top of page

Are There Jesuit Spies in Anthroposophy? 

Questions That Have Arisen from this Post

Post by Douglas Gabriel

    Excellent questions have arisen from this post and responses are given in the online conversation.  For those that don't post on Facebook or who can't locate the thread of conversation, we felt that Q and A should be posted along with the article.  As your questions arise from this article, they will be answered and those that might have an interest to others will be posted here.  

Q:   So you were a triple agent at one point, then? Secretly spying on behalf of Anthroposophia while infiltrating Anthroposophy on a secret mission for the Jesuits?


A.   Actually, I never considered myself a spy of any sort while I was involved – it only occurred to me as someone asked about it in a group and then it was evident to me upon reflection.  My devotion to the Being of Wisdom, AnthropoSophia, as Steiner calls Her, has been consistent throughout my entire life.  As exciting as the headline sounds, I wasn’t a triple, double, single, or even a conscious agent or spy. I was simply trying to find my way.  However, everything that you read in the post as my biography is accurate. 




Q:   I am not completely clear about what your agenda is now, at the present time, but I can think of several questions you could answer which might help to clear this up:


A.   I have no agenda. I am retired and quite happy.  I saw mean remarks in fb groups, like John’s remarks, and I found it just awful and thought I would try to defend Steiner’s teachings from the small minded egotism I was seeing.



Q:   Are you a Jesuit now? If not, when and how did you stop? And what was their reaction?


A:   I am no longer a Jesuit, having resigned in 1981.  Many Jesuits resigned at one time so nobody cared much.  I still finished my “reports” because they recommended Steiner’s Christology and Waldorf education.  When one third of the “spurious” Jesuits quit it was the sign of the end, in my opinion, of hope for the Catholic Church. 



Q:   Are there 'good' Jesuits in your experience? By this I mean, perhaps, people whose heart is in the right place and who are unaware tools concerning the true evil controlling agenda of the Jesuit mission.


A:   Oh yes, they are the most brilliant cadre of thinkers on the planet.  Some are pious and pure, but not many; they are thinking and will oriented soldiers of God – much like the old Templars.

I believe that all true traditions, if practiced rightly will lead to the same place – heaven, Shamballa, etc.

Many Jesuits are quite devote and truly dedicated to the Church; therefore, they are “good” in their practice.

I don’t think there are many Jesuits who feel that they or the Society of Jesus are in any way evil.  It is the politically placed Jesuits who blindly do the will the dark side of Catholicism that are the most dangerous and truly evil.  They effect world politics, economics, and the course of history.  There are also the “evil” Jesuits who literally go out to destroy the enemies of the church – especially with the pen – with writing the key spiritual doctrines of our time.  You will find S.J. after the name of the authors of many historic documents.




Q: Do Jesuits have separate funding from the Roman Catholic Church, or are they dependent?


A.  Both.  The Society of Jesus is independently wealthy due to their many universities, colleges, and schools.  They also have deep pockets for attacking the enemy and “secret” ways to raise money.  Far beyond your imagination.


Q:   Is it not true that the Catholic Church long ago ceased to function as a suitable vehicle for true individual spiritual awakening? (I mean centuries ago.)  Steiner even has discussed papal involvement in the 869 A.D. council which sought to and succeeded in obliterating the concept of a distinction between soul and spirit in the human constitution.) If so, then why is it of concern to Anthroposophists whether or not Jesuits are in a position of power in the church or not? The church has for a long, long time had nothing to do with personal independent spiritual awakening. Anthroposophists, as a rule, know this, and are aware that there is an inherent potential conflict between their own path and the church.


A:    Then why did Steiner speak so much of the influence of Jesuits in his time?  The spirit of the church recently died completely, as per my remarks in the post.  The Catholic Church is the most powerful institution in the world and should not be marginalized.



Q:   After 1999, does the Church consider that clairvoyance is an essential ingredient in order to be trained as an exorcist? Why was it important before then, during your own practice?


A:   No.  Because if you screwed up you could die and that doesn’t look good.  Better to medicate these possessed people and save on bad press.  Because we did much more than exorcisms and it took the ability to see into the spiritual world.


Q:   A long human lifespan is about 30000 days, and if someone lives for a century, it would exceed 36000 days. The church official who bragged about personally conducting over 70000 exorcisms would have needed to do 3 per day every day of his life, no days off, if he worked between ages 15-65. He also bragged that he had involvement with over 160000 exorcisms, or about 7 per day. How long do exorcisms take? And with the energy expenditure you experienced, how many could you and Father William do per week?


