CultReligionSpirituality

The powerful vicar of the Legionaries of Christ has fallen

2011-07-18T16:44:00.000+02:00

Article by Vatican Insider (07/17/2011)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luis Garza Medina is living his last days as vicar general of the Legionaries of Christ. This coming August 1st he will leave the position and all its responsibilities in Rome. Last Friday July 15th, the congregation advised that the Mexican priest will be the future superior in the United States. The Pope sees this as a downgrade in terms of the reforms he asked for

Andrés Beltramo Álvarez - Rome

Up until a few months ago Garza was the Legion's most powerful figure given the several positions he held. He has been vicar since 1992 and he formed part of the leadership when the director general was still the founder, Marcial Maciel Degollado: the priest who, according to The Vatican, lived an “unscrupulous” existence and committed all kinds of immoral acts, among them sexual abuse against minors.

Garza Medina was a key piece in the framework of the congregation, not only because of his proximity to “our father” (that is what the followers called Maciel) but also because, in recent years, he managed to be awarded up to four positions. Besides being vicar general he was the prefect of studies, territorial director in Italy and delegate of the director general for the consecrated of the Regnum Christi, the lay movement.

But his power extended beyond this: he controlled the finances of the religious institute by means of a parallel structure that he himself created, the Integer Group, whose bosses completely replaced the legitimate territorial superiors of the Legion, at least administratively. This anomaly also looked to disappear, by decision of the pontifical delegate for reform of the Legionaries, Velasio De Paolis.

All this seems to suggest that the same cardinal De Paolis wanted to “straighten the blackboards” inside the congregation and this is why he pressed for the vicar general's departure, barely a few days after he strongly criticised the “dissidents”: priests and seminarians dissatisfied with the course taken by the renewal process of the religious institute that has been going on for one year. Reform desired by Benedict XVI after the scandals of Maciel.

Nevertheless Garza will not be excluded definitively, he will take over a new legionary region: the “North American Territory”, created thanks to the unification of the old territories of Atlanta and New York.

Due to a simple incompatibility he felt obligated to also leave the General Council, the highest governmental entity of the congregation. He will only maintain his title of delegate of the director general for the consecrated of the Regnum Christi temporarily, until a successor is found.

According to the official position, revealed in a communiqué, the decision of the vicar’s departure was taken by the director general, Álvaro Corcuera, with the consent of the general council and the approval of the delegate De Paolis.

It is unknown who the next successor will be. What is known however, is that a nomination will be made in the coming months, depending on what Corcuera and the council will decide.

The announcement of the change was communicated in a letter to all the legionaries and the consecrated members of the Regnum Christi. In the above text the priest stated that last June, one of the members of the general council traveled to the United States to get the opinion of the priests, religious order members with perpetual voting rights as well as that of members of the lay movement. In essence, a kind of “lobbying”. This is interesting when one considers how reluctant the American legionaries were to have a Mexican superior.

The missive added that the results of the consultation showed a “large consensus” in favor of the unification of territories and of the designation of Luis Garza as future territorial director.

The marginalization of the vicar coincides with the imminent departure of the then secretary general, Evaristo Sada, who had to leave his position in the fall in accordance with that which was officially announced last January. The network of superiors is beginning to be dismantled, although not all at once. They will still maintain a certain influence from their new roles, but they will not bring together the same power as before.

The dissidents, recently reprimanded by De Paolis, had insisted that as part of the reform process that the Legion is going through, the vicar general should step out of the picture because he was considered an accomplice to the abuses committed by the founder. One way or another they achieved their mission. For some of them, with Garza and Sada out of the way, there is now strong hope for real change. Others are less optimistic. Life after Maciel continues.

