Notice: I have written in other languages, many interesting articles that you
can read translated in English
in these links:
Part 1 and Part 2.


FATHER LINDBERG TRIES TO PROTECT PEDERASTA LEADBEATER


In this article, independent theosophist Henry Stokes and editor of The O.E. Library Critic responds to the arguments put forward by B.W. Lindberg, a member of the Liberal Catholic Church and who tried to mitigate the remarks made by Mr. T.H. Martyn vs. Charles Leadbeater.
 
 
FATHER LINDBERG GOES OVER THE TOP
 
The battle of Kurukshetra is on and the snorting of the elephants has begun. One of the latest snorts is a letter from Father B. W. Lindberg, formerly a physician in Kansas City, but now a priest in Leadbeater’s church in Sydney, Australia. This letter is being circulated in the American Section for the encouragement of the faithful and the confusion of evil speakers. Father Lindberg replies to certain statements made by Mr. T. H. Martyn, in his letter to Mrs. Besant (published in the O.E. Library Critic, January 4th, 1922). I am not concerned with what he says of “Bishop” Wedgwood, as later developments have confirmed Mr. Martyn’s statements.
 
Speaking of Arhat Leadbeater, Mr. Martyn says, in part:
 
« By this time (1917) Mrs. Martyn had become intensely unhappy about C. W. L. in the house. She had seen naked boys in his bed and other facts had come to her knowledge. I refused to sympathize with her views and for my sake she kept her peace and I held things together. Later (1918-19) scarlet fever in the house caused Leadbeater and his boys to move out temporarily and all my persuasions were insufficient to in duce Mrs. Martyn to have him back again. She point-blank refused —though again in consideration for my own feelings— she told me nothing of what she knew. I only learned that on my return from America 1919-20. »
 
 
Referring to this Father Lindberg states:
 
« Again, as to Bishop Leadbeater being refused the re-entry into his former home, after his return from a journey— that to my knowledge is an absolute misstatement. The facts are that at the time when this particular incident occurred, he was practically confined to his bed and had not been able to take a journey for a year or more. But as Mr. and Mrs. Martyn were both going to Europe, and were sending the children to a boarding school, it meant that Bishop Leadbeater would be left wholly in the hands of a housekeeper and servants. This they were naturally unwilling to do, and so other quarters were found in the house of a Swedish friend of mine, a devoted admirer of the Bishop. To show the very friendly spirit in which this change was made, a suite of furniture which the Bishop liked was sent by his former hosts to his new quarters. »
 
 
A comparison of these statements shows that Mr. Martyn says nothing whatever as to a journey or the state of the Arhat’s health, and as Mr. Martyn can reasonably be supposed to know the affairs of his own household (which I happen to know from other sources to be the fact) one might conclude that someone has been lying and that it is not Mr. Martyn. The explanation of the discrepancy is obvious enough. Mr. Martyn gave the true reason for the Arhat’s exclusion from his house in his letter to Mrs. Besant, but being pre-eminently a gentleman of kindly and considerate character and not wishing to hurt the Arhat’s feelings, he put him off with the pretext that he was going to Europe and didn't want to leave him with his servants. And Father Lindberg has swallowed this polite evasion, bait, hook and sinker. Had Mr. Martyn been less considerate he would have kicked the Arhat into the middle of the street.
 
The matter of the naked boy (Mr. Martyn says “naked boys . . . and other facts”) is also neatly explained by Father Lindberg. The Arhat was “giving him treatments.” Just so. But omission is made of any statement as to the character of the treatment he was giving, and why the boy had to be naked. It is not on record that the Arhat is a specialist in massage, but it is on record —his own admission— that he recommended a certain immoral practice as calculated to increase the physical manhood, and actually gave practical demonstrations in the same to his boys (see O.E. Library Critic, March 29, April 12). This reminds us of the Arhat’s excuse for being found with another naked boy at Adyar, that he was “washing his head.” (“Mrs. Besant and the Alcyone Case,” page 199.)
 
 
It is not with the intention of reflecting on Arhat Leadbeater, but of exposing the muddle in Father Lindberg’s noddle that I call attention to the fact that his statement that “it would be physically impossible for a man addicted to a vice of the kind suggested in those horrible accusations to lead the strenuous life of continuous and splendidly effective work that he does” does not harmonize well with his statement that the Arhat was practically confined to his bed and unable to take a journey for a year or more a short time after the period during which the incidents referred to by Mr. Martyn were in progress.
 
If Father Lindberg reads the Leadbeater “cipher letter”— and it will be his own fault if he does not— will he perhaps ask us to believe that the Arhat was merely instructing the boy H. Z. in the best way of scratching his nose or rubbing his tummy? As a physician the Father should be able to give us a satisfactory explanation as to why the Arhat congratulated the boy on finding the sensation of rubbing his tummy so pleasant, why tummies should not be permitted to manifest themselves spontaneously, and why he had to write it all in cipher.
 
As an unconscious humorist Father Lindberg even exceeds Father Cooper— some feat, I can assure you.
 
 
(O.E. Library Critic, June 7, 1922, Vol. 11, No. 22, p.5-6)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OBSERVATIONS
 
Leadbeater pretended to be an Arhat, i.e. a very high spiritually being who already has his hidden powers awake and who is close to reaching Nirvana; and that is why Henry Stokes cynically calls him "the Arhat"-
 
B.W. Lindberg was not a true priest because the Liberal Catholic Church is a spurious congregation that is not recognized by the other churches, and the defense that he makes towards Leadbeater reminds me the defense that Cardinal Norberto Rivera made to try to protect his pedophile colleagues.
 
But there are many facts that show Leadbeater was a pedophile (naked children, encrypted messages, boys who accused him). So "Father" Lindberg's defense was just one more attempt to try to hide thisuncomfortable truth.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment