Dr. Mariana Caplan — Does Yoga Work? |382|

#21
I have always applauded the recent Pope. But I didnt know anything about the scandal Alex spoke of, still don't really. But maybe its a stretch to call him a pedophile?
Who are the paedophiles the pope has surrounded himself with? I don't recall your saying...Where's your evidence?
Let's see, it's almost hard to decide which Catholic Church pedophile scandal to focus on, where the Pope defended or promoted/elevated the abusers:

Is it the Pope's defense of one of his closest aids and third in line in the Catholic Church hierarchy -- (Australian) Cardinal George Pell?

https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/cardinal-pell-and-the-vaticans-day-of-reckoning.html

"In 2015, Australia’s Channel 9 ran a 60 Minutes segment that can only be called horrifying. In it, one of Francis’s own appointees to investigate sex abuse, Peter Saunders, described Pell’s record on sexual abuse as “almost sociopathic.”

Or maybe his enraging defense of sick Chilean Cardinal Juan Barros....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-despite-denial-pope-got-abuse-victims-090653836.html

"The scandal exploded last month when Francis' trip to South America was marred by protests over his vigorous defense of Bishop Juan Barros, who is accused by victims of witnessing and ignoring the abuse by the Rev. Fernando Karadima. During the trip, Francis callously dismissed accusations against Barros as "slander," seemingly unaware that victims had placed Barros at the scene of Karadima's crimes."

http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-chilean-sex-abuse-victims-slander-against-bishop-785386

https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/francis-commitment-abuse-survivors-question

"Within the space of four days, Pope Francis twice slandered abuse survivors. On the papal flight from Peru Jan. 21, he again called testimony against Chilean Bishop Juan Barros Madrid "calumny." Despite at least three survivors' public accounts to the contrary, he also again said he had not seen evidence of Barros' involvement in a cover-up to protect notorious abuser Fr. Fernando Karadima.

These remarks are at the least shameful. At the most, they suggest that Francis now could be complicit in the cover-up. The script is all too familiar: Discredit the survivors' testimony, support the prelate in question, and bank on public attention moving on to something else."


Or perhaps it was the Pope's honoring of the disgraced and disgraceful (Boston) Cardinal Bernard Law?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/glo...riest-scandal-was-depicted-in-film-spotlight/

I was raised Catholic. And I couldn't be more disgusted by this organization. Or this Pope.
 
Last edited:
#22
Come on, Alex. Laying the blame on some new group you've labelled "militant non-judgementalists" doesn't hack it. Jim's supplied some useful counter-evidence to your assertion. Who are the paedophiles the pope has surrounded himself with? I don't recall your saying. And since when has the "court of public opinion" meant so much? About anything? Darwinism, HIV, CAGW, and so on? Follow the evidence wherever it leads, right? Where's your evidence?
Cardinal George Pell to face trial on sexual abuse charges in Australia

Vatican police 'break up gay orgy at apartment' | Daily Mail Online
High-ranking priest caught in cocaine-fueled gay orgy in Vatican ...
Pope quietly trims sanctions for sex abusers seeking mercy - USA Today
Pope Francis: 'There Is No Hell For Pedophiles' - YouTube

 
#24
That's one of the unfavourable reports. Here are some different ones:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...lice-charges-allegations-vatican-bank-reform/

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...l/news-story/5b246cb577168e375c9cc690d5f1fce3

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainmen...damnation-of-george-pell-20170602-gwj4mg.html
That wasn't someone with direct access to the pope, but "allegedly the secretary to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio - a key aide to the 80-year-old Pope." Guilt by association twice removed.
Looks like the same case. See previous comments.
This says: "The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.


Does this mean that the pope is a paedophile? Or more that he's soft-hearted and compassionate?
As far as I can tell, the pope didn't actually say this. Read more here:
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-hell-vatican-easter-866927

Does any of this prove that the pope is a paedophile who surrounds himself with other paedophiles? I think not. It looks to me like it's a case of one side determined to denigrate Catholicism and the other determined to defend it. Where exactly the truth lies, I don't know. But until there's much better evidence, I'm sitting firmly on the fence. People are innocent till proven guilty, and nuts to the "court of public opinion".
 
