharp]

From the perspective of a non-inititate, I have to admit to a certain and growing cynicism. I strongly suspect much, if not all oathbound material is out there in the public domain, except perhaps things like a coven's deities names and such like.

People are no good at keeping secrets, people get angry with each other and reveal secrets out of spite, etc. I have no way of knowing if this is true of BTW, but the more I read, the more I tend to think it is the case.

I would have to admit that if I was initiated into a Gardnerian coven, only to learn that all the oathbound material was stuff I'd already read in books or on the internet, I would feel I'd been taken for a fool. It would seem to me to be downright dishonest. If the information is in the public domain, why carry on as if it's unknown and arcane? But that's just me.

[Fiamma]

From the perspective of a non-inititate, I have to admit to a certain and growing cynicism. I strongly suspect much, if not all oathbound material is out there in the public domain, except perhaps things like a coven's deities names and such like.

People are no good at keeping secrets, people get angry with each other and reveal secrets out of spite, etc. I have no way of knowing if this is true of BTW, but the more I read, the more I tend to think it is the case.

I would have to admit that if I was initiated into a Gardnerian coven, only to learn that all the oathbound material was stuff I'd already read in books or on the internet, I would feel I'd been taken for a fool. It would seem to me to be downright dishonest. If the information is in the public domain, why carry on as if it's unknown and arcane? But that's just me.


I think jetpiston's comments above answer this one perfectly.

[Elderbush]

Yes, it does. He has given his oath and even though an unnamed number before him have broken theirs, he will keep his until his trad decides to change the rules. :)

I don't belong to an oathbound trad and one reason is that I don't want a religion I cannot discuss with my SO or children. The only thing that we are asked to keep private is the information that affects other people like outing them on television without their permission. That is just common courtesy.

Once information is in the public sector I think it is fair game for discussion, without of course the participation of people who have given oaths about it. It really is no use pretending it isn't there or insisting it has to be wrong because oathbreakers divulged it. The Masons I think set the standard here - don't they pretty much ignore the bagillion books about them and their ceremonies? On the other hand, people can't really insist that it is perfectly true either because they can't know. It is just Gardnerian-like rather than THE Gardnerian script.

[KeaErisdottir]

From the perspective of a non-inititate, I have to admit to a certain and growing cynicism. I strongly suspect much, if not all oathbound material is out there in the public domain, except perhaps things like a coven's deities names and such like.

And? Do groups not have the right to their secrets? Just because a group might be using something based on, oh, the Greek Alphabet, doesn't mean that they want to reveal what they are actually doing with it. Their oaths would logically cover revealing the presence of that in their material, and would certainly cover any lore or teachings about what they use it for.

[Desert_Witch]

And? Do groups not have the right to their secrets? Just because a group might be using something based on, oh, the Greek Alphabet, doesn't mean that they want to reveal what they are actually doing with it. Their oaths would logically cover revealing the presence of that in their material, and would certainly cover any lore or teachings about what they use it for.


Umm, it does not sound like Greyharp was saying that groups do not have the right to keep secrets at all. I think he simply said that many of those secrets have not been well kept.

BB

Des

[Dawa Lhamo]

I would have to admit that if I was initiated into a Gardnerian coven, only to learn that all the oathbound material was stuff I'd already read in books or on the internet, I would feel I'd been taken for a fool. It would seem to me to be downright dishonest. If the information is in the public domain, why carry on as if it's unknown and arcane? But that's just me.On the other hand, with things like Mysteries, sometimes you have to be in the right set and setting to *grok* it. It might be published, sure, and you may know it but it doesn't have that *weight*, that *depth* of true understanding until you've gone through the experience of training and preparing and everything leading up to the revelation of that Mystery. In my estimation, that's really what those kinds of oaths protect.

Even if it's published (and I don't see why an initiate can't reference a published account of something... say, if he's involved in a pink-ribbon discussion to reference an article about the pink-ribbons, so that he doesn't relate it to his practice or tradition) that doesn't mean that the secret has been *revealed* in its entirety.

So I don't think I'd be disappointed to learn, after training and initiation, that all there really was written in the Gardnerian BOS was to be found on Sacred Texts Archive. And that's also partly because initiation isn't supposed to be about personal achievement and "knowing secrets that others don't know", but it's supposed to be about developing a relationship with the Gods, with serving them...

I don't know if I'm being exceptionally clear, but there you are. That's my opinion about it.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

All the initiations I've experienced have had similar steps to them and they are designed to engender certain emotional responses within the person who goes through it. I think that even groups that don't keep their material secret can have very successful initiations and give the initiates an intense emotional experience they won't forget.

Everyone should experience an initiation one time or another into a secret society or a religious group. It is one of those life experiences that isn't like any other. I just don't really believe that everything has so be secret, although that certainly is up to the group.