Mediating to settle conflicts in cultic groups (Conference 2011)

2011-07-12T18:53:00.003+02:00

ICSA CONFERENCE

Psychological Manipulation, Cultic Groups, Social Dependencies, and Harm

Barcelona, Spain

July 7-9, 2011

MEDIATING TO SETTLE CONFLICTS IN CULTIC GROUPS

Suggesting Some Useful Methodologies

by Raffaella Di Marzio

PRESENTATION (POWER POINT)

FOTO GALLERY

Facing the 'Dark Side' of Cults- Balance of FIFTEEN Years' Experience (Conference 2010)

2011-07-12T17:19:00.007+02:00

by Raffaella Di Marzio (www.dimarzio.it)

A paper presented at the CESNUR 2010 conference in Torino.© Raffaella Di Marzio, 2010. Please do not quote or reproduce without the consent of the author

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: MY EXPERIENCE

I started to work as a volunteer with a Catholic association in 1993. At first, I used to receive requests for information and help only from families, members going through a crisis or former members of religious groups, journalists and law enforcement authorities. Over the years, I also began to receive contact and requests for information and help from people affiliated to religious and spiritual movements, such help usually being asked for when these people became the target of attacks in the media, on Internet, in books written by former members, on radio and TV, etc. Such cases afforded me the opportunity to compare the recollections and experience of people who are still affiliated with those of hostile former members, concerning the same religious group. I found this opportunity which I chanced upon to be very stimulating, since it opened up new horizons of awareness and made my research richer.

1. REFLECTIONS ON THE ACTIVITY OF COUNSELLING CENTRES IN ITALY

My intention here is to stress first of all the importance and the irreplaceably positive contribution afforded by help groups and counselling and support centres in society. I shall then sum up some of the more controversial issues involved in how such organizations operate.

a) The positive role played by groups supporting victims

Inside charismatic groups, abuse, harassment and psychological pressure takes place, which can cause various kinds of damages to members. In such cases, the destructive dynamics are put into effect by unscrupulous leaders who are only interested in acquiring material advantages or submitting defenceless individuals to their power. Support and help groups have been established to answer the needs of the victims of such abuse, and their work is in my opinion not only positive but also indispensable.

In my experience, most requests for help and information came from people who were worried about relatives, friends or acquaintances involved in a group which, they feared – sometimes wrongly and sometimes rightly - was a “cult”. A minority of requests came from people who were still members and were going through a crisis for some reason which led them to cast doubts on their affiliation. Very few people asked for help after having decided to leave a religious group.

Volunteers in these groups are motivated by the intention of helping others, without any hidden agenda or thirst for vengeance. Thanks to them, the help group plays a positive role of emotional reassurance, allowing the individual to live over again, tell and calmly reflect on his or her past experience. Contact with these people – who have often been through a similar experience – is profitable and accompanies the person asking for help step by step in coming out of his or her state of confusion and suffering, recovering other affective relationships and other opportunities for self-realization.

In such cases, as time goes by, former members manage to discriminate between the good things they received from the group and what they instead reject and remember as “abuse”, “conditioning” and so on. They often decide to volunteer in the same support group which had welcomed them, also in order to warn their former friends and let them know what they understood after their disaffiliation. This kind of action by former members sometimes leads to other members defecting, sometimes is ineffective, but is in any case useful in order to provide correct information about doctrines and actions which some religious groups hide from the outside world.

b) Controversial aspects of help methods

Cult victim support associations are kept going by many volunteers driven by a great sense of abnegation and a sincere wish to help others. However, the positive action of these organizations is often made useless or seriously affected by methodological errors, which I have witnessed myself, and which I wish to point out in order to improve care activity.

Reliability of data concerning the extent of the cult phenomenon

First of all, I am submitting some data on the number of requests for help and information coming into the counselling centre where I acted as a volunteer. These data are taken by book Nuove religioni e sette (“New Religions and Cults”), published in February 2010. They refer to a three-year period: 1998-1999-2000.

