The Catholic Free Press gets it wrong again

Once again, The Catholic Free Press [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts] has demonstrated that it is not committed toward offering its readers an authentic Catholic teaching.  Writing in the June 14, 2013 edition, Fr. Conrad S. Pecevich, Pastor of St. Anne's Parish in Southborough, correctly notes that, "Time and again throughout the Gospels, Jesus chastised the religious people of his day, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, for their hasty judgmental attitudes."

So far so good.  But then Fr. Pecevich writes, "When we commit the sin of judgment, we place ourselves morally above others.  We forget that, like them, we are poor, miserable sinners who fall short of the glory of God.  Passing a judgment is passing a sentence on another."

Is Fr. Pecevich right?  Is all judging wrong? Those Catholics who believe so apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...

Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ).Sacred Scripture, which confused souls such as Fr. Pecevich obviously do not spend enough time with, makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).
This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.

Several years ago a priest from the Worcester Diocese, serving in Winchendon, affirmed a senior couple in their sin [engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage] and asserted that anyone who told them they are engaging in sinful activity is being judgmental and that such people will go to Hell for their judgmentalism.  See here.

I have been ostracized within the Worcester Diocese because I believe in calling sin what it is: sin.  And because I refuse to buy into the watered-down Catholicism which is in vogue at the moment.  But I stand with Our Lady of Fatima who warned that many souls go to Hell and primarily for sexual sins which are, objectively speaking, gravely sinful.

I have no interest in judging the internal guilt of individuals.  That is God's domain alone.  But that doesn't mean I must turn a blind eye to sin.  I refuse to say along with Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"  If I see someone rushing toward the abyss by embracing what is [objectively speaking] gravely sinful, I will do my best to warn that person because I truly love them.

If that means I will continue to be ostracized and labelled "hateful," so be it.  Like my namesake, I do not seek to be popular with men.  I serve the Lord Jesus.

Justice Elena Kagan: Not as clever as she thinks on same-sex "marriage"

Surpreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, responding to Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, the California "gay marriage" ban, after he insisted that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, responded sarcastically, "..if the couple - I can assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."  See here.

Yes, it's entirely true that people marry for a variety of motives: for love, for companionship, for money or economic considerations, for position.  And the idea of having children may be very secondary and perhaps only tolerated rather than desired, in the minds of couples marrying.  The idea of having children need not be uppermost in their minds.  But there is no doubt that within marriage, procreation is primary in nature's design.  We eat mostly for the pleasure we obtain from eating and we rarely think of its necessity for sustaining life.  Nevertheless, the latter is the primary purpose of eating.  The same is true for the sexual act.  It may be done for pleasure, but its primary purpose is to sustain the race - procreation.

Marriage must conform to the natural law which is promulgated by God and is the objective order established by Him.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The 'divine and natural' law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end." (CCC, 1955).  And again: "The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.  It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties." (CCC, 1956).

The eternal law is in God.  When applied to creatures, this eternal law is called the natural law.  In nature we see that all things are bound by constant and uniform inclinations to attain definite ends.  For example, it is natural for the sun to rise and light and heat the earth, for flowers to grow and bloom, for fish to swim and birds to fly, and for man to think thoughts and to share them with others.  In each case, these things are simply obeying the law which is stamped on their natures by their Creator.  This temporal effect of the eternal law which shows itself in creatures is what we mean by the natural law.  It is called natural law because it is grounded in nature itself and manifests itself through nature, or essence or the constitution of things.

Now, getting back to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.  Her response to attorney Charles Cooper was not amusing and betrays her ignorance of the natural law, which is the basis for all civil law.  The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.  Besides this primary purpose, marriage has secondary ends, the mutual material and spiritual assistance to the married parties and protection from the abuse of sex life.  But the primary purpose of marriage is essential for its validity to the extent that the right to marital commerce may never be excluded.  The marriage contract is valid even when it is certain that there is no possibility of having children (some couples are unable to have children), provided that the primary purpose of marriage, which is procreation, is not excluded.  But two people of the same sex are not able to have children.  In a homosexual union, procreation is excluded.  As we read in the Catechism, homosexual acts are, "..contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life." (CCC, 2357).

