| DR. INTROVIGNE's DENIAL |
December 27th,
1998
The CESNUR Critical Page website recently published an article by Martini entitled "Is Scientology Investigating Us?", which picked up a statement concerning the relations between CAN and CESNUR published in the article "The CESNUR ’98 Conference. Facts, impressions, meetings and events, minor and major, at an international meeting" by Dr. R. Di Marzio.
On request from Dr. M. Introvigne, and with his permission, we present some extracts from two e-mails where the Director of CESNUR, writing to Dr. R. Di Marzio, denies the statements made by Mr Davide Murmora concerning the relations between CAN and CESNUR.
-------------------------------------------------
From cesnur@tin.it Sat Oct 31 10:00:53 1998
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:59:49 +0200
From: CESNUR <cesnur@tin.it>
Reply-To: cesnur@tin.it
Organization: CESNUR
To: Gris Lazio <gris.lazio@mclink.it>
Subject: Re: ARTICLE RE CESNUR CONVENTION
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Di Marzio,
[...]
The CAN which was attending was not the old but the new CAN. As you are aware (the latest information can be found in a sentence published on the CESNUR website) the CAN name was purchased, after bankruptcy of the old CAN, by a group of "anti-anti-cult" activists, where members of the Church of Scientology hold a leading position. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DOES CESNUR REFER PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSONAL PROBLEMS INVOLVING NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS TO THE NEW CAN.
People with personal problems, if Catholic, are referred by our Turin staff to GRIS. The opposite however does happen. People who call the new CAN (perhaps under the impression that it is the old CAN) and do not receive the information they are looking for there, are referred by the new CAN to CESNUR. It should also be mentioned that, in an effort to listen to different voices, CESNUR once invited the chairperson of the old CAN, to speak at the banquet of CESNUR's convention in Buellton, California.
[...]
Best regards,
Massimo Introvigne
-------------------------------------------------
From cesnur@tin.it Sun Nov 1 08:48:40 1998
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 08:47:30 +0200
From: CESNUR <cesnur@tin.it>
Reply-To: cesnur@tin.it
Organization: CESNUR
To: Gris Lazio <gris.lazio@mclink.it>
Subject: Re: Thank you for the details.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Doctor,
Of course I do not know why the Italian representative of CAN (whom I met for two minutes at the Turin convention - I did not even know that the new CAN had a representative in Italy) gave you inaccurate information. However I can suggest a hypothesis.
Although it is not exact to say (as can often be read) that the new CAN consists only of Scientologists (there are members of other new or controversial religious movements as well - the president himself is a member of rather controversial fundamentalist group), there is no doubt that the staff one meets during conventions, lectures, etc. is made up of Scientologists. For several reasons which you are perfectly aware of, the more or less "covert" operations of the Church of Scientology are seen with suspicion by many (including scholars who usually criticise the anti-cult point of view). This is why the new CAN is trying to gain credit by boasting of its contacts with various bodies, including CESNUR. For example, the new CAN publishes a rather impressive list of specialists whom readers are "suggested" to contact, but whom the new CAN itself has not contacted, and who have not necessarily authorised publication of their names. As far as I am concerned, I believe that this can sometimes have positive effects, because there are people who call up the new CAN in the belief that it is the old one (also because the new one bought from the bankruptcy not only the name but even the telephone number) and present questions - sometimes personal and dramatic - which the new CAN is not equipped to answer. If such questions concern OTO, Satanism, sexual magic for example, the new CAN will have no idea what to do. It has therefore acquired the habit of providing the phone number of CESNUR (at least to those willing to spend the money for an intercontinental call from the USA to Italy), and CESNUR has sometimes been able to provide useful information and bibliographical reference on these issues.
I believe therefore that the new CAN which is seeking credit is interested in exaggerating its contacts with older institutions, including CESNUR.
I do not at present know what kind of structure the new CAN has in Italy, and hence whether it is able to answer even quite simple questions. It would be interesting to make an experiment...
Best regards,
Massimo Introvigne