Kind of requests during the years 1998-1999-2000

KIND OF CALL	%	TOTAL	1998	1999	2000
HELP	57.3	315	45	150	120
INFORMATION	26.7	147	66	56	25
MISCELLANEOUS	16.0	88	39	34	15
TOTAL	100	550	150	240	160

It is interesting to see how the number of requests for help grew constantly over the three year period, peaking in 1999. The “End of Millennium” syndrome and the rumours which were circulating at the time about the spreading of “dangerous cults” in Italy, together with the fear of fundamentalist bomb outrages in Rome, helped generate alarm and fear. After 1999, in fact, the number of requests went down, albeit moderately.

To interpret these data, we need to clarify some points, so as not to overestimate a phenomenon which certainly exists, but which probably is less widespread than the alarming figures quoted in the media and by anti-cult movements would make one think. In the three years being taken into account, 550 requests were received, 315 (57.3%) of which were requests for help by relatives of members, 147 (26.7%) came from people who were asking for information for various reasons (journalists, scholars, various agencies, law enforcement authorities) or else who volunteered information and provided data on various groups, and 88 (16%) did not concern the “cult”.

This last item is of special interest: out of 550 calls, 88 (16%) did not have to do with the “cult” phenomenon. This means that counselling centres receive a rather high number of calls which cannot be considered requests for help and should not therefore be included in the official statistics.

Secondly, it should be specified that the 315 requests for help which we received in three years were not unique requests, i.e. they did not come from 315 people asking for help, since one person - or members of one family – might call up to ten times for the same case. It would not therefore be fair to count 10 calls received for one case as 10 different cases. I personally came up against another useful fact for getting to understand the actual size of the phenomenon: the same person (or people belonging to the same family) would get in touch, either consecutively or at the same time, with different help associations, in order to find a solution for his or her problem. This means that when one provides data on the actual number of requests for help received by different associations, it would be misleading to add them up without checking: this would help to prevent spreading exaggerated data and hyperbolic figures which do not reflect the real situation.

2. Training of the operators

There is no training agency enabling qualification for this kind of service, and those who start – often armed only with good will – are “thrown into the arena” and find themselves immediately facing their first problems. The counselling centres work independently from each other, there is no shared intervention protocol: steps are at the discretion of those who take them and are on an entirely voluntary basis. This “methodological anarchy” is, I believe, the reason for the most serious errors committed by a certain number of volunteers, errors which create further personal and social problems for those who ask for help. We may add to this the lack of interest for study and research, a feature shared by many counselling centres who stick to outdated or obsolete theories and scientific contributions.

3. Oversimplification

The problem of the individual and his or her family is not situated in the complex context of the personality and of family dynamics. It is extrapolated and dealt with as if it were a problem of its own, as if going into or leaving the “cult” could be understood without taking into account the person as a whole and in his or her inter-personal relationships.

No attempt is made, therefore, to understand what failed to work in the groups of reference of that individual before affiliation, what it was that the person did not find in his or her family and in the Church he or she belonged to, which drove him or her to seek for realization elsewhere; instead, they prefer to assign every “fault” to the new group of reference, which at present seems to respond to the expectations of the individual, that is the “cult”, a term which has now become a stereotype useful for lashing out against groups and associations which may also be entirely harmless, a term used by the media which, instead of practising journalism, carry out “media terrorism”. Actually, nobody tries to make sure whether the group being dealt with actually presents those dangerous features typical of a criminological notion of a “cult”. This error leads to mistaken beliefs and assumptions which often render the work of the volunteers ineffective or even self-defeating. Another very common error is due to underestimating the time factor. Those who provide assistance do so at a certain moment, and when the emergency is over, they often lose touch with the people. This however means they cannot understand or check at a later time the effects which the support work has produced on the family nucleus or on the individual.

4) Using unilateral sources

Concerning the issue of the sources used to acquire information about groups, it is my opinion that certain errors are committed:

- using only critical sources, completely ruling out the publications of sociologists, historians and others who describe groups without making value judgements;

- examining the “secret” documents made available by former members totally outside their natural context: this implies the risk of getting only a partial idea or even of falsifying the actual facts;

- uncritically accepting the tales of former members. Though I believe that the contribution of former members is irreplaceable and very useful, over the years I have become aware of the fact that the narratives of these people are highly affected by their current situation which is strongly contrary to the group they have left. Also, listening to the other party, that is the group they have left, I have become aware of aspects I had totally ignored of the manner of operation of some former members.

