"Handling" self does not equal "handling"

[Tru2form]

I've been thinking a bit about O/Ws and auditing recently.

I noticed that many times, with O/W handlings and auditing, the person committing the O/W (or the PC) feels that since the situation is handled in session, they don't have to actually do anything about it in real life. They don't actually have to make up the damage unless they're in a condition of liability - the O/W just gets off, or it's handled in session, and that's the last anyone ever hears of it.

When I looked in someone's (I'll call them Person A) confidential materials briefcase one time, I saw all these screwed up situations and personal overts written up in there. But I also knew the person that those OWs were committed against (person B)... and he had always felt that Person A didn't care, wasn't sorry, wasn't even *aware* of his/her own OWs.

I used to get the feeling that my family would "handle" situations with me in session. They'd come out of session feeling great about it - of course, I was still angry.

Same kind of story with a PTS rundown. How are you supposed to "handle" a PTS / SP situation with someone else by talking to your auditor? There are some things in this world ya can't just postulate away.

I believe this is one of the contributing factors to the child molestation cases we're hearing about, and other serious issues. The person "handles" it for him or herself in session, or the offender is put through a sec-check or O/W writeup, then feels like he's fixed the situation. That does NOT mean it's been handled in real life.

I did this, too. I remember being relieved when I would write up O/Ws about lies I told people. But the ethics officer never urged me to come clean to those people. I felt fine about it - it was "handled". But those people may still have been upset with me. What gives?

Thoughts?

Good one Kendra,

I was thinking about this point after seeing a post from someone in the past few days, where their physically violant abusive mother did L's ... and might have "handled" her abuse of her children on the L's, but the son/daughter did not know because mother never talked to them about it.

How the heck can you even think you can "handle" abuse of your kids without addressing the matter with the kids. Going into session might make you feel better, but does nothing for others.

If you steal a cookie, you "handle it" by going back and paying for the cooky, appologizing, and making up for the hardship created to the business owner for the loss of inventory, perhaps by helping stop other shop lifting.

This is one of the most frustrating sides of Scientology that I had encountered from within. Some people had impossibly complex amends projects to repair damage done, while others, normally with money, or the right connections, or something the church wanted, gave a donation, and didn't even have to address those wronged ... I even saw an OT 8 that admitted stealing from his company was allowed back on OT 7 without repaying a penny or even talking to anyone else at the company (a Scientology company) because it was the greater good to get him back on OT 7 for the world.

I alsways seemed to get the blunt end of the stick on any handling I had to do.

But, then, I feel good when I "handled" something that it was fairly resolved.

deleted

This topic reminds me of a recurring theme in popular fiction, where a character commits a moral transgression or even a heinous criminal act ( "sin" ) , while admitting before the fact that he plans to go to Confession afterwards to take care of it. This kind of thinking allows a Mobster to consider himself a devout practicing Catholic, blameless in the eyes of God.

[Tru2form]

[Tru2form]