T
trav6574
Guest
What is the Church’s stance on remote viewing?
- Status
S
stbruno
Guest
Remote viewing of what…TV masses??? Please elaborate.
T
tom.wineman
Guest
The same as Ouija boards.
P
precious_roy
Guest
Hehehe, are you a big XFiles fan?
I think that it is possible that there is some sort of extra sensory perception. But one must ask then, why is a person selling this idea? Don’t you think he could just get rich on his own by predicting the stock market?
I think that it is possible that there is some sort of extra sensory perception. But one must ask then, why is a person selling this idea? Don’t you think he could just get rich on his own by predicting the stock market?
S
stbruno
Guest
It is a sin against the first commandment.
*** I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.
***- Involvement in occult practices, e.g., witchcraft, ouija boards, seances, palm reading, tarot cards, hypnotism, divination, astrology, black magic, sorcery, etc…
*** I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.
***- Involvement in occult practices, e.g., witchcraft, ouija boards, seances, palm reading, tarot cards, hypnotism, divination, astrology, black magic, sorcery, etc…
A
Aquarius
Guest
Physicists are trying to detect dark matter and dark energy. If they exist, we know very litte labout them. We also knew little about radio waves for most of human history.
It’s reasonable to speculate that there may be very natural phenomena about which we know nothing. this may include remote viewing or ESP.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I think the passage where Paul counsels wives to be subject to their husbands means the men should control the remote. If I am off topic, it is because I obviously have no idea what we are discussing here.
J
JimG
Guest
Sounds like a reasonable exegesis to me. But sometimes I can’t find the remote, and so am unable to view anything.
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
:clapping: 
B
BigEasyBig
Guest
Remote viewing is a novel perceptual discipline for gaining information not available to the ordinary physical senses. Used extensively by so-called “psychic spies” during the Cold War for classified military projects, it has a long history both as an intelligence gathering tool and as the subject of research and applications in the civilian world. Remote viewing has now taken a long step into the public domain with the formation of a professional association to propose standards, test performance, and promote peaceful use and development of this unique human mental capacity.
B
BlindSheep
Guest
If ESP and so on happen spontaneously, you aren’t doing anything wrong. It is when you try to deliberately use supernatural powers that you sin. I think remote veiwing is usually deliberate, and therefore would be sinful.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The Church’s stance is that schools need more science education if there are really people out there who believe in this kind of nonsense! 
B
BJRumph
Guest
In regards to Remote Veiwing (as opposed to Remote Sensing), I do not think that it is quite so simple to write off its supposed scientific principle and usage;
that said, from what I have read about the US program, many of the operatives did use forbidden means to attain the necessary “protocols” for their veiwing sessions, such as the Tarot and other occultic systems. As such, unless RV can actually be separated from these elements, then it is hard not to discern that it should be treated as being just another occult system.
OTOH, if one could “scientifically” prove the existence of Demons, then does that rationalization of them grant moral availability to their power? After all, ‘good’ old-fashioned Theurgy was a rationalized, studied, and experimental method (a “science” as the word was originally used) to bind and control spirits; yet it does not escape censure as being sorcery. Just because we updated the terminology used, doesn’t really change the principles behind the effort and goal of such.
The question can only be answered by answering a preliminary question: Is Remote veiwing (or any other “psychic” discipline for that matter, such as Telekinisis) truely different from its occult forebears; and if so, is that distinction one that revolves around the point of contention that forbidds the occult practices. As the “science” surrounding ‘psychic phenomena’ is still too far weak on every level, there is no point to reassess the Ban on the occult “versions” to determine and study out the true theological reasons for the ban to make such a determination.
Such an assessment is necessary, precisely because of the “traditional” interpretation (that all occult practices are Idolaterous) is being side-stepped by modern occult theory. Theurgy (sorcery) that seeks to bind the Powers (weather Angelic, demonic, or elemental) is largely passe in the modern occult, and now everything is being re-imaged as being under a psyhcic/psychological process of the individual, thus no actual demons or angels are involved anymore, thus making the argument that one who practices such things is holding to entities other than God in their practice is much harder case to make. (NOTE: I am not saying it invalidates the argument, but obscures it to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to point out to the practitioner wherein lies the error of their particular way, as they will sincerily point out that they have never invoked any spirit other than God, if that, in the process of their “work”). Thus, as the tactics (definitions) of the occult change, the apologetic for them must also change to remain relevant. And, if there does become a real distinction between the modern expression of an occult principle, and the old superstitious occult practice of it; then such must be correctly identified and most importantly, understood.
For instance, Alchemy is traditionally forbidden as an occult art, yet it is the forbear of Chemistry, which is not banned. So, there is real reason to discern if there is a real difference between Remote Veiwing and its precursor occult science of Clairvoyance, or if its proponents are simply utilizing a pseudo-scientific veneer to give the occult practice a new PR spin to justify themselves (knowlingly or unknowingly is ultimately irrelevent to the point) in their activity.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that anyone of the appropriate “competent authority” within the Church has made the proper investigations into the subject of Remote Veiwing to provide the “Church’s” determination on this particular subject. If I am mistaken, please forward me at least the title of the determinations made by the CDF, as it is of interest to me as well (though more of a curiosity than impact on my life or faith as I am not a RV guy). No, the speculations of some popular theologian are not binding, though they may be of use in consideration.