A:  I believe that that Vatican official was untruthful, as usual.  My point was to express the “current” trend on such issues which is rather crazy – trying to diminish the suffering of others again.  It could take minutes or days.  There was no set amount.  It ran in waves in the hospital intake of these people.  Every weekend we traveled away from the hospital.  Because of these questions I had to think about it and I really can’t say – probably a few hundred.


Q:   How many members of the current Vorstand are Jesuits? Do Jesuits know when one another are also Jesuits? Do you think Anthroposophy should disallow Jesuits or is it inclusive enough to accommodate them?


A:   I don’t know the Vorstand now personally though I have met a few of them.  I know of no Jesuits who have been Vorstand members.  No, Jesuits don’t – unless they are clairvoyant.  You can’t keep Jesuits out of anthroposophy, many Jesuits study Steiner – but so do the elders of the Mormon Church.  Anthroposophists in my experience are too afraid of Jesuits to even open a dialogue – except as they did when the curia came to visit them.



Q:   Your core mission seems to be, at least partially, to protect true Anthroposophy and you have spoken out against various authors and so on. So, is there some reason you would not simply name your colleague who infiltrated East Coast Anthroposophy and acted as a community gatekeeper, etc.? Is this person's motivations in harmony with true Anthroposophy, according to your clairvoyant or natural discernment? Same thing for the Jesuit authors you claim to have written misleading Steiner biographies. Sure would be helpful to the uninformed if you named them, right? This way, we could employ our own powers of discernment to test what you say.


A:   Yes, to protect his family and friends.  I described him clearly, so if you knew him, you would have easily recognized him through the picture I made of his character.  There was only one person like that.  He has crossed over the threshold.  No, his motivations were quite different than mine.  No, naming the Jesuit authors would make no difference in a reader’s opinion – in my recent experience.  I have called out Jesuit-like spiritual materialists and their followers took great offense at such a supposedly awful thing.  Plus, if I named my teacher – I would be called an outright liar because his book was considered the best on the topic and no one knew about him other than being a devoted Anthroposophist. 


And the other author’s book is completely obscure and is an obvious attempt to completely discredit Steiner and his psychologically ill followers.  There is only one book that fits that description.  I don’t claim anything.  I speak the truth and you can then call it whatever you want.  I think it is better that people develop discernment through whatever karmic path they may need.  I have heard Sergei P. called a Jesuit on these sites.  No one called the silly people who made that “claim” the names I have been called.  My point is to show the signs of the illness of our age – spiritual materialism – so the reader can discern this insidious re-crucifixion of Christ in the etheric realm.


Q:   You have listed some specific tips to help seekers distinguish between truth and falseness in the writings of spiritual teachers, especially Anthroposophical authors. Here they are:

• Speaks and writes from the head and not the heart (emphasis on intellectualism over imagination, inspiration, and intuition)
• Teaches improper knowledge of the etheric Christ (second coming),
• Removes the reader from a sound cosmology,
• Solicits authority through “claims”; quotes authorities and then adds on or comes to false conclusions; preaches that Jesus Christ will incarnate in the physical again,
• Does not comprehend the living nature of AnthropoSophia,
• Does not teach karma and reincarnation,
• Asks for followers and believers, not thinkers and spiritual researchers.

Would you be able to illustrate specific examples of 'false' (or perhaps Jesuit spy) writings in Anthroposophy for each of the above tips, in your view? Perhaps it would also be helpful if you were to indicate some Anthroposophical authors who you discern to be true and not succumb to any of the above ploys.


A:   I will be addressing these questions soon in a post I have written.  Suffice it to say, I believe that the fb troll in all of us reacts when some unresolved sensitive point of our spiritual development arises during fb group posts.  I have already found out the level of maturity is not sufficient enough to be specific without the blind followers of some authors rearing their ugly heads and spewing venom at those who question their world view connected with certain authors.  This immaturity makes this medium difficult to have sincere conversations.  Too many trolls stuck in their hard earned cosmologies who believe in one “supposedly” Anthroposophic author or another. 


My ultimate point is sadly this, I don’t think many Anthroposophists are serious students of Rudolf Steiner’s teachings.  They just get a framework and forget the details.  Many Waldorf teachers don’t study Steiner at all – I know, I taught Waldorf teacher training courses for decades.  Thus, even more sadly, many Anthroposophist, even on this site, are speaking more like Jesuits than students of Rudolf Steiner.   

Please join the conversation!  Discussions and postings on one of the several Facebook Anthroposophy group sites.  Plus receive our complimentary magazine at OUR SPIRIT.    

bottom of page