Last edited:
#25
Does any of this prove that the pope is a paedophile who surrounds himself with other paedophiles? I think not. It looks to me like it's a case of one side determined to denigrate Catholicism and the other determined to defend it. Where exactly the truth lies, I don't know. But until there's much better evidence, I'm sitting firmly on the fence. People are innocent till proven guilty, and nuts to the "court of public opinion".
And I suppose this "soft-hearted and compassionate" Pope just forgot that he had directly received evidence of child sexual abuse from certain victims -- yet denied knowing of "any evidence," calling the victims liars...until he was caught in his own lie by a Cardinal and members of his appointed Commission allegedly formed to investigate pedophilia (two of whom resigned in disgust/protest). Having a picture of the Pope holding the testimonial evidence didn't help the soft-hearted Pope's credibility either....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-despite-denial-pope-got-abuse-victims-090653836.html

But here's some further testimony/evidence regarding Cardinal Pell. Doesn't seem to be "one side determined to denigrate Catholicism...." It seems far more likely to be the result of once devout/trusting catholic kids traumatized by soul-crushing sexual predation -- by sick men of "God."

http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36
 
#27
Facts don't matter.

http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625
PRIESTS COMMIT NO MORE ABUSE THAN OTHER MALES
BY PAT WINGERT ON 4/7/10

...
Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates.
...
And there's this:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=teach+women+not+to+rape
Abusers in the church are no more frequent than in other organizations. Or you can say, abusers in other organizations are just as common as in the church. So why is the church singled out when other corrupt organizations are given a free pass?

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa
It is estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls.​


The problem of child abuse in public schools is never talked about and it is covered up as much as possible. Many of the perpetrators are women who as a gender are often given a free pass not just by administrators but by the public. It is hypocritical and disgusting and extremely unfair to the child victims of their abuse. People can choose whether to go to church, but they cannot always choose to keep their kids out of public schools.

https://www.projectveritas.com/tag/aft/

Project Veritas has released undercover video of Bill Siegferth, Tom Schmida, and David Romick – all current or former teachers union presidents –admitting that they have protected and defended union members that have abused students.

Why is it a outrageous when male priest abuses a child but okay for a female teacher to do the same thing?

And why is there so much anger when basic facts are pointed out? Who feels threatened? Why?

People don't use logic to form their opinions, they use logic to defend their opinions. And when the church is picked out for criticism while other guilty organizations are ignored, all it proves is the bias of the critic.
 
Last edited:
#28
Abusers in the church are no more frequent than in other organizations. Or you can say, abusers in other organizations are just as common as in the church. So why is the church singled out when other corrupt organizations are given a free pass?

The problem of child abuse in public schools is never talked about and it is covered up as much as possible. Many of the perpetrators are women who as a gender are often given a free pass not just by administrators but by the public. It is hypocritical and disgusting and extremely unfair to the child victims of their abuse.

https://www.projectveritas.com/tag/aft/

Project Veritas has released undercover video of Bill Siegferth, Tom Schmida, and David Romick – all current or former teachers union presidents –admitting that they have protected and defended union members that have abused students.

Why is it a outrageous when male priest abuses a child but okay for a female teacher to do the same thing?

And why is there so much anger when basic facts are pointed out? Who feels threatened? Why?

http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa
It is estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls.

People don't use logic to form their opinions, they use logic to defend their opinions. And when the church is picked out for criticism while other guilty organizations are ignored, all it proves is the bias of the critic.
Wow. I think you've got some deep seated misogyny here that you may want to seek help for. No one is arguing that women aren't abusers - though far less than men, as you've cited yourself above. But why is it important for you to minimize the sexual abuse being perpetuated/enabled by the Church/Pope here -- by claiming that other people/organizations abuse children too?

Yes, it's sadly true -- and I've cited to numerous links on the Pizzagate thread to that effect. Child sexual abuse is going to happen anywhere where there is access/pipelines to vulnerable children (schools, religious organizations, youth sports, etc.) But discussing one particular organizational abuser here doesn't minimize or deny the existence of others. Alex also didn't single out the Pope/Catholic Church in the interview but was also discussing the cult in Oregon (Wild Wild Country) and other religious/spiritual leaders who abuse their followers -- and none of it is okay. So not sure what you're trying to prove by providing links to articles about women allegedly lying about rape? Who the hell is saying it's "okay" for female teachers to molest/abuse kids?

And yeah, it's freaking outrageous when priests abuse children. I didn't think that was up for debate.
 
