Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1961, 26 September
Document title: Teaching the Field Sec Checks
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Location: East Grinstead, Sussex
Document ID: SHSBC-62
Description: Hubbard is lecturing on how Scientology security checking processes mores and moral codes; contrasts this with Catholic confession.
Now, withholds don’t add up to withholds. They add up to overts1, they add up to secrecies, they add up to individuations2, they add up to games conditions3, they add up to a heck of a lot more things than O/W4, although we carelessly call them withholds. We’re asking a person to straighten out their interpersonal relationships with another terminal . . is what we are doing.
Now, our normal Security Check is addressed to the individual versus the society or his family. If you’ll notice, practically every one of them except 65, is addressed to the society or the family. Because it’s what people would consider reprehensible that makes a withhold.
In a Catholic society, not having kept Mass would be a reprehensible action. And in a non-Catholic society, nobody would think twice about it. So that most of our Security Checks are aimed at transgressions against the mores6 of the group. And that is the basic center line of the Security Check as you see it normally. Do you follow that closely? Do you see that as a specialized thing?
Now, do you see as well that you could have a special mores between the son and the mother? A special mores between the husband and the wife? Just as you have a special mores, of course, between the auditor and the preclear to which Form 6 is devoted. That’s a special mores. That’s what a pc would consider reprehensible or what other Scientologists would consider reprehensible as actions by the auditor.
Now, that is based on good sense. And that it is reprehensible, from the standpoint of human behavior, is incidental to the fact that it is simply a specialized mores. It’s a moral code that you’re processing one way or the other. You’re straightening out somebody on the now-I’m-supposed-to’s. And they’ve transgressed against a series of now-I’m-supposed-to’s. And having so transgressed, they now are individuated. And if their individuation is too obsessive, they snap in and become the terminal.
So all of these cycles exist around the idea of the transgression against the now-I’m-supposed-to. And that’s what a Security Check clears up. And that is all it clears up. Now, you see, it’s a great deal more than a withhold.
Now, you can just see some blood-dripping priest of the Old Testament asking how somebody has transgressed against the ark of the covenant or something of the sort and having some member of the cult, you see, practically faint at the idea of having to come up with the fact that one day they accidentally spat as it was being borne by. And yet this would be a very aberrative fact, you see?
Now, having released this into the open air, we get less individuation involved.
Now, the Catholic confession is only one type of Security Check that is a kind of an automaticity trick, which doesn’t depend in the least on interrogation, but just depends on whether or not somebody out of the goodness of his heart is going to spill the goods and get a few paternosters or something and go his way happily. And it actually has ceased to have very much punch.
But it’s transgressions against the Catholic mores. Only that. And there is no wider perimeter to it. And it isn’t actually a Security Check at all because it’s just whatever the person feels guilty about, which means that no criminal would ever walk near the confession box.
And, of course, the whole Catholic religion was done in by criminals. The reason it hasn’t the worldwide sweep that it has today is they just had a few too many, particularly in their own high places. Alexander the Fourth is a very good example. He made lots of money for the Church. The Church became a big business under Alexander the Fourth, but I don’t think he’d have anybody in occupying a cardinal’s hat or a bishopric unless the fellow had a long and involved record of some kind or another.
He held his position by poisoning. You know it today as a cliche of Lucrezia Borgia. That was his, I think, niece. Anyway, he used her in that fashion.
So you see, that type of Security Check lets everything go by the boards that doesn’t register, because if the person doesn’t feel guilty about it, it isn’t freed. Don’t you see? So it requires the factor of make-guilty in order to make the process work. Right?
So, any Security Check may have this factor added to it. If they’re all based on frail mores of peculiar constructions and now-I’m-supposed-to’s, then making people guilty of these things is another parallel check, isn’t it? Hm?
Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 26 September). Teaching the Field Sec Checks. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, (SHSBC-62). East Grinstead, Sussex.