Catholic Church Bans Japanese Healing Technique "Reiki"
Alternative medicine has long been a part of the medical landscape. Many practitioners and recipients of traditional care turn their noses up at the idea of alternative medicine. But still they exist, the thought being "if that's what people want to do, who are we to stop them?" But now the Catholic Church is taking steps to stop a Japanese healing technique called "Reiki." It is banning the treatment, which is growing in popularity, from all of its hospitals and facilities.
In a Reiki session, a trained practitioner places his or her hands lightly on or just above the client's body, holding the hands in place for a couple of minutes before moving to another “energy point’’ of the body. Supporters say that energy is transferred from the practitioner’s hands to the areas in the client’s body most in need of healing.
According to reiki.org:
"We are alive because life force is flowing through us... Life force nourishes the organs and cells of the body, supporting them in their vital functions.
"The life force is responsive to thoughts and feelings. It becomes disrupted when we accept, either consciously or unconsciously, negative thoughts or feelings about ourselves... This diminishes the vital function of the organs and cells of the physical body.
"Reiki heals by flowing through the affected parts of the energy field and charging them with positive energy. It raises the vibratory level of the energy field in and around the physical body... This causes the negative energy to break apart and fall away."
But the Catholic Church doesn't agree with any of this. At its U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this past spring, the Bishops agreed that Reiki is not grounded in science or Christianity, and therefore is not appropriate for Catholic institutions.
In its guidelines, the Bishops wrote:
“Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, 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.’’
Debbie Griseuk, who volunteered to treat people using Reiki at a Catholic hospital in New Hampshire, told The Boston Globe, "It must have been a slow day at the Vatican." The hospital told her her volunteer services would no longer be needed. She also had had to close a seven-year-old volunteer clinic located at a wellness center associated with the hospital. "The bishops did not do their research," she said. "Reiki is not a belief system, not a cult, not a weirdo thing."
But there is still no scientific evidence that Reiki works. Dr. Herbert Benson, who pioneered the field of mind-body science, is ambivalent about Reiki. "An extraordinary powerful aspect of healing comes from belief and expectancy," said Benson, a cardiologist and director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. “When one believes in something, when one expects something to occur, a mind-body effect occurs that has been classified as the placebo effect. The placebo effect is a remarkably powerful tool in healing."
With Reiki, he said, the question remains: Is it based in science or the placebo effect? “It’s not that the healing benefits are not valid; it’s simply that it hasn’t been worked out whether it’s the placebo effect or whether it’s the reiki itself."
All lof this comes as Reiki is seeing a rise in popularity. According to a 2007 report from the National Institutes of Health, 1.2 million Americans have had Reiki treatments. That's a 12% increase from 2002. The NIH is even funding a study of the effects of Reiki on stress. In a statement, the NIH said:
"Should Reiki decrease stress pathways or reduce physiological responses to stressful situations, it could be a useful adjunct to traditional medicine and have significant health and economic benefits."
Indeed, practitioners of Reiki stress it should be used in addition to traditional treaments, not as a substitute. And the Reiki website claims Reiki can never hurt anyone:
"Because Reiki is guided by the God-consciousness, it can never do harm. It always knows what a person needs and will adjust itself to create the effect that is appropriate for them. One never need worry about whether to give Reiki or not. It is always helpful."
So really, where's the harm in at least trying Reiki? Well, the Bishops' research concluded there is no medical proof that Reiki promotes healing, And Rev. Robert McManus, Bishop of Worcester, has other problems with it. "I think there was a concern on some level that this type of new age philosophy of life... as a spirituality, let’s say it’s lacking."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
They need to ban the Catholic Church
Here is proof that Reiki works
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BANNED IT
qed
I was raised as a strict catholic, ie my parents had made me go to mass every day, study the catechism and religious dogma. I was always sick as a child and suffered from Coeliac which is incurable and many other digestive and auto-immune disfunctions. I never received healing through going to church or praying in the conventional 'parrot-like' method that the church teaches. It wasnt until years later, when I had rejected the way I had been indoctrinated and connected to God or that 'Infinite Conscousness' while meditating, that I felt myself finally let go of the superstition, fear and guilt I had been subjected to in my younger years. In that moment I felt a sublime peace and I had no more anger towards my parents or fear and guilt and I KNEW with certanty I had received healing. I was terrified the next day of eating gluten, a substance in wheat which always incapacitated me for days after eating the smallest amount. I went and bought a Big Mac, something I had only ever dreamed of eating again and was stunned as from that moment on my body produced the antibodies to gluten and I could safely eat it again. The point is the catholic faith is full of superstion and unproven un-scientific belief systems. Some of the saints healed through touching someone with their hands, as did Jesus. People had had healing (probably through faith placebo) just from touching relics belonging to dead saints! Is this placebo or the saint channelling God's healing? Who knows, but the church is hypocritical as it only likes it's OWN saints to perform healings but if anyone else that is spiritual rather than a Catholic heals, then it is 'un-scientific' or 'superstitious'. This is just the pot calling the kettle black! The church always tries to control through fear rather than love, which is why those within the church, rarely find true healing and peace in their bodies and minds.
Altered mental states will even enable people to be able to walk through burning coals or even have visions. These altered states will sometimes harness certain regions of the brain to override key automatic mechanisms that regulate the limbic system. The problem is that altered states can also persist and turn into psychosis. Everything should be handled in moderation. That is why too much emphasis on self healing also has to be met with a little scepsis, but to forbid something is purely dogmatic and has nothing at all to do with science . Funny how they are groping for science when justifying a dogma. Science has never been about dogma, as evidenced by the fact that even Galileo was not pushing his "theories and hypotheses". He wanted a qualitatively adequate world view and not a world of dogma.
There is no scientific basis for Reiki healing, it has no better effect then a placebo.
It's not true that there is no scientific evidence that Reiki treatment is beneficial to patients. Although research is just beginning, and funding is very limited (most research is funded by pharmaceutical companies which have no incentive to investigate Reiki since they are only interested in products they can patent), there is a growing body of small studies indicating Reiki treatment can be effective for improving heart rate and blood pressure, among other measurable physiologic changes that are associated with relaxation. Additionally, a number of studies show Reiki can be useful to manage pain, anxiety, and fatigue, and to enhance overall well-being.
It's important to understand that Reiki treatment does not address medical conditions directly. Rather, Reiki treatment is a non-pharmaceutical support to help patients feel more comfortable and function better, making it easier for them to comply with needed medical care. And it does this without any medical risk.
Reiki can be a valuable part of a comprehensive health care plan to address well-being and support a patient undergoing often arduous conventional medical treatment. Reiki papers published in peer-reviewed medical journals are available at www.ReikiInMedicine.org.
Yeah, but meditation is just fine, huh?
There was a time when meditation was looked upon with just as much skepticism. Seems to me that they both operate on the same principle. Why should one be okay, and the other be taboo? Ridiculous.
"Yeah, but meditation is just fine, huh? "
The difference between meditation and reiki is that reiki practitioners claim to be able to cure physical maladies - it supposedly "heals". As such, reiki is being advertised as a legitimate form of medicine .
Meditation, on the other hand, makes no claim to be a cure for physicl ailments. Yes, it helps to calm you and in doing so, lowers your blood pressure - temporarily - and it helps you deal with the psycological effects of stress, but it is not "medical treatment" in any sense. Meditation cannot cure back pain, for example.
The problem for reiki practioners is that in order to be considered a legitimate medical treatment method, they need to demonstrate a causal link between their treatment and the physical healing that they claim happens. They have thus far been unable to do so.
The only thing that reiki has to back it up is some people's faith that it does work. All of that stuff about "life force" and how reiki "raises the vibratory level" etc. quoted about is nothing more than a statement of faith, not fact. This faith is not in accord witrh Catholic teachings and it is most certainly not science . As such, the Catholic Church is correct in its reasoning behind its rejection of the practice.
Actually, no one really knows how much meditation can or cannot do.
I'd say the main difference between meditation and reiki is that meditation is something you can do yourself, for free. They both operate on similar principles. As far as the validity of someone charging for their services as a reiki therapist, I hardly see how this differs from someone charging for their services for doing guided meditations, either alone or in combination with massage.
If these techniques help patients to relax and improve their state of mind, this can assist in bodily healing. Doesn't really matter HOW it works. Even if it's a "placebo effect," the mere fact that it is able to achieve such an effect is beneficial.
I've never tried reiki. Don't know how it feels, don't know if it works. But the Roman Catholic Church is hardly the entity to start dictating what is or is not "scientific," let alone denying its followers the use of alternative medical treatments in conjunction with whatever other therapies they choose. If they don't wish to offer reiki therapists a place in their clinics, fine. But it hardly seems reasonable to issue a spiritual condemnation aginst its use by those who wish to try it. It's not like they're killing chickens and squirting blood all over the place.
"Actually, no one really knows how much meditation can or cannot do. "
What meditation can can cannot do is not the issue. The issue is that reiki practioners claim that reiki heals and that it is a valid, effective treatment of medical conditions . I do not know of any similar claims about meditation. Shouldn't those who make claims about the effects of something - particularly medical treatments - should be required to support their claims with real evidence?
Also - meditation and reiki do not "operate on similar principles". Reiki practioners believe that they are, among other things, transferring their energy to the afflicted subject and in doing so, causing that person's energy field or "vibrations" or somethig to realign properly...or something to that effect. Mediation is entirely internal - the person who is meditating is inwardly focused..no "energy transference" to others - maybe a projection of positive feelings, but it's nothing at all like the manipluation and intervention that the reiki practioner supposedly does to his patient.
The Catholic Church is certianly within its rights to determine what is and is not in accord with its teachings. Their contention is that the effectiveness of reiki and how it works is a matter of faith rather than fact. As such, tyhe Church has decided that this faith is not compatible with Church doctrine.
The church has also chosen to embrace certian ideas based upon their firm foundation in science . The Church finds that ther is no scientific foundation for the efficacy of reiki.
Based on these two facts, it is perfectly reasonable and fitting that the Church would reject reiki. To accept it as a legitimate medical treatment would conflict with the Church's own doctrine.