[RainInanna]

On the other hand, with things like Mysteries, sometimes you have to be in the right set and setting to *grok* it. It might be published, sure, and you may know it but it doesn't have that *weight*, that *depth* of true understanding until you've gone through the experience of training and preparing and everything leading up to the revelation of that Mystery. In my estimation, that's really what those kinds of oaths protect.

I agree, at least inasmuch as any non-initiate, not oath-bound individual can agree :D In my experience the Mysteries simply cannot be conveyed, what is found in books are shallow bits and pieces as is anything you think is logical but don't know in your heart until you experience it.

I think there's worth in not making information publicly available to those who are not properly prepared or sufficiently integrated within a group to really put it's work into practice. Why should a group give away hard-earned learning material that could be mis-used and misunderstood, rather than sharing it with those they have taken the responsibility for teaching and guiding?

[Elderbush]

Now there is a second reason for keeping things a secret - a wish to not give away for free and to the public teaching material, or losing control of it of the material, especially unique information. That's valid.

[KeaErisdottir]

Umm, it does not sound like Greyharp was saying that groups do not have the right to keep secrets at all. I think he simply said that many of those secrets have not been well kept.

Yet, he presents essentially the same argument I've read elsewhere, that because he's been able to read something, that it is all there is. My point remains that just because he might have, at some point, read the Greek Alphabet, and maybe even read something from a BoS somewhere that had the Greek Alphabet used as part of it, he would not essentially either a) have the secrets that the group teaches about/with it, or b) have a real right to it.

Let's take another, real life example. Aidan Kelly was perfectly content to take addresses for people listed in various publications that he had gained access to, and publish them in a widely distributed form. This got him into a lot of trouble, not only because he did it, but because he failed to ask permission to reveal addresses gleaned from sources with limited distribution. It is generally accepted across a wide range of BTW and Non-BTW traditions, that you do not publish this kind of information without the expressed permission of the people affected.

The scope of the oath includes not only the teachings, but also the personal and private information of other initiates, confidences of immediate Craft family, and details about specific magical workings. This may or may not extend into details about one's lineage--some are completely open and others reveal nothing.

[Greyharp]

Originally Posted by Desert_Witch View Post
Umm, it does not sound like Greyharp was saying that groups do not have the right to keep secrets at all. I think he simply said that many of those secrets have not been well kept.

Yet, he presents essentially the same argument I've read elsewhere, that because he's been able to read something, that it is all there is.

No sorry KeaErisdottir, you're reading too much into my response, Desert_Witch is right. I never claimed what is in the public domain is the sum total of oathbound material, only that I suspected a large part of it was. Perhaps I worded it badly, but I also said "I have no way of knowing if this is true..." I simply gave my uneducated opinion in response to taijiya's initial request "I'd love to hear the opinions of both initiates and non-initiates."

[Elderbush]

Let's take another, real life example. Aidan Kelly was perfectly content to take addresses for people listed in various publications that he had gained access to, and publish them in a widely distributed form. This got him into a lot of trouble, not only because he did it, but because he failed to ask permission to reveal addresses gleaned from sources with limited distribution. It is generally accepted across a wide range of BTW and Non-BTW traditions, that you do not publish this kind of information without the expressed permission of the people affected.

The scope of the oath includes not only the teachings, but also the personal and private information of other initiates, confidences of immediate Craft family, and details about specific magical workings. This may or may not extend into details about one's lineage--some are completely open and others reveal nothing.

Of course he had no right to do that. Ethical people don't need to make oaths - promises - about not violating the trust and privacy of others, especially friends. They treat others as they wish to be treated. Groups are wise to stress its importance in case everyone doesn't understand the seriousness of it. No oath or promise is going to stop someone who is unethical from violating the trust of others however. Look at the National Enquirer.

[taijiya]

On the other hand, with things like Mysteries, sometimes you have to be in the right set and setting to *grok* it. It might be published, sure, and you may know it but it doesn't have that *weight*, that *depth* of true understanding until you've gone through the experience of training and preparing and everything leading up to the revelation of that Mystery. In my estimation, that's really what those kinds of oaths protect.

Even if it's published (and I don't see why an initiate can't reference a published account of something... say, if he's involved in a pink-ribbon discussion to reference an article about the pink-ribbons, so that he doesn't relate it to his practice or tradition) that doesn't mean that the secret has been *revealed* in its entirety.

FWIW, and others' mileage will most certainly vary, this is a neat summation of my take on the subject as well. Some things are quite nicely hidden in plain sight, and others reveal the true depth of their meaning only in the right context. I've found it quite possible to hold to my oaths (as I understand them--again, YMMV) without making a liar of myself or a fool of any prospective initiate.