5) The “certificate” of “victim” makes the latter infallible

The operator of the counselling centre never casts doubt on the tearful statements of the victims who, only because they declare themselves as such, are considered to be “infallible”. By no means do I wish to cast doubt on the sincerity of the worried family members or, in most cases, on that of those who seek to help them. However, there are situations and conflicts which have different and overlapping causes, and it is unlikely that a problem of relationship can be attributed to a single cause, especially a cause external to the person affected. Recently, the issue of false allegations of abuse has become a topic for study both among legal and mental health professionals. Research in this field is giving important results which will also have repercussions in courts of law.

6) Brainwashing the “brainwashed”?

Changes in the manner of thinking and behaviour of a loved one belonging to religious group are always construed as the outcome of “mental manipulation” and never as that of a free choice; they must therefore be “corrected”. Once it has been established that the relative who belongs to a group has been “brainwashed”, the remedy appears quite simple: bring him or her back the way he or she was before. However, those who try to achieve this goal often fail, and “success” is limited to a few cases caught in time, when the member – quickly discouraged and frightened – leaves the group before proselytism has really got a grip on him or her. Lack of success causes a certain kind of reaction both in the counselling centre and the family: disillusionment and unease felt both by the volunteer and the family which has asked for help, with a consequent feeling of inadequacy and discouragement. At this point, a common reaction in such milieux is to call on the government to make laws forbidding brainwashing.

2. WORKING PROPOSALS

In this part, I shall make suggestions and proposals which are the outcome of my personal experience, in order to improve our engagement on the side of victims of cults and controversial spiritual groupings.

- PREVENTION: the years I have spent as a volunteer have reinforced my conviction that prevention is the only winning “weapon” to prevent people from becoming the victims of deceit practised by unscrupulous leaders who manipulate to their own advantage the spiritual needs of people. What is important is that such information is correct and not sensation-seeking or scandalmongering, is not aimed at unleashing a witch hunt but at providing information about controversial cases without turning anyone into the devil and without hurting the religious feelings of the people involved.

- COUNSELLING CENTRES: when dealing with membership and the conflicts it generates within the family, it is of key importance that counselling centres set up to assist those seeking help should not be managed only by worried relatives or hostile former members, but also involve other actors including professionals from various and mutually complementary walks of life. In such centres, the kind of help granted to the user could be more “scientific” and objective, since all people involved could be listened to: the family, the member and the group involved. Doing so could start a dialogue aimed at settling rather than exasperating the conflicts.

- SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: another important topic which we must take into account in order to improve our involvement in support groups is that of increasing research and developing a serious dialogue with academic scholars and researchers who work on the issue of “cults” from different outlooks. Scientific studies and research in this field are rare and often limited to the description of individual groups. I think that Universities and independent study centres should take up the burden of this problem, and should receive public funds in order to prevent reasons of interest from invalidating the objective nature of the results.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the experience I have developed since 1993, it is my belief that the commitment of those people who decide to provide support to cult victims should be inspired by respect for all religious beliefs and practices, and free of any kind of intolerance towards difference: intolerance can unfairly strike absolutely harmless people and groups, leaving criminal organizations and leaders untouched. Groups and associations providing help to cult victims have a great responsibility both for the fallout of their actions on individuals and social groups, but also because the press and law enforcement authorities investigating controversial groups refer to them as a source of information. Operators are not always sufficiently aware of this enormous responsibility they have, nor are they aware of the very serious consequences which a mistake in intervention or wrong advice can cause to people, families and society. Greater awareness may spur all those who are engaged in this difficult field to multiply efforts in order to improve the results of their action.