Justice Kagan's response to attorney Cooper does not invalidate his argument.  It only serves to highlight her paucity of intellect.  But then, this is the same Elena Kagan who issued a Socialist call to action to change America

and to defeat the "entrenched foe."  Presumably, this entrenched foe is the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which America was built.

Sentinel & Enterprise: Will Pope Francis be another John Paul XXIII?

You have to hand it to Charles St. Amand, the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the Leominster-Fitchburg area as well as seven other cities and towns.  The man is most consistent.  When it comes to articles and editorials which touch upon the Catholic Church in particular and Catholicism in general,  Mr. St. Amand never troubles himself with getting the facts straight.  See here for example.

Take yesterday's editorial entitled, "Francis: Whose shoes will he fill?"  We read: "With the election of a new pope, Catholics around the world must be wondering what the latest successor to St. Peter has in mind for the Mother Church...He has shown himself to be socially conservative in Argentina by his stance against gay marriage and his backing of the traditional role of women in the Church, but he has also scolded some of his priests there for their refusal to baptize children born out of wedlock."

Actually, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should never be applied to the Church.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "These terms, facilely applied to many natural realms, can be extremely misleading when applied to the Church.  It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.  Divine revelation and the Mystical Body of Christ differ completely from all natural entities.  To be conservative, to be a traditionalist, is in this case an essential element of the response due to the unique phenomenon of the Church.  Even a man in no way conservative in temperament and in many other respects progressive must be conservative in his relation to the infallible magisterium of the Church, if he is to remain an orthodox Catholic.  One can be progressive and simultaneously a Catholic, but one cannot be a progressive in one's Catholic faith.  The idea of a 'progressive Catholic' in this sense is an oxymoron, a contradictio in adjecto...With the labels conservative and progressive they [the intellectually dishonest with an anti-Catholic agenda] are in fact requiring the faithful to choose between opposition to any renewal, opposition even to the elimination of things that have crept into the Church because of human frailty (e.g., legalism, abstractionism, external pressure in questions of conscience, grave abuses of authority in monasteries) and a change, a 'progress' in the Catholic faith which can only mean its abandonment.  These are false alternatives.  For there is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council (Vatican II) but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen.  This thirs choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church.  It takes it for granted that there is no room for change in the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 10-11).

So it's not a question of Pope Francis being "conservative" or "progressive."  The Holy Father opposes so-called same-sex "marriage" and the ordination of women to the priesthood because divinely revealed doctrine cannot change. 

The Sentinel & Enterprise editorial refers to Pope Francis' predecessor on the Chair of Peter, the same Pontiff who called for Vatican II, as "Pope John Paul XXIII": "Will he [Pope Francis] maintain his life of simplicity and pursuit of social justice, or will he be the next John Paul XXIII?"  Obviously, the writer of this confused editorial was thinking of Pope John XXIII who was elected Pontiff on October 28, 1958 and installed on November 4th of that same year.  Pope John reigned as Vicar of Christ until June 3, 1963.

This is the sort of coverage of Catholicism that Catholics have come to expect from the Sentinel & Enterprise.  But they deserve better.

Related reading here.

Syracuse Diocese touts homosexual priest and dissent supporter Father Mychal Judge as a symbol of good overcoming evil

The Catholic Sun [Syracuse, NY Diocese] reports that a sculpture depicting Father Mychal Judge was dedicated at All Saints Parish in Syracuse, New York.  The newspaper says, "Father Judge was well known in New York City for his ministry to people living with HIV and AIDS, people struggling with addictions and people living on the street. In his death, he is remembered far beyond the City. The program from the dedication affirmed that 'his life of service lived joyfully as a gay man, recovering alcoholic, committed and faithful to his priesthood, has become a symbol that ultimately good overcomes evil, prejudice, hatred and ignorance.'"

