Starhawk called upon Pope Benedict to apologize to Witches and other Pagans for past Church actions against Pagans and women in today’s Washington Post.  In response David Gibson at Pontifications Blog   here at Beliefnet pointed out that she was behind the ball, as John Paul II had already apologized  for much to which she was referring.  Some observers thought the Pope did not go far enough, but others held it really wasn’t necessary to apologize at all for abuses hundreds or even thousands of years in the past.  However one feels on this issue, it is important to acknowledge that he did apologize, and apparently did so quite sincerely.

Gibson then took Starhawk herself to task

it is also important to examine one’s own conscience before judging
another. And while “witches” (or those who are slottled in various
related categories) are too often victims, and the pope acknowledged
that in Africa, the “imagination, intution, and magic” that Starhawk
cites also fuel terrible abuses and horrific crimes against innocents
in Africa and elsewhere. The pope also spoke against that. Did
Starhawk? Perhaps she or her clan spoke out against abusive withcraft
and superstition and neo-paganism during the papal visit to Africa, but
I didn’t see it.

I see this issue rather differently than Gibson.

In a sense the problem is with our name, a name I have no intention of
giving up.  “Witch” refers to two different groups of people that can
sometimes over lap.  First are those following traditions rooted in
very distant times, probably growing out of shamanism, that make use of
magick, herbs, spirits, divination and healing to bring a community
into greater harmony with the more-than-human context in which it
exists.  Because the Church believes non-Christian Pagans worship
demons, they claimed all this was witchcraft.  The name stuck, as has
the name “Pagan.”

Then there are those who make use of magick, herbs, spirits, and
divination to gain power, destroy enemies, and manipulate others. 
These folks have to be called something, and that word has been “witch.”

We Witches emphasize the first group, but often neglect to mention that the second group has existed as well.  

The distinction between them blurs when one community fights another, because their
shamans might also get in on the action, using their magick against
their community’s enemies.   Think of the Christian churches of Germany
supporting their soldiers while the Christian churches of America
supported ours in both World Wars.  One could draw a distinction between those who injure others for personal gain, and those who do so to defend their community, and I do.  But it is shaky ground.

The abuses of ‘black’ practitioners, have been used to justify the
religiously intolerant in suppressing those who follow a Pagan way
steeped in a shamanic past.  Historically the Catholic Church has been
second to none in committing such crimes.  And so everyone working either alone or in small groups has been lumped
together as “Witches.”

Don Frew tells me this confusion over what constitutes a “Witch” has
been a frequent problem when we initially communicate with many
indigenous traditions, at least in Latin America.  While missionaries
attacked their ‘witchcraft’ they themselves rejected the title because witches did
bad things, and they didn’t.  Then they meet people who say they are
witches.  Initially they think we must do bad things, and only relax
when they learn the truth.

And so I am not convinced that the African examples Gibson would have
us denounce are properly criticized.  Maybe, maybe not.  All I know of them is what their
detractors have said. When those describing them are also associated with an
institution having a long history of distorting and maligning
indigenous spirituality, I’ll reserve judgment as to whether we are
getting accurate information on those African examples.  

Yet there are nasty practitioners and when they come to light within our
own community Pagans have been pretty united in denouncing them..  

But lest we get too smug, the Pagan traditions are not bloodless
either.  Those who would commit far darker deeds and serve depraved motives in the
name of the Sacred include more than arrogant monotheists. 
Think of Carthage and its infant sacrifices, or the Aztecs and their
blood offerings.  Much that is most objectionable in some Islamic
practices towards women has nothing to do with the Koran and a lot to do
with the Pagan Arab cultures where Mohammed’s teachings first took root, and
were modified.  

I think while we all must acknowledge the dark sides of our
respective histories in order to inoculate ourselves against the disease of self-righteousness, the true task of our time today is to build our
communities on what is best in our own traditions, and let others do
the same in theirs, relying in Interfaith to promote mutual respect,
while enabling friendly relations with different religions to
marginalize those within any particular tradition who seek to gain
power within their own community  through sowing divisions and distrust
towards others.