Pablo, thank you for this dialogue.
Jul 24, 2007 01:10 AM
I wish to sincerely thank you again for staying the course in this
dialogue. After only twelve years in the Adyar Society, the
approximate age of confirmation in the Christian church, you are
certainly going through your baptism/confirmation of fire here on
theostalk! You are answering in an honest way from your experience
and open mind. You have quite obviously given this subject
considerable thought and investigation and although I disagree with
your inferences thus far, I greatly respect the integrity of your
I would like to comment on two of the statements you have made in
some of your recent postings.
You write concerning the cipher letter, "The letter is quite
disgusting, but the, he said it was a forgery. It certainly didn't
have signature, as I said. And was typewritten."
As you say, the letter, whether fraudulent in part or not, is
disgusting. This only amplifies my earlier point that Bishop
Leadbeater should have unequivocally denied the letter outright for
the sake of the boy. As I wrote in an earlier post, "Irrespective of
his innocence or guilt, for reasons mentioned above he should not
have allowed the boy to be implicated in this manner by remaining
silent. As a putative occult "teacher" he also had a bounden duty to
protect his naïve charges from scurrilous attack. To protect a
brother's good name is a standing tradition in occultism. To permit a
shadow of doubt to hang over another innocent boy is once again
incomprehensible until, through weight of accumulating evidence, we
consider the possibility of something more sinister."
You write, "There are also many written statements from several
people who lived and work with Leadbeater, completely refusing that
statement. I read them personally."
In my profession I worked intensively with "dysfunctional" young
people from some of our most disadvantaged suburbs. Many had been
either physically, emotionally or sexually abused with some having
suffered all three.
Whilst I do not have academic qualifications in this field, it was
required that I have a layman's working knowledge of the subject of
paedophilia, its causes and methodologies. The methodologies are
astounding and shocking to say the least. Some paedophiles can be
extraordinarily cunning through their processes of familiarisation,
grooming, enticement, normalisation and eventual entrapment. All of
this almost invariably occurs under a cloak of secrecy. Secrecy is
standard fare for paedophiles. To facilitate this, some use
enticements of pleasure, others of fear and sometimes a combination.
Paedophiles choose their victims carefully and practice their abuse
surreptitiously and are astonishingly "successful" even when there
are other children in the vicinity such as dormitories, schools,
camps etc. This is what surprised me the most. A predator can abuse
one or more children in the midst of others, sometimes without any
child knowing of any other involved. There are variants to this
whereby a number of children are involved and are mutually aware. And
this is where it can become even more insidious. The normalisation
process can cause a child or groups of children to believe they are
acting "normally." This can occur where the abuse does not involve
the pain of sexual penetration e.g. mutual masturbation. The accepted
scenario is that boys "do it", and to have an adult secretly
supporting it, in complete opposition to the child's perception of
their parents' extreme disapproval, can be exciting to a child. This
perception of their parents' extreme disapproval guarantees non-
disclosure under almost any circumstances. This is one of the reasons
why paedophiles have historically remained largely untouched.
Initially the boys will not disclose for fear of parental retribution
and by the time the boys have reached sufficient maturity to realise
the debauchery which has occurred they are too ashamed to admit it,
very often blame themselves and will usually vehemently deny its
occurrence due to feelings of shame.
In terms of enticement and entrapment it seems Bishop Leadbeater used
the enticement of "occult progress" and its "required" secrecy as his
lure. The familiarisation, grooming and normalisation were easy for
him given his status and prestige.
Interestingly perhaps, paedophilia is not always about sex itself. It
is an issue of power. And this is why it is so often priests who
suffer this disease. They belong to a mental system or mindset, which
actually worships power over others. There are certainly numerous
other causes however that would involve a considerable dissertation
just to review.
With regards to bathing naked with the boys and your experience of
bathing with your father, this might well be culturally acceptable in
your tradition. My father, and to a lesser extent myself, was raised
in the old British tradition. Never did my father appear naked before
me nor would he have permitted it so. Even in communal showers men
and young boys would retain their trunks or underwear. There were
certain things that were just not done in Britain up the 1950's of
which I can speak. Bishop Leadbeater would without doubt have been
aware of this cultural norm.
>From my research into all the available evidence, some of which
admittedly would be deemed circumstantial, my perception is that
Bishop Leadbeater used his privileged position as teacher and mentor
to gratify his particular perversion with boys. In a court of law I
would have no compunction in convicting him of the crime of
paedophilia based on the principle "beyond all reasonable doubt."
I do however accept that I could be wrong in this deliberation and
stand ready to accept further evidence.
Until that time Pablo I must respectfully disagree with your
Thank you so much again for this most interesting dialogue.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application