[Carla O'Harris]

I may be a little confused here. So does this place Valiente and the Farrars in some kind of "banned and damned" status? Because aside from Kelly, the Farrars with Valiente's help published some material that has some kind of relationship to the material Gardner publicly revealed in his books as well as the material that Kelly published, whatever the source of that may be, and I respect that from an initiated standpoint, Kelly's material can never be affirmed nor denied but there is a large warning that it may be very, very inaccurate.

But the Farrars present some very interesting material that is both beautiful, moving, and fascinating, and seems like it could be the basis for all kinds of interesting implementations as well as improvisations. If it were to turn out that some of the Farrarian Material reveals some oathbound information (and I ask this question in a conditional form so oathed individuals may feel comfortable answering it in a conditional form), is there a problem with non-oathbound individuals utilizing material that exists in the public domain? I may not be oathbound in this regard, but my studies have brought a phenomenological reverence to the material, and an appreciation (as I have expressed many times before) for the privacy and the gift passed on by the New Forest Coven through Gardner, and any material coming from a public domain such as the Farrars I would treat as something very special and worthy of great respect.

Is there anything wrong with referring to the Farrarian material?

And -- how do oathed individuals feel about people making published reference to the Kelly Material, so long as they don't confuse that material with the actual Gardnerian oathed material, but perhaps with the suggestion that there could be some kind of confused and partial relationship? This is a matter that is very confusing to me, because how does one act as if material that is public isn't public? It is sufficient to me to acknowledge in very careful disclaimers that public materials very probably represent distortions and only partial samplings of a much larger set of teachings, but do people feel that one shouldn't even reference material that the public is going to be reading??

[Ben Gruagach]

It might be worthwhile seeing what Janet Farrar says on her website (at http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com ) regarding the Book of Shadows material she and Stewart published with the assistance of Doreen Valiente. Here's the quote from their "Current Views and Topics" page (http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/view.htm):


Were we (Janet and Stewart Farrar) Oath breakers?: Quite simply, we were not. This came about because we published material in The Witches Bible/Eight Sabbats/Witches Way related to the Gardnerian Book of Shadows. We did this with written permission of the copyright holder and co-author - Doreen Valiente. These documents remain in our archive. At the time (early 1980's), Alexandrians were not accepted as craft by the Gardnerians and therefore we could not be bound by a Gardnerian Oath which we had not taken.

Just thought it might be relevant!

[Teresa]

(Disclaimer: I'm writing the below from the perspective of a Gardnerian, because that is what I have experience of.)

In a response to a previous thread, I mentioned the apparent elasticity of the bounds of the initiate's oath; and I say that only because I've encountered such a disparity of opinions as to what that oath actually covers. (Those variations could be based in anything from geographical location--i.e. the line of descent and what was taught therein--to personal perception.) There will always be variance of interpretation, because there is no one "official" statement of just exactly what is covered by the oath. But then I started to wonder...

(...and someone should stop me when I do that...)

Is it possible, do you think, for a thing to start out as a secret of the art, only to be "leaked" and to become such common knowledge that it can no longer seriously be considered a true secret? Let's take a hypothetical example. Say that Initiate X in 1974 gave an interview in which he revealed that Gardnerians always wear a pink ribbon in their hair when they perform a particular ritual. The interview is published in a magazine, and then reprinted for a paperback anthology which goes on to become a modest bestseller, itself in turn reprinted many times. The pink ribbon information is thus widely disseminated, repeated in other books, picked up by other practitioners of other traditions, etc. Then along comes Pre-Initiate Y, who in 2006 reads one or more of these documents attesting to the pink ribbon's usage in Gardnerian rites. Pre-Initiate Y becomes an Initiate in 2007 and learns that the pink ribbon is, in fact, utilised in just the manner described in all these various places. The question then becomes, is the pink ribbon still a secret of the art covered by the oath, even if the person was fully aware of its usage prior to initiation?

I read a lot, and I had read plenty of things prior to becoming an initiate myself. There were things I had come across as a teenager, reading weird old Hans Holzer (and other) paperbacks from the early 1970s, that were later confirmed in practice; and it was hard for me to think of those things as being secrets when I'd found them in a book I picked up at someone's rummage sale, or saw being enacted on a cable TV documentary or what-have-you. And I think that's only going to become more difficult in these times, when so much finds its way onto the internet, or into publish-on-demand books, and with the ease of distribution we now have.