Parishioner Vincent Sgambati commented, "Was Mychal Judge more than a gay man?  Of course...I hope..lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks will learn of the sculpture and of Mychal Judge and know that he...will not be written out of history like so many others have.  And I hope they will feel proud." (See here).

Father Mychal Judge is being honored by a Catholic Parish and an entire Catholic Diocese as some sort of homosexual saint and martyr.  The sad reality is that Father Judge advanced an agenda which is in opposition to the Magisterial teaching of the Church.  This is the same priest who befriended radical homosexual activist and openly homosexual priest Father Bernard Lynch.  It was Father Lynch who described the Catholic Church as, "the most homosocial and homophobic institution in the world."  See here.

When Cardinal O'Connor expelled Dignity, the dissident Catholic-in-name only organization from St. Francis Xavier Parish, Fr. Mychal Judge - so heavily promoted by the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay, provided a home for the dissident group's AIDS ministry which was led by Fr. Lynch. See here.

By painting Father Mychal Judge as saint and martyr, the Syracuse Diocese is revealing the extent of its own apostasy from the Church founded by the Lord Jesus.  Saint Augustine tells us that evil is "amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei," that is, "Evil is the love of self even to the extreme of hating God."  Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because its "popular morality" was an abomination of evil in the sight of God as were those who sought to defend this "popular morality."

Our Lord Jesus tells us, "If you wish to enter eternal life keep the commandments."  And to the woman who beatified His mother He responds, "Nay, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it."  And of course, no one heard and kept the word of God better than the Immaculata.  But to these words of the King of Kings, those who promote the sodomite "gospel" respond, "If you wish to enter eternal life, follow only your own conscience." 

Pope Benedict XVI has warned that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."  It would appear that the Diocese of Syracuse, New York has succumbed to the sickness of subjectified conscience.  Faithful Catholics, however, will recall the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience.  Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed.  The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience.  We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment." (CCC, 1780).  And again: "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.  A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.  It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.  The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." (CCC, 1783).


Pray for the Syracuse Diocese!

Ignorance: Invincible and Vincible

Jimmy Akin, in an article entitled "Ignorance - Invincible and Vincible," which was published in This Rock magazine (July/August 1999 edition) got it right when he said that, "In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of. For example, a person who did not know the square root of 1429 would be ignorant of it if he were taking a test that required him to know the answer, but he would be nescient of it if performing a task that didn't require the number.

Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

The gravity of a question is determined by how great a need the person has to know the answer. The answers to fundamental questions (how to save one's soul, how to preserve one's life) have grave weight. The answers to minor questions (the solution to a crossword puzzle) typically have light weight.

The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer (e.g., a man with a good textbook on the subject may be able to find the information with greater ease than a man who lacks such a textbook) and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession (e.g., a smart man may be able to evaluate the evidence with greater ease than an ordinary man). The graver the question and the greater the resources available, the more diligence is needed to qualify as reasonable..."

Now, bearing all of this in mind, especially the last sentence in bold, read this article from Joe Sacerdo regarding Father Bryan Hehir and his excuse for having honored Mayor Thomas Menino even though the Mayor's opposition toward Catholic moral teaching regarding homosexuality and abortion are well-known by virtually every citizen who lives and works in and around Boston.

Would such ignorance be vincible or invincible? Come on, you know the answer.

Although Akin doesn't go into it, there is a category of ignorance known as affected or studied ignorance. When a person deliberately avoids knowledge in order to plead ignorance as an excuse, for example, refusing to read material or avoiding those persons who might inform him, this form of pretense is called affected or studied ignorance.

Something to reflect on this holiday weekend.

Why would Father Richard P. McBrien refer to Eucharistic Adoration as a "needless devotion"?

