Catholics ban "unscientific" Japanese alternative medicine

[TithonusSyndrome]

Yeah, you heard right.

Reiki, an alternative Japanese therapy with a growing band of followers in the west, is "unscientific" and "inappropriate" for use in Catholic institutions, according to America's bishops.

Guidelines issued by the committee on doctrine at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops warn healthcare workers and chaplains that the therapy "lacks scientific credibility" and could expose people to "malevolent forces".

The document also claims that for a Catholic to believe in reiki presents "insurmountable problems".

Reiki means "universal life energy" and was developed by the theology professor Dr Mikao Usui at the turn of the 20th century, from Buddhist beliefs and Sanskrit teachings. The client lies on a couch, clothed and relaxing, while the therapist's hands rest lightly on the body in a special sequence. Clients often report heat and tingling sensations.

The church's guidelines state: "A Catholic who puts his or her trust in reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no man's land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction."

The document goes on to state that since reiki therapy is incompatible with Christian teaching and scientific evidence, "it would be inappropriate" for Catholic institutions, such as healthcare facilities and retreat centres, or people representing the church, such as chaplains, to promote or provide support for it.

Reiki master Judith White, who is a Christian, said the bishops had misunderstood the therapy. "There is so much bad information about reiki, anti-Christian information, on the internet," she said. "It says we channel spirits and that's not true. Reiki balances energy in the same way as acupuncture or reflexology. I know of two nuns in the Philadelphia area, one who runs a retreat centre, who have done wonderful work. The bishops weren't talking to women like that."

Emphasis mine. In the wake of Pope Palpatine's condom comments, this appeared specifically relevant. For you see, REAL faith is the kind that suits our purposes, and trite superstition is whatever we disapprove of! Ignorance is knowledge! Trust us, we know our science here!

[General Zod]

Fucking hell I hate doublethink. It's nice that they're banning non-scientific medicine and all but it's not much more than an empty gesture when they don't consider their own beliefs to be superstitious.

[The Vortex Empire]

Here's a hint, Catholic Church: Faith=Superstition. Also, look in the mirror.

Fucking hypocrites.

This is the same Church that still endorses exorcisms, right?

[Darth Fanboy]

Why does the thread title refer to Japanese Catholics yet the article refers to American Bishops?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Shaddap you. It's because some mod hasn't shown me any kindness yet and changed it.

[open_sketchbook]

So... religious people ban some retarded alternate medicine for it's unscientific origin, and this is bad because they are religious and thus clearly stupid by default? I'm not exactly seeing the problem here. The idea of religious people being rational about everything but religion itself strikes me as better than them being irrational about everything. Sure, it's a bit hypocritical, but humans can be like that sometimes.

[General Zod]

So... religious people ban some retarded alternate medicine for it's unscientific origin, and this is bad because they are religious and thus clearly stupid by default?

You don't see the problem with being blatantly hypocritical? Or how this line of thought still allows for superstitious bullshit like anti-vaccination hysteria, refusing blood transfusions or even performing exorcisms as long as Christian rationalization is involved?

[open_sketchbook]

Not really. It's a step up from "because God says so" which is certainly an improvement. We can't simply expect religious people to drop their faith at the first challenge to it; religions are designed to prevent that. Improvements in their line of thought, however small, are a good thing.

[General Zod]

Not really. It's a step up from "because God says so" which is certainly an improvement. We can't simply expect religious people to drop their faith at the first challenge to it; religions are designed to prevent that. Improvements in their line of thought, however small, are a good thing.

Encouraging health care workers to ignore all forms of superstitious bullshit but their own is hardly an improvement.

[Samuel]

Not really. It's a step up from "because God says so" which is certainly an improvement. We can't simply expect religious people to drop their faith at the first challenge to it; religions are designed to prevent that. Improvements in their line of thought, however small, are a good thing.

You do realize that differentiating between "our faith" and "supersticion" has a LONG history? The most fun example was the fairy crazy which the church fought against in the 19th century, although this trend of the established religion attacking something for not being a true faith goes back at least to Roman times.

This isn't them advancing- it is them trying to crush a competing movement.

[Shinova]

It's nice to see that they're at least implying further support for science, even though they do say, "Believing in them turns you away from us!!" Mixed bag to me.

[Kanastrous]

So... religious people ban some retarded alternate medicine for it's unscientific origin, and this is bad because they are religious and thus clearly stupid by default?

No, they're delusional; intelligent people can still believe asinine things via purposeful self-deception.

I'm not exactly seeing the problem here.

"Our unsubstantiated faith is a good and real and true thing. Your unsubstantiated faith is a bunch of dangerous nonsense whose worst feature is that it threatens people's devotion to our unsubstantiated faith."

You can't see the problem with denouncing others' silly beliefs as, well, silly while insisting that your own equally silly beliefs are somehow different? Hello, hypocrisy?

The idea of religious people being rational about everything but religion itself strikes me as better than them being irrational about everything.

Religious people are virtually by definition irrational to some degree about everything upon which their religious faith touches. Which, for believers, can be just about anything.

Sure, it's a bit hypocritical, but humans can be like that sometimes.

Which makes it okay...?

[Garlak]

warn healthcare workers and chaplains that the therapy "lacks scientific credibility" and could expose people to "malevolent forces".

I think this was my favorite part of the article. Combined with

"There is so much bad information about reiki, anti-Christian information, on the internet," she said. "It says we channel spirits and that's not true"

--it makes me think that they don't want this alternative medicine done away with because it's stupid and superstitious... But because they think it's real--that those people are "channeling spirits" and corrupting themselves and others.

It's like... like denying peoples' accounts of Elvis sightings not because they're bullshit... but because you're afraid of the undead and worried that people will turn to necromancy. Or worse, find Elvis and discover the secret of immortality!


Did anybody else get that sort of impression from the article?

[Ted C]

Did anybody else get that sort of impression from the article?

The "expose people to 'malevolent forces'" bit kinda seals it, I think. "It's the work of the devil!"

[Posner]

I gotta think Reiki has performed as many "medical miracles" as a trip to Lourdes has.

[Gil Hamilton]

Not really. It's a step up from "because God says so" which is certainly an improvement. We can't simply expect religious people to drop their faith at the first challenge to it; religions are designed to prevent that. Improvements in their line of thought, however small, are a good thing.

The issue is the hypocrisy of it. Neither these bishops or the Vatican do or say anything about the blatantly zany things that Catholics (particularly in 3rd world areas) do as treatment for ailments or simply because they think its a good idea religiously. Hell, even in the US you periodically get some Crying Madonna style event that gathers a crowd of people trying to faith heal and holy Mother Church declares it a "miracle" despite it too being undocumentable and unsubstaniated superstition.

It is an entirely fair play to criticize the Catholic Church on that, because of their neglect to their own house when it comes to occasionally even lethal superstition. Where are these bishops telling people in the Phillipines not to crucify themselves to celebrate Easter?