#29
And I suppose this "soft-hearted and compassionate" Pope just forgot that he had directly received evidence of child sexual abuse from certain victims -- yet denied knowing of "any evidence," calling the victims liars...until he was caught in his own lie by a Cardinal and members of his appointed Commission allegedly formed to investigate pedophilia (two of whom resigned in disgust/protest). Having a picture of the Pope holding the testimonial evidence didn't help the soft-hearted Pope's credibility either....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-despite-denial-pope-got-abuse-victims-090653836.html

But here's some further testimony/evidence regarding Cardinal Pell. Doesn't seem to be "one side determined to denigrate Catholicism...." It seems far more likely to be the result of once devout/trusting catholic kids traumatized by soul-crushing sexual predation -- by sick men of "God."

http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36
Neither of your links prove that the pope is a paedophile who chooses to surround himself with other paedophiles, which is the opinion Alex defaults to. If that's what you choose to believe, it's up to you. If others choose to believe the opposite, that's up to them. Like I said, I'll remain on the fence until something more compelling either way crops up.

Looks like you're a bitter ex-Catholic. Me, although I went to Catholic schools, wasn't actually raised a Catholic. I think my parents, who were nominal Catholics, sent me to a Catholic primary school because they thought it the best school in the area, and when I passed the 11 plus, I myself chose a local Catholic grammar and I've never regretted that because the education I received, delivered mostly by priests, was top notch. But along the way I eventually became disillusioned with Catholicism and by the time I went to university, I was an atheist and maybe a little bitter, but in time I grew out of that.

Now I'm "spiritual but not religious" to use the cliche, and have found Catholics in particular, and Christians in general, to be on the whole decent people. Doubtless a few aren't, and maybe some are paedophiles, but if so, I doubt it's in any higher proportion than anyone else. I still think that Christianity has much merit, and on some days probably regard myself as one, albeit of an unconventional kind.

None of this has much to do with the case in point, however. It's more that I also hold Western values, important among which is the legal principle of innocence till proven guilty.
 
#30
My own feeling is that people will get more out of a spiritual practice if they get their brain chemistry right through other means first, for example through diet and exercise, otherwise they might not get the effect they seek from spiritual practices. Many spiritual experiences are mediated through the brain.
I speak from personal experience. I have meditated regularly for most of my life. I have found that sometimes when I am unhappy or stressed it is a waste of time to meditate. There are much better ways of calming the mind in those situations. Then when my mind is calm I will meditate.

On retreats and in monasteries Buddhists don't just sit down to meditate, they will sometimes do bowing practice then chanting before sitting meditation. There is a reason for this. When the mind is turbulent there are more efficient ways to calm it than meditation. They use a progression of techniques to bring the mind to a quieter and quieter state. Then when the mind is calm, then meditation is one of the most effective means of spiritual growth and development.
 
#31
Looks like you're a bitter ex-Catholic.
I don't think "bitter" is the right word choice -- disgusted is more appropriate. I was raised Catholic in Boston, ground zero for U.S. pedophile scandals. I personally know two people who were molested by priests - but I know far more who were molested by non-priests. That doesn't make the abuse by the priests any less horrific. I have lots of family/friends who are still practicing catholics and I'd agree that they are decent people on the whole. But I think the rank and file Catholic is a far different animal than those who rise in the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy and are corrupted by incredible wealth, power, and an unnatural "celibacy."

I don't believe the Pope is a "holy man" -- and there is plenty to link him to high ranking pedophiles if you actually want to open your eyes to it. So tell me, did you even read the testimony against Pell in the link I provided? Do you really think these victims are making it up? And since sexual abuse always comes down to the abuser's word against the victim's, how many victims have to come forward before you'd find the evidence persuasive? Finally, given the Pope's responses to the victims and his defense and even elevation/promotion of the serial abusers, do you really think he's oblivious? If so, not sure he deserves to have the ear of GOD, which is what many good catholics believe.
 
#32
So tell me, did you even read the testimony against Pell in the link I provided? Do you really think these victims are making it up?
Yes, I have read both the accusations and the rebuttals, but I don't know either way for sure. That's all: I await the jury verdict. If 12 men/women find him guilty, then fine, I'll accept that. But even if he is found guilty, It says nothing conclusive about the pope, most Catholic priests, or the state of Catholicism in general. What I'm most bemused by is Alex's willingness to invert the principle of due process.

Let me ask you a question. Were Pell to be found innocent, would you accept that verdict?
 
