Interview with Laurent Ladouce on the Theme of "Cults"

Laurent Ladouce joined the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon in 1954, before his eighteenth birthday while a student in the French preparatory-class system, and went on to handle public relations for its French branch. In this interview with CICNS he recounts the press campaigns against the “Moon cult” from the first Ouest-France article of 1975 onward, the kidnapping and deprogramming cases that touched members in France, and his view of the state anti-cult apparatus: the ADFI, the 1996 parliamentary list, the MILS and the MIVILUDES. His account is first-person testimony from within a movement targeted by French anti-cult policy, and everything in it is his own point of view.

CICNS interview. (English translation of the interview published on the CICNS YouTube channel on 12 February 2007. The French transcript was machine-transcribed from the video and cleaned before translation; passages the machine could not reliably hear are marked [inaudible].)

[Interviewer]: CICNS wished to meet the representative of a religious group well known to the general public for having been one of the very first targets of the hunt for “cults” in France. Mr Laurent Ladouce has been in charge of public relations for the French branch of the Unification Church. Here he sets out his point of view on the situation of the movement founded by Sun Myung Moon in 1954. His account of the deprogramming undergone by some of its members, along with the history of the media campaign against the Moonists, make this interview an instructive testimony.

[Ladouce]: The movement was born in Korea in 1954, so that makes 52 years now. The first missionaries then went to Japan and to the United States. The first missionary in France, Reiner Vincenz, came in 1966. After two years he was able to find his first disciple, Henri Blanchard, who was a former monk of the Picpus congregation, and who encountered this movement in 1968. And from there, we developed steadily.

It is inconceivable, at the outset, that you should find yourself caught up in improbable polemics, the object of accusations, of rumours of every kind. But unfortunately, that was our experience. Now, our movement, it is true, created a great many scandals. And it is not at all because we sought them out. On the contrary, a priori, we love everyone — perhaps even in a rather naive way. And then, quickly, we found ourselves facing enormous accusations. I would say there were two phases, as I knew them in France.

The phase I would call that of the “Moon cult”. It began with an article in Ouest-France, on 21 January 1975. Mr and Mrs Champollion, who founded the ADFI, found a sounding board in the questions of quite a few Breton families. One must also remember that at the time, the age of majority had been lowered from 21 to 18, and we had many very young members. So I can understand, up to a point, that the parents were a little panicked, wondering what is going on, what are our children doing. That much is understandable.

But then there was the drumbeat of Ouest-France, which threw out a great many fantasies, and so on. And that article invented, for the first time, this notion of the “Moon cult”, which was picked up very quickly by media the world over. Because there are three syllables: la secte Moon — the Moon cult — is easy to remember. And what is more, we really passed for the archetype of the cult, with all the clichés. Soon there had been the myth of brainwashing, there was mental manipulation. And I remember an article in Paris Match that said: “Moon, the living god who steals our children.” So, for quite a long time, the circles hostile to us played on what I would call religious horror: it was an absolutely dreadful heresy, with a guru like no other, mental manipulation, we cannot tell you how horrible it is — in short. And religious horror, family horror too: we were presented as very promising young people, from good families, very brilliant, destined for the best studies — in short, the pride of their parents — and then suddenly, indoctrinated, etc., snatched away from the affection of their loved ones. There was that image, those two things: religious horror, family horror.

Then there was another myth — which is just as false, by the way — which was that of the Moon Empire. And so Jean-François Boyer took the opposite tack from the first myth, saying: no, no, there is no brainwashing; on the contrary, these are formidably intelligent people. He called us soldier-monks, in fact. He said: there you have it, they are new Templars, they are formidably intelligent, they are not brainwashed at all, quite the contrary, but they represent a political horror: they want to subvert the French state, they have infiltrated everywhere, they are burrowing into our institutions. If they threaten a brain, it is the brain of the State: they are going to move close to power; they must be stopped.

So, faced with that, we ourselves sometimes tried to defend ourselves, but I did not have the time to do it. I would say that, in the end, it serves no purpose. What, in my view, makes our adversaries evolve is that we are faithful to our values, we try not to engage in too much polemic, to really do our work, telling ourselves: one day or another, these people will calm down. We are not at all a movement that is, I would say, extra-mundane, to speak as the theologians do — “otherworldly”, in English. That is to say, we truly want to bring salvation to society, to our contemporaries, to our leaders. So to have them against us as enemies is unbearable, in a sense. But it does not [inaudible ?] our zeal.

