That answer raised serious questions about how the doctrinal committee’s response to the issue corresponded to current Catholic practices that may differ from a classical Reiki approach. If Reiki is removed from the metaphysical claims of its founder — drawing on a so-called metaphysical “universal life energy” to accelerate healing of the subject — it might easily be put in the same class as various things like massages, aromatherapy, tai chi and other alternative treatments that claim to improve healing, apart from traditional medicine, by relaxing the patient and creating a more positive psychological healing environment. Weinandy acknowledged that such other practices are not banned by the church, but he said Reiki moves into a different area of pantheism and Gnosticism with its assertion of a universal life force or energy that Reiki practitioners or masters can reliably manipulate and direct by their hand placements over a patient or subject. He also said that “it’s obvious, isn’t it?” from Web Google searches that most of the Catholic retreat centers targeted by the doctrinal committee’s statement are run by Catholic orders of women religious. Women religious who are Reiki masters were reluctant to comment to NCR about the bishops’ document or their future ministries in light of it. “I don’t feel comfortable about talking about it,” said Millvale, Pa., Franciscan Sr. Mary Jo Mattes, a Reiki master who said she had seen the bishops’ doctrine committee statement but had not yet studied it carefully. 80.
Phone calls to other women religious who are Reiki masters or practitioners at their retreat centers or homes in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, California and other states were not returned. Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Annmarie Sanders, communications director for the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, said the leadership conference has not addressed the issue raised by the bishops’ doctrinal committee because “no one has asked us to.” She said that when issues of compliance with church teaching by religious orders arise, “normally the congregations take care of that by themselves” without involving the leadership conference, a national organization of the heads of women’s religious orders. NOTE: A number of readers’ comments are available at this link.
16E. US Bishops Declare Reiki Therapy Unchristian, Denounce Its Use in Catholic Institutions http://www.zenit.org/article-25540?l=english WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 1, 2009 Reiki, a Japanese alternative medicine, lacks scientific credibility and is outside Christian faith, making it unacceptable for Catholic health care institutions, the U.S. bishops' conference stated. On Saturday, the conference issued the "Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy," developed by their committee on doctrine, headed by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and approved by the administrative committee Friday. The document notes that "the Church recognizes two kinds of healing: healing by divine grace and healing that utilizes the powers of nature," which "are not mutually exclusive." Reiki, however, "finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief," it explained. The guidelines note that this technique of healing "was invented in Japan in the late 1800s by Mikao Usui, who was studying Buddhist texts." The report continues: "According to Reiki teaching, illness is caused by some kind of disruption or imbalance in one's 'life energy.' A Reiki practitioner effects healing by placing his or her hands in certain positions on the patient's body in order to facilitate the flow of Reiki, the 'universal life energy,' from the Reiki practitioner to the patient." It further explains that the therapy has several aspects of a religion, being "described as a 'spiritual' kind of healing," with its own ethical precepts or "way of life." Reiki "has not been accepted by the scientific and medical communities as an effective therapy," noted the guidelines. "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." Nor can faith be the basis of this therapy, the bishops affirmed, as Reiki is different than the "divine healing known by Christians." They explained, "The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal." For Christians, they said, "access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior," while Reiki is a technique passed from "master" to pupil, a method that will "reliably produce the anticipated results." The guidelines state: "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." On a spiritual level, the document states, "there are important dangers." It explains: "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."