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI says that:


"With the Synod Assembly...I heartily recommend to the Church's pastors and to the People of God the practice of eucharistic adoration, both individually and in community. Great benefit would ensue from a suitable catechesis explaining the importance of this act of worship, which enables the faithful to experience the liturgical celebration more fully and more fruitfully. Wherever possible, it would be appropriate, especially in densely populated areas, to set aside specific churches or oratories for perpetual adoration. I also recommend that, in their catechetical training, and especially in their preparation for First Holy Communion, children be taught the meaning and the beauty of spending time with Jesus, and helped to cultivate a sense of awe before his presence in the Eucharist.

Here I would like to express appreciation and support for all those Institutes of Consecrated Life whose members dedicate a significant amount of time to eucharistic adoration. In this way they give us an example of lives shaped by the Lord's real presence. I would also like to encourage those associations of the faithful and confraternities specifically devoted to eucharistic adoration; they serve as a leaven of contemplation for the whole Church and a summons to individuals and communities to place Christ at the centre of their lives.

Forms of eucharistic devotion

The personal relationship which the individual believer establishes with Jesus present in the Eucharist constantly points beyond itself to the whole communion of the Church and nourishes a fuller sense of membership in the Body of Christ. For this reason, besides encouraging individual believers to make time for personal prayer before the Sacrament of the Altar, I feel obliged to urge parishes and other church groups to set aside times for collective adoration." (Nos 67, 68).

St. Louis de Montfort, in his Love of Eternal Wisdom, explains that, "Eternal Wisdom, on the one hand, wished to prove his love for man by dying in his place in order to save him, but on the other hand, he could not bear the thought of leaving him. So he devised a marvelous way of dying and living at the same time, and of abiding with man until the end of time. So, in order fully to satisfy his love, he instituted the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and went to the extent of changing and overturning nature itself. He does not conceal himself under a sparkling diamond or some other precious stone, because he does not want to abide with man in an ostentatious manner. But he hides himself under the appearance of a small piece of bread - man's ordinary nourishment - so that when received he might enter the heart of man and there take his delight....How ungrateful and insensitive we would be if we were not moved by the earnest desires of Eternal Wisdom, his eagerness to seek out and the proofs he gives us of his friendship! How cruel we would be, what punishment would we not deserve even in this world, if, instead of listening to him,we turn a deaf ear; if, instead of seeking him, we flee from him; if, instead of loving him, we spurn and offend him! The Holy Spirit tells us, 'Those who neglected to acquire Wisdom not only inherited ignorance of what is good, but they actually left in the world a memorial of their folly in that their sins could not go unnoticed' (Wis 10: 8). Those who during their lifetime do not strive to acquire Wisdom suffer a triple misfortune. They fall (a) into ignorance and blindness, (b) into folly. (c) into sin and scandal. But how unhappy they will be at the hour of death when, despite themselves, they hear Wisdom reproach them, 'I called you and you did not answer. All the day long I held out my hands to you and you spurned me. Sitting at your door, I waited for you but you did not come to me. Now it is my turn to deride you. No longer do I have ears to hear you weeping, eyes to see your tears, a heart to be moved by your sobs, or hands to help you.'" (No. 72).

One Roman Catholic priest who spurns Wisdom in the Most Holy Eucharist is Fr. Richard P. McBrien. In an essay which may be found here, Fr. McBrien writes, "Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI's personal endorsements of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today. Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated...there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions...Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward."

Such a statement only serves to highlight the immaturity of this confused priest. It was Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand who explained that, "It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance. One need only recall Dostoyevsky's masterly description of the puberty crisis - Kolya Krassotkin in The Brothers Karamazov, Hypolit in The Idiot, the hero of The Adolescent - to grasp the special immaturity of the man who is convinced of his superior maturity, who thinks that in him humanity has in a unique way come of age, who is dominated by one preoccupation - to show his independence. His ludicrous smallness is manifest as he looks down on everything passed on through tradition, even the most timeless values." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 143-144).