Just some rambling thoughts…
that said, from what I have read about the US program, many of the operatives did use forbidden means to attain the necessary “protocols” for their veiwing sessions, such as the Tarot and other occultic systems. As such, unless RV can actually be separated from these elements, then it is hard not to discern that it should be treated as being just another occult system.
OTOH, if one could “scientifically” prove the existence of Demons, then does that rationalization of them grant moral availability to their power? After all, ‘good’ old-fashioned Theurgy was a rationalized, studied, and experimental method (a “science” as the word was originally used) to bind and control spirits; yet it does not escape censure as being sorcery. Just because we updated the terminology used, doesn’t really change the principles behind the effort and goal of such.
The question can only be answered by answering a preliminary question: Is Remote veiwing (or any other “psychic” discipline for that matter, such as Telekinisis) truely different from its occult forebears; and if so, is that distinction one that revolves around the point of contention that forbidds the occult practices. As the “science” surrounding ‘psychic phenomena’ is still too far weak on every level, there is no point to reassess the Ban on the occult “versions” to determine and study out the true theological reasons for the ban to make such a determination.
Such an assessment is necessary, precisely because of the “traditional” interpretation (that all occult practices are Idolaterous) is being side-stepped by modern occult theory. Theurgy (sorcery) that seeks to bind the Powers (weather Angelic, demonic, or elemental) is largely passe in the modern occult, and now everything is being re-imaged as being under a psyhcic/psychological process of the individual, thus no actual demons or angels are involved anymore, thus making the argument that one who practices such things is holding to entities other than God in their practice is much harder case to make. (NOTE: I am not saying it invalidates the argument, but obscures it to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to point out to the practitioner wherein lies the error of their particular way, as they will sincerily point out that they have never invoked any spirit other than God, if that, in the process of their “work”). Thus, as the tactics (definitions) of the occult change, the apologetic for them must also change to remain relevant. And, if there does become a real distinction between the modern expression of an occult principle, and the old superstitious occult practice of it; then such must be correctly identified and most importantly, understood.
For instance, Alchemy is traditionally forbidden as an occult art, yet it is the forbear of Chemistry, which is not banned. So, there is real reason to discern if there is a real difference between Remote Veiwing and its precursor occult science of Clairvoyance, or if its proponents are simply utilizing a pseudo-scientific veneer to give the occult practice a new PR spin to justify themselves (knowlingly or unknowingly is ultimately irrelevent to the point) in their activity.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that anyone of the appropriate “competent authority” within the Church has made the proper investigations into the subject of Remote Veiwing to provide the “Church’s” determination on this particular subject. If I am mistaken, please forward me at least the title of the determinations made by the CDF, as it is of interest to me as well (though more of a curiosity than impact on my life or faith as I am not a RV guy). No, the speculations of some popular theologian are not binding, though they may be of use in consideration.
Just some rambling thoughts…
J
JimG
Guest
The question is whether alleged psychic powers (such as remote viewing or telekinesis) are actually latent natural powers, or whether they somehow involve supernatural–i.e.–demonic–elements. Proponents seem to view them as simply underdeveloped natural human powers. Obviously, the Church would be against the use of the occult or demonic. (Indeed, if that were their origin, one ought not to trust their results, as the demonic is the father of lies.)
E
epower
Guest
Ed Dames was on Coast to Coast all the time with Art Bell and George Noory. Very few of his predictions came through.
It just seems bogus to me.
It just seems bogus to me.
H
hypnotist
Guest
There is no sin in using natural powers to attain a licit objective
.
There is a sin-- against charity – in condeming people.
I would advise stbruno to coinsider this carefully.
Above, he stated,
"It is a sin against the first commandment.
I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.
If stbruno read the article and thinks that it did, I maintain he misunderstood it completely.
If he did not read the article and went ahead and made those claims anyway, it would seem there are possibilities of various sins on his part: arrogance, lack of charity.
He clearly is wrong in categorizing hypnotism in occult practices. I refer him to the following sources among the many available:
Mangan SJ, J.T. “Hypnosis: A Medico-Mporal Evaluation” Linacre Quarterly,26:39-49, 1959.
In general, we ought not make condemnatory pronouncements about topics about which we are ignorant.
And we have to realize that there are many natural powers which are simply uncommon. The burden of proof is on the one who claims someone else is making use of, or trying to make use of , supernhatural or unnnatural means. One must never make such a claim lightly.
.
There is a sin-- against charity – in condeming people.
I would advise stbruno to coinsider this carefully.
Above, he stated,
"It is a sin against the first commandment.
I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me.
- Involvement in occult practices, e.g., witchcraft, ouija boards, seances, palm reading, tarot cards, hypnotism, divination, astrology, black magic, sorcery, etc."
If stbruno read the article and thinks that it did, I maintain he misunderstood it completely.
If he did not read the article and went ahead and made those claims anyway, it would seem there are possibilities of various sins on his part: arrogance, lack of charity.
He clearly is wrong in categorizing hypnotism in occult practices. I refer him to the following sources among the many available:
Mangan SJ, J.T. “Hypnosis: A Medico-Mporal Evaluation” Linacre Quarterly,26:39-49, 1959.
In general, we ought not make condemnatory pronouncements about topics about which we are ignorant.
And we have to realize that there are many natural powers which are simply uncommon. The burden of proof is on the one who claims someone else is making use of, or trying to make use of , supernhatural or unnnatural means. One must never make such a claim lightly.
- Status