Mediating to settle conflicts in cultic groups (Abstract Conference 2011)

2011-01-09T20:23:00.003+01:00

ICSA Annual International Conference

Psychological Manipulation, Cultic Groups,

Social Dependencies, and Harm

Barcelona, Spain

July 7-9, 2011

Applying Conflict Resolution and Mediation to Cultic and Related Problems

Session 1

What is Conflict Resolution and How Does It Differ from Mediation?

Mediation Applied to Workplace Abuse (Cristina Caparesi)

Mediating to settle conflicts in cultic groups: Some useful methodologies (Raffaella Di Marzio)

ABSTRACT (Raffaella Di Marzio)

This paper reports the author's experience giving volunteer assistance and information in a listening centre, and then through a Centre for online Consultancy and Information in Italy.

The paper covers nearly 15 years of experience and is addressed to people involved in cults, to relatives concerned about a loved one affiliated with a cult or new spiritual movement and to people helping cults’ victims.

The paper gives an overall evaluation of the author's experience in attempting of mediating among conflicting groups and/or people.

Mediation process will be described in three different contests:

- Between parents concerned and children affiliated

- Between families and NRMs whom children joined

- Between NRMs’ satisfied members and NRMs’ hostile ex-members

Congregation for Doctrine of Faith on "OPUS ANGELORUM"

2010-12-19T17:34:00.002+01:00

Vatican Information Service

Thursday, November 4, 2010

VATICAN CITY, 4 NOV 2010 (VIS) - Given below is the complete text of the English-language version of a circular letter issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 2 October and signed by Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation. The letter was published today by "L'Osservatore Romano" and concerns the current doctrinal and canonical position of the association known as "Opus Angelorum".

More than thirty years ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith began to examine the theories and practices of the association called Opus Angelorum (Engelwerk). At the present time, the dicastery believes that it would be helpful for the bishops of [episcopal conferences] to be informed regarding the developments which have taken place in these years, so that they may exercise effective oversight in this area.

I. The initial examination was brought to a conclusion with the publication of a letter on 24 September 1982, communicating certain decisions approved by the Holy Father (AAS 76 [1984], 175-176); this letter was followed by a Decree entitled 'Litteris diei' of 6 June 1992 (AAS 84 [1992], 805-806).

In essence, these two documents stated that, in promoting devotion to the Holy Angels, the members of the Opus Angelorum were to follow the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In particular, the members were not to make use of the "names" of angels derived from the alleged private revelations attributed to Mrs. Gabriele Bitterlich and they were not to teach, spread or make use of the theories originating from these alleged revelations. Furthermore, they were reminded of the duty to follow strictly all liturgical laws, in particular those relating to the Holy Eucharist. The Decree of 1992 entrusted the implementation of these measures to a delegate named by the Holy See and possessing special faculties; he was also given the task of regularising the relationship between the Opus Angelorum and the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross.

In the years that followed, the delegate, Fr. Benoit Duroux O.P., successfully completed the work entrusted to him. Today, thanks to the obedience of its members, the Opus Angelorum can be considered to be living loyally and serenely in conformity with the doctrine of the Church and with canonical and liturgical law. On 13 March 2010, given the advanced age of Fr. Duroux, Fr. Daniel Ols O.P. was named delegate, with the same powers as described in the Decree of 1992.

The process of normalisation can be seen in particular in the following elements. On 31 May 2000, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approved the formula of a consecration to the Holy Angels for the Opus Angelorum. Having received the positive opinion of this dicastery, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life approved the "Statutes of the Opus Sanctorum Angelorum", in which, among other things, the relationship between the Opus Angelorum and the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross was defined. According to the Statutes, the Opus Angelorum is a public association of the Catholic Church with juridical personality according to the norm of canon 313 of the CIC; it is joined to the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross according to the norm of canon 677, para. 2 of the CIC and placed under the direction of the Order in conformity with canon 303 of the CIC. The Constitutions of the Sisters of the Holy Cross were approved by the bishop of Innsbruck. Finally, the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, whose central government had been named by the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life on 30 October 1993, was able at the beginning of 2009 to elect its own superior general and the members of the general council.