But there is more than immaturity here. Having spurned Wisdom, the "intellectual elite" who proclaim that "man has come of age" have retreated from the truth. They are antichrists preparing the way for the Antichrist, the Son of Perdition who hates the Lord Jesus and desires to lead all men to rejection of Eternal Wisdom, to rejection of God's Love.

The Bishops have spoken: Will Patricia Warren abide by their teaching?

The Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a document entitled "Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy." In this document, the Committee on Doctrine says (in part):

"Reiki lacks scientific credibility. It has not been accepted by the scientific and medical communities as an effective therapy. Reputable scientific studies attesting to the efficacy of Reiki are lacking, as is a plausible scientific explanation as to how it could possibly be efficacious. The explanation of the efficacy of Reiki depends entirely on a particular view of the world as permeated by this "universal life energy" (Reiki) that is subject to manipulation by human thought and will. Reiki practitioners claim that their training allows one to channel the "universal life energy" that is present in all things. This "universal life energy," however, is unknown to natural science. As the presence of such energy has not been observed by means of natural science, the justification for these therapies necessarily must come from something other than science.

Reiki and the Healing Power of Christ

Some people have attempted to identify Reiki with the divine healing known to
Christians. They are mistaken. The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal. Some teachers want to avoid this implication and argue that it is not the Reiki practitioner personally who effects the healing, but the Reiki energy directed by the divine consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the "Reiki Master" to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results. Some practitioners attempt to Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ, but this does not affect the essential nature of Reiki. For these reasons, Reiki and other similar therapeutic techniques cannot be identified with what Christians call healing by divine grace.

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki
therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in
Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." 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 thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.

CONCLUSION

Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems. In terms of caring for one's physical health or the physical health of others, to employ a technique that has no scientific support (or even plausibility) is generally not prudent. In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science. Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, 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. While sometimes people fall into superstition through ignorance, it is the responsibility of all who teach in the name of the Church to eliminate such
ignorance as much as possible.

Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific
evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy."

Although the Church has spoken clearly and warned of the dangers associated with Reiki, Ms. Patricia Warren, a Reiki instructor who has conducted healing lectures/retreats at La Salette Attleboro, has left a comment at this Blog in which she says: "I am writing because I see that you have used my name in your comment/letter. I have been teaching Reiki for over 20 years, and yes I have studied with many teachers throughout the world. I have an open mind, and open heart....and I am not afraid to "experience" things for myself rather than be told what to believe. Ironically you leave out the part of my spiritual path that talks about how Reiki brought me back to my Christian roots. Reiki brought me back to the 'church'. I was so overjoyed that I developed a specific workshop for Christians who wanted to learn more about assisting the process of healing. A Roman Catholic priest sat next to me the first time I taught this workshop and encouraged me to bring it out into the world. There is nothing "occult' about it. There are many ways to praise Jesus, I saw that first hand when I traveled through the Holy Land gathering more information on healing. I have taught many, many Roman Catholic priests and nuns as well as Episcopal priests and monks Reiki....it has only helped them not hurt them.There seems to be more outrage in a simple healing method used mostly by lay women to help people when they are in pain, then during the many years of the Church Sex Abuse Scandal....talk about 'dangerous'"

In another comment which I have saved but have decided not to publish, Ms. Warren says that she was "Born and raised Catholic" and that her "great uncle was a monsignor in Boston." I don't doubt that for a moment. She then proceeds to tell me that she is not "a religious fanatic or zealot" (I never said she was so I suppose Ms. Warren is implying that I am) and writes, "I can see I'm in the wrong place to have balanced conversation with an adult."

If Ms. Warren wants to view me as a "fanatic," a "zealot," or as being somehow less than adult for accepting the teaching of the Bishops regarding Reiki, that's her affair. One has to wonder if Ms. Warren views the Bishops who crafted "Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy" as "fanatics" and "zealots." Will Ms. Warren abide by the Church's teaching? Her statement that she is not to afraid to "experience" things for herself rather than be told what to believe would seem to suggest that she has every intention of ignoring the guidelines prepared by the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB.

How sad.