Recently (25 March 2009), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine issued a 6 page paper entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy. This document can be found at: http://www.usccb.org/dpp/doctrine.htm . Within this document, these Bishops state that Reiki Healing does not heal by Divine Grace or the powers of nature. They look to its Buddhist Origins and development in Japan and label it as superstitious and that such practice is dangerous to one’s spiritual health. Unfortunately this view by such learned scholars of Divinity and Theology is limited to a Newtonian view of Physical Science.
This view is evident by their continual reference to ‘healing that utilizes the powers of nature’, ‘natural means of healing through the practice of medicine’ and through ‘natural means’. Ironically, many of the medicines (pharmaceuticals) that are used today are merely derivatives of a ‘natural’ occurring substance or plant and are often made synthetically in laboratories. The ‘practice of medicine’ often scoffs at natural remedies such as supplements from which these synthetic drugs are derived and also limits it’s belief to the Physical Sciences and the Newtonian view of our world.
To further the limited view from which this paper was derived is found within their discussion of energy. With the reading of a simple book on Quantum Physics, most would be easily able to see through their erroneous arguments. For they neglect the fact that everything within the physical world and the Universe at large is comprised of energy. Like matter itself, energy cannot be created or destroyed, however it can be harnessed and transformed. The denial that there is One Source for the energy that is you, me, the world and the universe surrounding us is a glaring fallacy in the reasoning of these great minds. It is also a denial that energy is the most ‘natural’ state of all matter.
To delineate that only some energy is ‘spiritual’ and other energy is not, goes against the fundamental belief of all Christians and Catholics that God is the Creator of the Universe and thus all energy should be ‘spiritual’. Of course, considering the dualistic nature of these belief systems, they must include some sort of separateness within their view.
This leads to a quick side note that was startling to read within this document. The Bishops state that, “We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.” This statement should be unnerving since the core belief of Catholics is that the Soul of the human is a Creation of God. For this statement encourages the separateness of the Divine Creation that is our Soul, our Essence.
Now back to the ideas of energy presented. The document states that Reiki ‘has no scientific support (or even plausibility).’ If the energy of the body can be measured, monitored and looked at by medical science (i.e. EKG’s, MRI’s, etc) this statement disregards their premises by basing their arguments on ‘medical science’. It has been proven that human touch, even hugs, have a huge affect on a persons health and mental well being. This has been documented scientifically in the past and is ignored in this document.
Quantum Physics has also shown us that energy is affected by our conscious thought. Even the passive observer in an experiment affects the results simply by being consciously present. Studies have proven that Prayer can affect the health, recovery and well being of another. Yet, the essence of Prayer is ‘conscious thought’, which the Bishops deny as having any affect upon when they state; ‘Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on “universal life energy” that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of though and will.’
They Bishops also comment that, ‘At higher levels, one can allegedly channel Reiki energy and effect healings at a distance, without physical contact.’ Intending healing by prayer or by distance Reiki is similar. Unfortunately the Church see’s this differently.
Finally, I have to point out the tremendous oxymoron within the text of the document. An entire section of the paper revolves around the ‘initiation’ and ‘attunement’ received and the symbols passed on from Master to Student. This is then portrayed as being of a religious nature. However, these leaders of the church fail to see that their own sacraments are governed by symbols, ceremonial initiation and even levels (you must be baptized before receiving reconciliation and must receive reconciliation prior to communion, etc.). Even these leaders themselves have ceremonial initiations, symbols and levels which govern the sacrament that can be performed by them (a deacon cannot consecrate communion, a priest can perform the sacrament of reconciliation, a Bishop can ordain, etc.). Unfortunately, the church is unable to see themselves in the light of their own criticism.
It is unfortunate that in this current century, with all the knowledge accumulated, ideas shared and breakthroughs in science that the church would cling to archaic ideologies that promote separateness, limitation and place judgment upon the eternal soul’s of humanity.
|