#33
Some "evidence" to consider in deciding whether pedophilia in the Church is being covered up/enabled by the Catholic hierarchy, including the Pope:

Boston:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/downloads/archdiocese.pdf

Australia:

https://www.childabuseroyalcommissi...-_volume_16_religious_institutions_book_2.pdf

Ireland:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2009_11_26_Murphy_Report/


Also, on the power of the Pope:

"The pope The Bishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Roman pontiff or pope (from the Latin papa, father) is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church. He is head of the College of Bishops and has primacy within the college on the basis that as Bishop of Rome he is successor to the apostle Peter, who according to Catholic tradition was entrusted by Jesus with leadership of the Christian church.45 The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the pope is: the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.46 Only the pope can change canon law for the universal Catholic Church. In all cases that fall under Catholic Church law, recourse may be had to his judgment.47 There is no appeal against his judgment.48 The pope not only has power over the universal Church but also has the right to intervene in the affairs of the local or particular churches at his own discretion.49 He is the immediate superior of all Catholic bishops around the world,50 and is assisted in controlling the particular churches through the Roman Curia and through his envoys or papal nuncios to the local churches.51 Since the 19th century, the papacy has claimed the almost exclusive right to appoint and remove bishops.52 The pope is elected by an electoral college called the College of Cardinals. Cardinals are appointed for life by the pope. Usually they are archbishops or bishops from around the world or senior members of the Roman Curia. Only cardinals under the age of 80 are able to vote in a papal election or conclave. From time to time, the pope may convene a meeting of the College of Cardinals to advise him on important issues.53 " (see Australia report, link above).

Perhaps the next question might be why Pope Francis rejected the advice from his Commission on the Protection of Minors (among others) to abolish the "pontifical secret"....? Who and what is he protecting?
 
#34
Let me ask you a question. Were Pell to be found innocent, would you accept that verdict?
No. I would assume that this was yet another abuse/manipulation of the legal system, a system that was created for -- and almost always protects -- the powerful.

See links provided at #33 for further thoughts on this.
 
Last edited:
#36
Neither of your links prove that the pope is a paedophile who chooses to surround himself with other paedophiles, which is the opinion Alex defaults to. If that's what you choose to believe, it's up to you. If others choose to believe the opposite, that's up to them. Like I said, I'll remain on the fence until something more compelling either way crops up.

Looks like you're a bitter ex-Catholic. Me, although I went to Catholic schools, wasn't actually raised a Catholic. I think my parents, who were nominal Catholics, sent me to a Catholic primary school because they thought it the best school in the area, and when I passed the 11 plus, I myself chose a local Catholic grammar and I've never regretted that because the education I received, delivered mostly by priests, was top notch. But along the way I eventually became disillusioned with Catholicism and by the time I went to university, I was an atheist and maybe a little bitter, but in time I grew out of that.
I guess the point is that people are sick of giving the Catholic Church any benefit of the doubt. That organisation interfered with the private lives of vast numbers of people - imposing incredibly strict rules - and were then caught out breaking even the most basic rules like not having sex with children!

The pope should have reduced the Church's teachings about sex to those of secular law and common morality, and referred any and every case of possible child abuse to the police.

He should also have specified that no Catholic priest should be alone with a child - there should always be a lay minder present!

I am a bit puzzled about how a discussion about Yoga veered into this subject - but hey this is Skeptiko!

David
 
#37
Hello all, first time commenting here.
I was dismayed by Dr. Caplan's avoidance of calling out abusive people in positions of power. She stated something along the lines that people like Pema Chodron eventually benefited from Trungpa's abuse. She also states that she has no problem calling out something if it is bad or evil but fails to do so when asked. Very duplicitous. Yes positive things can come out of terrible circumstances but is that any reason to avoid calling actions, that are in direct conflict with our culture rules, evil?

Alex's question at the end of the podcast:

From the spiritual seeker's standpoint, what relationship is there between the body and what we might do with it (like with yoga poses or breathing exercises), and connecting with extended consciousness/deep spirituality?
I wanted to hear more of how Dr. Caplan utilizes yoga and psychology as I have a deep interest in this area. Yoga, as Dr. Caplan alluded to briefly has come to mean a lot of (marketable) things so much so that the term is almost useless as a descriptor. Let us use Patanjali's definition: "Yoga is the cessation of the fluctuations of the mind." So yoga starts when the mind stops but how do we get there? Patanjali laid out a road map in the Yoga Sutras. He does not describe different asanas but states the conditions that must be met for something to be considered an asana, namely steady, stationary, motionless, and comfortable. This is interesting because many people assume that when they become steady, stationary, motionless and comfortable that their mind should calm down. When it doesn't they note that when their body is active, their mind calms down so they generally gravitate toward doing something and calling it "meditative." The simple way to think of it is that when the body is active the mind begins to disengage. When the mind is active the body tends to disengage. So why didn't Patanjali say "lift some weights and go on a run and your mind will calm down."? I believe that it is because we don't actually unwind all the dross in our nervous system/brain when we engage in more activity or try to concentrate on some activity...we just continue to repress it. So when we stop "doing" for a period of time our minds are going to rage and try to get us to do anything to avoid confronting that which is repressed or that which may produce discomfort if we contemplate it. This non doing allows things to come up and pass.