Therefore, in its present state, the Opus Angelorum is a public association of the Church in conformity with traditional doctrine and with the directives of the Holy See. It spreads devotion to the Holy Angels among the faithful, exhorts them to pray for priests, and promotes love for Christ in His Passion and union with it. Therefore, there are no remaining obstacles of a doctrinal and disciplinary kind which would prevent local ordinaries from receiving this movement into their dioceses and promoting its development.

II. At the same time, however, the congregation wishes to draw the attention of ordinaries to the fact that, in the course of these years, a certain number of Opus Angelorum members, including some priests who either left or were expelled from the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, have not accepted the norms given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and seek to restore what, according to them, would be the "authentic Opus Angelorum", that is, a movement which professes and practices all those things which were forbidden by the above-mentioned documents. The congregation has learned that very discrete propaganda in favour of this wayward movement, which is outside of any ecclesiastical control, is taking place, aimed at presenting it as if it were in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, therefore, asks ordinaries to be vigilant with regard to such activities, disruptive as they are of ecclesial communion, and to forbid them if they are present within their dioceses.

Published by VIS - Holy See Press Office -

Legionaries forbid display of founder's photo

2010-12-16T19:00:00.001+01:00

Other reforms restrict use of Maciel's writings

Dec. 14, 2010

By Carol Glatz, Catholic News Service

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROME -- With the authorization of a papal delegate, the Legionaries of Christ have formalized in a new decree a number of reforms regarding the depiction of the order's founder, the late-Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.
"The decree formalizes in broad strokes what has for the most part already been general practice," said a statement posted Dec. 11 on the Legionaries of Christ website.
Legionaries Father Alvaro Corcuera, director general of the order and of the order's lay association, Regnum Christi, issued the norms following authorization by Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, the papal delegate in charge of governing the Legionaries and helping reform the order.
The decree, promulgated Dec. 6, forbids the placement of photographs of Father Maciel "alone or with the Holy Father" anywhere in Legionary or Regnum Christi centers.
However, out of respect for individuals' personal freedom, it said members of the order and its lay association "may privately keep a photograph of the founder, read his writings or listen to his talks."
Maciel's "personal writings and talks will not be for sale in the congregation's publishing houses, centers, and works of apostolate," it said, but "the content of these writings may be used in preaching without citing the author."
Maciel may be referred to only as "founder of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi" or "Father Maciel" in the institution's writings and communications, it said.
"Dates having to do with his person -- birthday, baptismal day, name day, and priestly ordination anniversary -- are not to be celebrated," it said.
Yet, the anniversary of his death, Jan. 30, "will be a day dedicated especially to prayer," said the order.
Maciel's burial place in his hometown of Cotija, Mexico, "will be given the value that pertains to any Christian burial place," it said, and will be "treated as a place of prayer for the eternal repose of the deceased."
The retreat centers in Cotija will remain open, providing the same services, "but a place for prayer, reparation, and expiation will be created there," said the statement.
Corcuera said, according to the statement, that it was his hope the reforms would help the order's members "focus on the person of Christ and continue forward united in charity."
The decree was the latest in a series of reforms of the Legionaries of Christ after revelations that the late Father Maciel led a double life in violation of church teachings, abused seminarians and fathered several children.

Vatican warns of 'wayward' Opus Angelorum sect

2010-11-06T21:10:00.002+01:00

BBC News

4 November 2010

The Vatican has warned Catholic bishops around the world to monitor carefully a secretive traditionalist sect which prays to angels to combat demons.

Opus Angelorum, which means "the work of angels" in Latin, was founded by an Austrian housewife who died in 1978.

She claimed to have identified the angels and demons who were battling for the control of human beings.

The Church said some members of the sect were carrying out "activities that disturb the ecclesiastical community".