There are things one cannot do. There are, for example, polemics to which you cannot respond: it is a waste of time. So, often, we preferred to ignore them, not to engage in pointless battles. I am thinking of court battles in particular. Sometimes we were told that we should respond systematically, that we should bring lawsuits. We decided that this does not solve the problems. So what we tried to do is that, even when we were the object of all sorts of accusations, we had, for example, a magazine, Le Nouvel Espoir, which we sent, in the 1970s, to all the French parliamentarians. And we learned that it was read, in fact. And it gave a very good image of our movement. It was not the done thing to say so from the rooftops, but, in fact, it was known, in certain circles, that this is not at all the movement people say it is: these are very interesting people, who have a great deal to say.

Likewise, I myself remember meeting great writers in France. I was very close friends with Pierre Emmanuel, who was a great French poet. We saw each other very often. And he was aghast at the gap between the image that was given of us and the young man he had in front of him. The same goes for Maurice Clavel — we had very good contacts with him at the time, and with many intellectuals. And very often there was this gap between the image of zombies that was given of us and, in fact, what people saw: persons of deep reflection, who have a great deal to say about society, who are enthusiastic.

In the United States and Japan, our members suffered enormously from deprogramming, unfortunately. But in France it never took on overly serious proportions. Deprogrammers, in fact, are people who play on words, who claim to know our teaching and who go and trouble our members by saying: “Reverend Moon said this.” Except it is out of context; often there are even things that have been truncated. And little by little they bring them, if you will, to renounce themselves. In fact, it is not so new. For example, if you read the story of Saint Thomas Aquinas: he was kidnapped by his family at the age of 19, because his parents had a career plan for him. And when he joined the Dominicans, it was a scandal, and so on.

So we, too, did indeed experience such attempts. Marie-Christine Amadeo had been abducted in 1976 in front of the cameras of — at the time it was not yet FR3, it was the third channel. And the gendarmes were there too. We also had Christine Yvon, who had to deal with deprogramming; there was, moreover, someone from the ADFI taking part in that affair. And the most serious case was Claire Château, who was abducted in front of a police station in Besançon in 1982. She was held captive by Martin F. — surname withheld here as machine-heard and unverified — who was a former member of our movement. Claire’s parents were also there, unfortunately, and there was Alexandra S. — surname likewise withheld — who at the time was the vice-president of the ADFI. In particular, Claire Château could not go to the toilet freely: the door was kept open, someone watched her relieve herself. And she was going to be subjected to a deprogramming, if you will. Fortunately, we ourselves alerted the public prosecutor of Besançon, we told him where she was being held, and the police did their job. Otherwise, there have been members of other movements who have had trouble, whether professionally or in their families — that can happen.

It is true that we sometimes tried to enter into dialogue with the media, when there were no big affairs concerning us, when the situation seemed more ordinary, to establish a relationship. But it must be said that the media do not seek that normalization. In media parlance, “cults” are what is called a marronnier — a hardy perennial: a subject that comes back very often; every year it has to be talked about. And the media are not at all looking to give a different image. Some have tried: I remember that once, in Le Point, there was an article on the Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that, in the end, these people are perhaps doing some good in the suburbs, and so on. Well, in fact, it is very rare to have that kind of article.

In France, indeed, for years now we have had rather harsh instruments of the State against new religious movements. There was the parliamentary commission of 1996, with the list of 172 dangerous cults. There was the creation of the MILS, the Interministerial Mission for the Fight against Cults. Only in France does one see this kind of thing: in any other democratic country, it would make people leap from their seats. But in France, it goes through. And now there is the MIVILUDES.

There again, I believe one must look at things with detachment. I would say that France is not that. First of all, it is nonetheless a spiritual country: long ago, it was called the eldest daughter of the Church. For me, that is the face of France I want to see first. And there are also in our country — who knows why — anti-religious passions. I think all this agitation must be placed back in that context. In my view, the MIVILUDES and the rest are the heirs, if you will, of those heretic-hunters, those witch-hunters, that there have always been in France. They have a different language today, which is no longer that of heresy or of rationalism, but they use the terms of mental manipulation. In short, they have a whole vocabulary to justify themselves.

I think the only hope of change lies in the people who took part in these fights and who, I would say, repent of them. I see that Mme Tavernier recently gave an interview to Le Monde, and she says that the ADFI, of which she was president, went much too far; that now they have taken to denouncing the Rose-Croix, and that this is not right. She herself was incriminated because her daughter attended the Rudolf Steiner school, if I have understood correctly. In the end, these people are victims of the cabals they launched. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but for me, that is the only hope that the debate can change.