Consider that the criteria of steady stationary, motionless and comfortable are generally not met in any yoga classes. People are pressing to go further or contort their bodies or they try to hold their breath longer or make their breathing slower. Practicing this way is just furthering exactly what most of us do all day long which is to attempt to control, manipulate, achieve, win, avoid losing etc which are not all bad but one needs a sabbatical from all of this. If you approach yoga like you are going to achieve something, you might get flexible or strong but that is about it....and what is the difference between approaching yoga in the "doing mindset" and calisthenics? If you use the achievement roadmap you may end up in a completely different location than where Patanjali's roadmap is pointing to.

In my experience of using asanas with the aforementioned criteria I have found that it helps unwind events in my life that created tension be it small things that happened through the day or major events. While practicing, I cease trying to steer the boat and just ride along allowing whatever to come up. I should note that it seems that the experience of things "coming up" often takes a few different pathways depending on whether we tend to be more auditory, visual, kinesthetic, olfactory. I tend to feel tension in my body, others many note that short sporadic images pop up...one person I showed yoga to in this way had a distinct smell of mothballs from her grandmother's house come up. She jumped out of shavasana and didn't want to practice any longer. As one practices there is increased time between the sensory things popping up and sometimes one's consciousness kind of shuts down. It is kind of a sleep state but one isn't really sleeping, there is an awareness present. When I come out of a state like this I feel quite rejuvenated but it doesn't happen every time. I don't control it I just create the initial conditions for it to happen as elucidated by Patanjali. If it happens great, if not, great. It is nothing to be achieved.

I suspect that the physical body takes on tension as a protective response to stress/trauma ("If I just guard myself better I won't get hurt"). Yoga works to allow that armor to dissolve which allows a person to regain their ability to choose (instead of everything being a reaction to the world)...which is really to say, it allows a person to embody more fully the dynamic range of human potential. I think that yoga according to Patanjali is a method to allow a person's system to heal itself. Yoga practiced this way is like digestion. We masticate and swallow the food and that is where our conscious control of digestion ends. Our body knows just what to do with the food if we let it do its thing. In the same manner if we give the right initial conditions to our body, it will begin to digest the traumas that are embedded in our nervous systems. I do think that as these things are digested that we begin to see the world more clearly as it is rather than through the glasses colored by trauma. I think allowing things to come and go and creating the initial conditions for the mind to sort of switch off regularly may pave the way for odd phenomena to happen such as hearing in one's mind an odd word that another person is thinking of (that is not related to any conversation). It seems that as the dross is processed and removed the mind can more clearly reflect things and kind of know things at times that are weird or unexplainable as to how one knew that thing. But that either happens or it doesn't...it isn't something one can aim to do.
 
#38
total agreement
Well then, Aryas and Alex, there's nothing more to be said. Sure, probably, sometimes rich and/or powerful people aren't convicted when they should be. And sometimes, quite possibly, they are convicted not because they're guilty, but because they're powerful and/or rich. The legal process isn't perfect, but what else is the uncommitted, non-conpiracist observer to go on?

And David, I have been in many situations in the past where I was alone with priests. The very few persons (maybe a couple) I've been alone with who seemed a bit dodgy to me weren't priests. You never know, that lay person you place so much reliance on could be a paedophile. Fact is, some people are paedophile but you can never classify them as such in advance on the basis of what their profession is.

I suspect the discussion arrived where is currently is because there wasn't much else to discuss in the podcast!
 
#39
I guess the point is that people are sick of giving the Catholic Church any benefit of the doubt.
I disagree... it's because the evidence is very strong. Greg Carlwood did a great show on this... his researcher/academic shows how prevelant the prob is and how insidious... and therefore how difficult to convict. this case is overwhelming... 30 witnesses came forward... unprecedented.

The Higherside Chats Plus – Page 2 – The extended conspiracy ...
https://www.thehighersidechatsplus.com/page/2/
Mar 16, 2018 - Lori Handrahan | The Pedophile Epidemic, Supply Pipelines, ... Join The Higherside Chats podcast, with host Greg Carlwood and guest ...
 
#40
Hello all, first time commenting here.
welcome.

I was dismayed by Dr. Caplan's avoidance of calling out abusive people in positions of power.
she's actually done an admirable job of this. I just wanted to poke her a bit to see how far she would go :)


I wanted to hear more of how Dr. Caplan utilizes yoga and psychology as I have a deep interest in this area.
I read her book, she does a nice job with this.
 
Top