'Possessed'

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says Opus Angelorum first attracted the attention of the Vatican 30 years ago, after the death of its founder, a woman from the Austrian Tyrol called Gabriele Bitterlich.

Bitterlich claimed to have been in contact with an archangel and to have written down the names of hundreds of angels and demons, our correspondent says.

The sect - which operates mainly in German-speaking Europe, Brazil and India - claims that women who have had abortions are possessed by the devil.

The activities of Bitterlich's followers, including dozens of Catholic priests and nuns, eventually attracted the attention of the Vatican which ordered an investigation, our correspondent adds.

According to a letter sent by the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1992 members of Opus Angelorum agreed to follow the doctrine of the Church in return for official recognition.

"In particular, [its] members were not to make use of the 'names' of angels derived from the alleged private revelations attributed to Mrs Gabriele Bitterlich and they were not to teach, spread or make use of the theories originating from these alleged revelations," Cardinal William Levada said.

"Furthermore, they were reminded of the duty to follow strictly all liturgical laws, in particular those relating to the Holy Eucharist."

However, several members of the sect, including some priests, "have not accepted the norms given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and seek to restore what, according to them, would be the 'authentic Opus Angelorum'", the letter warned.

"The Congregation has learned that very discreet propaganda in favour of this wayward movement, which is outside of any ecclesiastical control, is taking place, aimed at presenting it as if it were in full communion with the Catholic Church."

Our correspondent says Opus Angelorum has no known connection with the best-selling novel, Angels and Demons, written by Dan Browne, who has been criticised by the Vatican for his fictional works involving superstition in the Catholic Church.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11699849

Last Pubblication: Religions of the World

2010-10-14T15:18:00.003+02:00

Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 6 voll., ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara (California) J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann Editors, 2010.

Di Marzio, R. (2010). La Missione-Luigia Paparelli, in Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 6 voll., ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara (California) J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann Editors,vol. IV, pp. 1918-1919.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religions of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices is an extraordinary work, bringing together the scholarship of some 225 experts from around the globe.

The encyclopedia's six volumes offer entries on every country of the world, with particular emphasis on the larger nations, as well as Indonesia and the Latin American countries that are traditionally given little attention in English-language reference works.

Entries include profiles on religion in the world's smallest countries (the Vatican and San Marino), profiles on religion in recently established or disputed countries (Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh), as well as profiles on religion in some of the world's most remote places (Antarctica and Easter Island).

Religions of the World is unique in that it is based in religion "on the ground," tracing the development of each of the 16 major world religious traditions through its institutional expressions in the modern world, its major geographical sites, and its major celebrations. Unlike other works, the encyclopedia also covers the world of religious unbelief as expressed in atheism, humanism, and other traditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices

Autore J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann Editors

Edizione 2

Editore Abc-Clio Inc, 2010

ISBN 159884203X, 9781598842036

Lunghezza 3200 pagine

Press Release of the Holy See about Legionaries of Christ

2010-05-08T12:14:00.001+02:00

Originally posted : www.vatican.va

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. On 30 April and 1 May, the Cardinal Secretary of State presided over a meeting in the Vatican with the five Bishops who had been commissioned to carry out the Apostolic Visitation of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ (Archbishop Ricardo Blázquez Pérez of Valladolid, Archbishop Charles Joseph Chaput, OFM Cap., of Denver, Archbishop Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, SDB, of Concepción, Bishop Giuseppe Versaldi of Alessandria, Bishop Ricardo Watty Urquidi, M.Sp.S., of Tepic). Also taking part were the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life as well as the Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State.

One of the sessions took place in the presence of the Holy Father, to whom the Visitators presented a synthesis of the reports that they had submitted in advance.

In the course of the Visitation, more than 1,000 Legionaries were interviewed personally and several hundred written testimonies were examined. The Visitators went to almost all the religious houses and to many of the apostolic works under the direction of the Congregation. They took into account the spoken and written opinions of many Diocesan Bishops from countries in which the Congregation operates. The Visitators also met numerous members, especially consecrated men and women, from the Movement Regnum Christi, even though this lay outside the scope of the Visitation. They also received ample correspondence from lay associates and from the families of those belonging to the Movement.