I have noticed: now, however much one says, you know, it is not at all like that in Europe, France is an exceptional case — people become even more enraged. However much you tell them: “Calm down, travel a little, go and see elsewhere. You will see, it is not like that.” It only strengthens them all the more: in the end, we alone are right; nobody understands us.

As for the anti-cult organizations: a priori, everything that is of the order of parents’ suffering — that is something I can profoundly understand. If the ADFI represented that — that is, the distress of parents when their children, in whom they have placed certain hopes, decide to follow another path — that is understandable. Every neophyte has a language that can sound hallucinatory to those around him. And it is good that our parents put us in our place a little, say to us: “But are you sure you have found the kingdom of God? Are you not mistaken? Have you really read Reverend Moon’s teaching?” Those questions are reasonable.

I myself came to know this movement when I was not even 18. My teachers — quite sincerely; I was in hypokhâgne, the first year of the literary preparatory classes — told me: “But you are mad, you are such a brilliant student, what are you going to do there?” I did not reject my teacher; I followed their advice. My philosophy teacher told me: “But Ladouce, you are mad. You must read Kant, you must read all of Kant; it will cure you.” I obeyed him, I read Kant. And afterwards I told him: “But Kant is marvellous; it strengthens me all the more in the idea that Reverend Moon is a good man.” So I did not seek to disown my teachers. I respect my parents, of course. I understand that my parents asked me to reflect, that my teachers asked it of me, my friends, and so on. And if the ADFI kept to that role — that is, parents who are concerned — I would say: why not.

But I observe that at a certain point, the ADFI drove away most of our members’ parents. I do not say this to insult the ADFI. But in fact, many parents said: the ADFI is a veritable cult, they are totalitarian, they listen to no one. And so they stopped paying their dues, they stopped going to their meetings. That does not mean they agreed with us entirely, but they did not recognize themselves in the ADFI’s language. When I saw how much public subsidy the ADFI was receiving, becoming — what is it called — an association recognized as being of public utility, and so on, I said to myself: this is going too far. I even read recently that Father Trouslard, who is 79, defines himself as “sectually obsessed” (“obsédé sectuel”). It is pretty as can be. In other words: blessed are the sectually obsessed, for they shall have the Legion of Honour. In the end, he received the Legion of Honour for services rendered in the fight against cults. So that says it all: the State subsidizes movements that are, in my view, fanatical.

I believe it works a little like a drug. That is to say, the ADFI does not know where to stop. At a certain point, they are obliged to make new lists, to discover hidden cults here or there. That is denunciation — informing on people. They do not know how to stop. I find that very dangerous.

What is a pity is that in France these groups have not been studied by sociologists. In the United States, people took an interest in anti-cult phenomena: how does one become so fanatical against new religious movements? What is the profile of the people who adhere to this ideology? That is a theme I find interesting. All these figures — who are, I find, rather curious in the French Republic — are in fact very official. One sees them in the corridors of power as entirely respectable figures. I believe sociologists should take an interest in them and be heard a little more.

People who spend time with us are astonished by the fact that, in our meetings, we speak of all religions. It is practically, if you will, like crossing paths with a rabbi, with an imam, with a Buddhist monk in a saffron robe, and so on: come to the Moon movement, and that is where you have the best chance of meeting them. There is such a gap between the “cult” image pinned on us and the reality of our movement. So I would say that this is the great answer to all the polemics. Our adversaries can say what they like; it will not stop us from doing this work. We have a certain number of ambassadors for peace, precisely, from different religions. And I believe that one day or another they will go to our adversaries and say to them: “Stop saying all this nonsense about the Moonists. Come and question me — I who am, I don’t know, Catholic, Protestant, etc. I will tell you why I respect Reverend Moon.” I think that is the direction to take; otherwise, if you will, we will never be done with the polemics.

The idea that spirituality is cut off from society, that it makes people slaves or subservient to who knows what — for me, that is false. As I see it, spirituality means being free, being responsible and, I hope, taking part in social life. Our members, as I see them in France, are relatively engaged. That is to say, beyond our adherence to our church and all the obligations that entails, I see that many of our members are parent representatives at their children’s schools, some are in sports associations, others are active in neighbourhood associations. In fact, one does not always know what they do, but I see that in general they are certainly as involved, if not more so, in associative life. I believe that precisely those who study the new religious movements should take an interest in certain aspects of things. If it turns out that the followers of these new religious movements are rather, I would say, more involved in associative life than the average, that is good to know.

And I would like the public authorities to offer a better image — for us at last to have a serious inquiry into the new religious movements. If there are things to reproach us with, let it be said, let us be the object of condemnation before the courts, why not — but let it also be said all the good that we do, even if that displeases people.