Having read every comment to my post Wholesale Violations of Priest-Penitent Privilege on Moving On Up A Little Higher I want to state here exactly where I stand with respect to confidentiality of confidences shared in the practice of Scientology.

People can argue one Policy Letter and Bulletin against the other in attempts to divine where LRH came out on the subject.   They can argue it till the cows come home. That was the full-time occupation of International Management of Scientology – about fifteen years ago when they were last constituted – and they wound up accomplishing nothing but becoming slaves. 

The problem with analyzing every word ever written over time is that you are going to find apparent contradictions.  For one, you are going to run into the same conundrum discussed here before (in the context of Disconnection, and other issues) – the murky 80-86 period when all LRH communications were filtered through SPs.

There are dichotomies inherent throughout the subject of sec checking vs. confessionals.  I discussed this in a video interview in early 09 (to the right of the screen click on the segment titled Abuse of Trust):

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/rathbun.shtml 

LRH emphasized in the St Hill Special Briefing course that in the application of Scientology there is no substitute for understanding.  He emphasized it on Class VIII. He emphasized it on Org Executive Course.  You could remember all the tech volumes, all the admin volumes, and every lecture LRH ever did – and you might not UNDERSTAND a blessed thing about applying Scientology toward the betterment of people.

Now, there are many technical facts. They are technical facts because when recognized and applied they create an intended result.  My understanding of the importance of  ABSOLUTE TRUST BETWEEN AUDITOR AND PC is taken from this important technical fact (from LRH delivered on 2 January, 1960 during the State of Man Congress, a seminal series that explained the importance of allowing a pre clear to let go of withholds on his/her route to Clear):

Now, I’ve told you for a long time that auditing was a third dynamic situation.  And sure enough, we have to clear somebody on the third dynamic before we clear him on the first. And all those case failures that we had to this time have been because we’ve been trying to clear people on the first before we cleared them on the third. Do you see that?

An auditor-preclear situation is a third dynamic situation. That’s a third dynamic situation. And clearing a person starts right there in that auditing session. Now, any HCA can tell you better than I can — I think the number of the Auditor’s Code is 9, though, isn’t it?  Isn’t that it?  Whichever one it is. It’s “two-way comm must be established.”  It’s a breach of the Auditor’s Code actually.  We’ve had it with us for years. But what did this mean?

Well, this meant, essentially, that the preclear had to be willing to talk to the auditor. Well now, several things have to be guaranteed before this takes place. And one of the things that has to be guaranteed is that the preclear has some security in talking to the auditor that that information  not be falsely used.  Isn’t that right?

audience: Yes.

So this leaves us with an organizational responsibility heavier and bigger than we have ever had in the past.  We’ve now got to go all out and make sure that a certificate means, wherever it is to be found, that confidence can be reposed in the person as a confidant.  Isn’t that right?

audience: Yes. Uh-huh.

That organizationally, the information passing over organizational channels and so forth is inviolate — we have to be able to guarantee that, right?

audience: Right.

In my view,  there is a technical fact here.  If a pre clear has the slightest idea that he or she is not ABSOLUTELY privileged to say whatever he/she wants to say in a session, without the slightest consideration that whatever he/she says can or will be used against him or her, then by DEFINITION, one does NOT have an auditing session.

The proof is in the pudding. And while it apparently drives Miscavige absolutely bonkers that we are such purists on this subject at Casablanca, the proof is in the results.  And this particular understanding happens to work for us.

“Well”, some say, “what about reforming bad behavior?”

I say, that is a byproduct of auditing (including the relief from transgressions) because, unlike Radical Scientology, I happen to agree with L Ron Hubbard that beings are basically good.  When you help them to become more themselves (the entire aim of any auditing), they start operating more and more toward survive across all dynamics. There are literally dozens of St Hill Special Briefing Course lectures that describe how this is so, and how one can witness it for himself by creating an auditor/pc relationship that makes the disclosure of trangressions ABSOLUTELY safe, with no external consequences. 

“But”, someone might ask, “what about security?”   I agree with Amy’s comment on the blog to the effect of  “do an A-J check, if that is your obsession.”   And with, I believe Margarget, who said something to the effect, “use other means to investigate security threats.”   And with L Ron Hubbard who said, “So the ogre which might eat  us up is not the government or High Priests.  It’s our possible failure to retain and practice our technology.”

My policy is that I don’t care about the content of people’s transgressions. I make no note of them – beyond perhaps one word beside a read or blowdown if it is required for future processing.   I don’t do “Stenographic Auditing”, a practice outlawed by L Ron Hubbard on 10 July 1969 by the HCOB Stenographic Auditing.  Incidentally, try finding that HCOB in the church, or any of the Tech Vols published under the direction of Miscavige.  So, even if Radical Scientology broke into my house, broke into my safe and stole my pre clear and pre OT folders, not even they could make my pc’s and pre-OTs guilty of their own confessed overts.

That is Radical Scientology’s intent and standard operating procedure.

Again, LRH from State of Man Congress:

The greatest overt act in the world is making other people guilty of overt acts.  That is the greatest overt act in the world — about which, more later.  So don’t think at this moment that I’m trying to make you guilty of overt acts!  The only thing I’m trying to do to you is get you Clear!  That’s all I’ve got in mind.  And that’s why no resistance, no attack for ten years has been able to get anywhere on Dianetics and Scientology. Because basically, as far as the subject is concerned, there was nothing to hide. That’s why we’re still alive.”

And that is why, in my opinion, we are still alive and flourishing.

And that too is why, in my opinion, the church is dead.

Advertisements