Of course, there is still only one way to know absolutely for-certain-sure just what does or does not go on in a traditional coven, Gardnerian or otherwise, and that's to be initiated into one. Until you see it for yourself, there will always be doubt; and it's possible that there may still remain some doubt after that, since not all covens or lineages are exact carbon copies of one another. Still, it does make for certain challenges. I personally feel that to deny certain "common-knowledge" things to a pre-initiate would make me look like the world's biggest liar and idiot once the person got initiated and found out; but I also feel that there are other things that are allegedly public information that really are not, and don't need to be. If I'm at all iffy on a subject, I tend simply not to speak of it at all, and to decline to participate in discussions thereon; that seems safer, and to me more straightforward, than trying to do a neither-confirm-nor-deny dance and talk about a thing without actually revealing any information. That's exhausting, and I'm too lazy to get into such intellectual contortions.

At any rate, I was wondering how others see this. I'd love to hear the opinions of both initiates and non-initiates. My curiosity is wide awake now. :boing:

I am not Wiccan , but I hail from an oathbound oral tradition and my rule of thumb is now: ( and my opinion has changed from way way back in the day) If it is published and public knowledge then I am more apt to be able to speak on the subject yet only tip toe around the points that were published. I do not devulge any extra information.

[KeaErisdottir]

No sorry KeaErisdottir, you're reading too much into my response, Desert_Witch is right. I never claimed what is in the public domain is the sum total of oathbound material, only that I suspected a large part of it was. Perhaps I worded it badly, but I also said "I have no way of knowing if this is true..." I simply gave my uneducated opinion in response to taijiya's initial request "I'd love to hear the opinions of both initiates and non-initiates."

Yet you are also the one who said
I would have to admit that if I was initiated into a Gardnerian coven, only to learn that all the oathbound material was stuff I'd already read in books or on the internet, I would feel I'd been taken for a fool. It would seem to me to be downright dishonest. If the information is in the public domain, why carry on as if it's unknown and arcane? But that's just me.

If, as you state, you would feel taken for a fool on the basis of finding some portion of the pink ribbon ritual(which is, as we remember, different from the pink frisbee ritual, JP :) ), or the Greek Alphabet, or a copy of War and Peace, and would declare what is going on as dishonest, then I feel that you've set up a situation where people can't win. That material is still their secrets, regardless of whether anyone was crass and gauche enough to reveal it, so why, essentially, should they then go on to essentially please curiosity seekers by confirming that as fact?

Surely, if you ever took the step of becoming a Gardnerian, or any other oathbound tradition in or out of Wicca, then you would feel the need to remain silent about the extent of anything that might be in print, if for no other reason than to preserve the sacredness of it within context of your own coven and your own experience. It seems, from what I have read in terms of commentary, the case.

[KeaErisdottir]

Of course he had no right to do that. Ethical people don't need to make oaths - promises - about not violating the trust and privacy of others, especially friends. They treat others as they wish to be treated. Groups are wise to stress its importance in case everyone doesn't understand the seriousness of it. No oath or promise is going to stop someone who is unethical from violating the trust of others however. Look at the National Enquirer.

While this is wonderfully idealistic, and I wish it were universally understood and practiced, the function of the Oath is to make a contract with other parties regarding comportment and conduct where matters of practice, religion, and Mystery are concerned. It is a verbal contract (in most cases), that would logically carry the same weight as a traditional handshake contract. It's purpose is to make that which is implicit, readily understood and explicit among those entering into the contract. No more and no less, actually.

There will always be people who break contracts. We won'te really be able to stop people from doing so, but we do not have to support people who do by contributing to them economically or socially. We might have to accept that they exist, but we do not have to accept them; shunning people who you know have broken oaths is actually the fastest way to make the world a better place.

[Greyharp]

If, as you state, you would feel taken for a fool on the basis of finding some portion of the pink ribbon ritual(which is, as we remember, different from the pink frisbee ritual, JP :) ), or the Greek Alphabet, or a copy of War and Peace, and would declare what is going on as dishonest, then I feel that you've set up a situation where people can't win. That material is still their secrets, regardless of whether anyone was crass and gauche enough to reveal it, so why, essentially, should they then go on to essentially please curiosity seekers by confirming that as fact?

Surely, if you ever took the step of becoming a Gardnerian, or any other oathbound tradition in or out of Wicca, then you would feel the need to remain silent about the extent of anything that might be in print, if for no other reason than to preserve the sacredness of it within context of your own coven and your own experience. It seems, from what I have read in terms of commentary, the case.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is, maybe I'm just tired and haven't had enough caffeine today. I gave a hypothetical situation and stated how it would make me feel. Just one opinion amongst many. I didn't think it specific enough nor important enough to need disecting or scrutinising. Yep, I must need more coffee.

[RainInanna]

It might be worthwhile seeing what Janet Farrar says on her website (at http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com ) regarding the Book of Shadows material she and Stewart published with the assistance of Doreen Valiente.

So was Valiente an oath-breaker?

[Elderbush]

We should have a poll about that. Followed by how many people here intend to shun her and all her works because of it. :)