Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00452)

Dear Bill,

Sorry to take so long to reply. I would say the underlying 
assumptions re: CWL's behavior are considerably more complicated 
than:

> The assumption here seems to be that sleeping with persons under 
age 18 is immoral. 

Despite the legal borderline represented by that age, I don't think 
that's the general assumption. Although it is possible for someone 
18 years and 1 day old to go to jail for statutory rape of someone 
17 years 364 days old, on the basis that a "minor" cannot give 
consent to an "adult," most people would recognize that laws about 
consent were not written to bust 18 year olds for sex with 17 year 
olds but to deal with greater age disparities that necessarily 
involve disparities of power.

As I see it there are principles behind those legal thresholds: 1) 
minors below a certain age cannot meaningfully give consent (said 
age varying in different states and countries). 2) Adults must not 
abuse positions of trust in order to get into the pants of anyone, 
minors or adults. And in this instance, 3) Spiritual organizations 
that protect adults who so abuse their positions share legal and 
moral responsibility for that abuse.

With CWL we don't have someone seducing marginally younger 
individuals who are fully consenting. We have someone using a 
position of trust to manipulate into "consent" individuals who are 
30-40-50 years younger than himself and too young to be capable of 
genuine consent.

snip

On what do we base our conclusion 
> that CWL was flawed? An inner voice? An outer rule? A 
recognition of similarity or difference to our own selves?
> 
If he was human, he was flawed, which I think most of us would 
accept as a general principle. But was he flawed in a way that 
materially affected the Theosophical movement, and are there flaws 
in the way the movement did and does deal with his case? I think 
the answers to both are yes.

> As you acknowledge in your conclusion above, there are those who 
do follow their desire is to point out the "flaws" of others. If 
one recognizes in oneself such a desire, one might ask from where 
and for what purpose does this desire arise? Do we point out CWL's 
flaws to help CWL? I should think not at this late hour. Do we 
point out CWL's flaws to help others? Perhaps that is our 
intention, but could we not be more sure of our selfless motives 
> if we chose instead to point out our own flaws in an effort to 
help others? I can only acknowledge for myself that the latter 
choice strikes me as being a more theosophical approach.
> 
Different individuals will respond differently, and I don't 
particularly care to bring up CWL, but the flaws gain significance 
because of the disastrous warping effect they have had on the TS and 
the movement. Perry after all didn't bring up CWL's flaws per se, 
but the way his writings conflict with those of HPB and the way that 
these conflicts are declared off limits by the powers that be. It 
was Radha who brought up the flaws as a way of deflecting attention 
from the original question. What's important now is what the TS has 
become because of/in reaction to CWL.

There are so many different angles of approach to this question that 
I wonder if any two theos-talkers have the same motivations and 
intentions. I don't think it's coincidental that Perry, who works 
in a library, is deeply concerned about intellectual freedom in the 
Adyar TS and the hypocrisy of its claims to openness. That's my 
chief interest as well, but there are many Theosophists who are anti-
CWL who have no more commitment to intellectual freedom than Radha 
does. If put in her shoes they would be just as highhanded and 
arrogant and destructive of intellectual freedom, only with 
different sacred cows.

Often I feel like Diogenes looking for one honest participant in 
these discussions; many times you qualify while few others do.

Best wishes,

Paul