The link is to a list of theories of mind control techniques…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control
Not that they are completely valid, since they are only theories.
Is it possible
That mind control techniques
Could begin to creep
Into the Catholic Church?
Could it create abuses?
Yes. But why singal out the Catholic Church? Any institution has the capability of doing this.
Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Yes. There are groups within the Catholic church that do this, but in many ways the members are seeking a more pure and controlled way of life. So the question then becomes, have they accepted that control of their own free will? This becomes an issue with children. How fare do you expose them to the evil outside world with all its temptations? If you truly believe that doing so without adequate eduction would be a failure to protect your child, the of course you would try to isolate them from those influences (for example, home schooling).
Many people criticize home schooling on the basis that it prevents the children from being properly socialized, but I disagree with this. It enables you to have more control over what you want your children to become socialized or accustomed to.
Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
This one doesn’t make any sense. If the leaders are intentionally deceiving their followers, then yes, this is wrong. The Catholic Church would condemn this as a violation of the commandement against lieing.
Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
No one has ever confronted me for sinful behaviour in the Catholic churches I’ve attended. Sin has been defined and explained, but there is no enforcement. I suppose it could start to be a problem. Quebec, back in the day when the Church had massive amount of authority, maybe started to fall into this attitude. My thought is that the quiet revolution was a massive rejection of this.
Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
No. The seal of confession protects the Catholic church from this kind of abuse. The priest is not allowed to divulge anything discussed in the confessional, either directly, or indirectly (unless the one making the confession brings it up himself outside of the confessional).
Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
This isn’t really a problem since Vatican II.
Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
The Catholic Church does not do this. Faith and reason have always been seen as complimentary.
Doctrine over person. Member’s personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
I don’t think I can comment on this without some examples.
Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.
Its ironic, because today’s society has decided it has the authority to determine literally who has a right to exist and who does not have a right to exist before they are ever even born. By the very fact that a person believes in right and wrong, we make distinctions and judge people. We are always judging people, even when we are not aware that we are doing it.
I don’t think this one makes any sense except for a person who believes everything is relative.
God bless,
Ut