The five Visitators testified to the sincere welcome accorded to them and the spirit of genuine cooperation shown by the Congregation and by the individual religious. While they acted independently of one another, they arrived at a broadly convergent evaluation and a shared judgement. They attested that they had encountered a large number of exemplary, honest and highly talented religious, many of them young, who are seeking Christ with authentic zeal and offering their whole lives for the spread of the Kingdom of God.

2. The Apostolic Visitation was able to ascertain that the conduct of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado has given rise to serious consequences in the life and structure of the Legion, such as to require a process of profound re-evaluation.

The very grave and objectively immoral actions of Father Maciel, confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies, in some cases constitute real crimes and manifest a life devoid of scruples and authentic religious meaning. This life was unknown to the great majority of the Legionaries, above all because of the system of relationships constructed by Father Maciel, who was able skilfully to create alibis for himself, to obtain trust, confidence and silence from those around him, and to reinforce his personal role as a charismatic founder.

Not infrequently a deplorable discrediting and distancing of those who entertained doubts as to the probity of his conduct, as well as a misguided concern to avoid damaging the good that the Legion was accomplishing, created around him a defence mechanism that for a long time rendered him unassailable, making it very difficult, as a result, to know the truth about his life.

3. The sincere zeal of the majority of Legionaries, which was evident in the visits to the Congregation’s houses and to many of their works – which met with great appreciation in some quarters – led many people in the past to believe that the increasingly insistent and widespread accusations could not be other than calumnies.

Therefore the discovery and the knowledge of the truth concerning the founder gave rise among the members of the Legion to surprise, dismay and profound grief, which was clearly brought out by the Visitators.

4. From the results of the Apostolic Visitation, the following elements emerged clearly, among others:

a) the need to redefine the charism of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ, preserving its true nucleus, that of the militia Christi, which characterizes the apostolic and missionary action of the Church and is not to be identified with the drive for efficiency at any cost;

b) the need to review the exercise of authority, which must be joined to truth, so as to respect consciences and to develop in the light of the Gospel as authentic ecclesial service;

c) the need to preserve the enthusiasm of the young people’s faith, their missionary zeal and their apostolic dynamism, by means of adequate formation. Indeed, disappointment regarding the founder could call into question their vocation and the nucleus of the charism that belongs to the Legionaries of Christ and is proper to them.

5. The Holy Father intends to reassure all the Legionaries and members of the Movement Regnum Christi that they will not be left in isolation: the Church firmly intends to accompany them and to help them along the path of purification that awaits them. This will require them to give sincere attention to those people, both within the Legion and outside it, who were victims of the sexual abuse and the power system put in place by the founder: at this time they have a special place in the thoughts and prayers of the Holy Father, and he is also grateful to those among them who had the courage and the perseverance, albeit amid great difficulties, to demand the truth.

6. The Holy Father thanks the Visitators for the delicate work that they have carried out with competence, generosity and deep pastoral sensitivity; he will announce in the near future the form that this accompaniment will take, beginning with the appointment of his Delegate and of a Commission to study the Constitutions.

To the consecrated members of the Movement Regnum Christi, who have repeatedly requested it, the Holy Father will send a Visitator.

7. Finally the Pope renews to all the Legionaries of Christ, to their families and to the lay associates of the movement Regnum Christi, his encouragement at this difficult time for the Congregation and for each one of them. He urges them not to lose sight of their vocation: this has its origin in Christ’s call and its inspiration in the ideal of bearing witness before the world to his love, and it is an authentic gift from God, an enrichment for the Church, and the indestructible basis on which to build their personal future and that of the Legion.

[00615-02.01] [Original text: Italian]

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI

2009-04-22T18:03:00.003+02:00

25 March 2009

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY

Committee on Doctrine
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. From time to time questions have been raised about various alternative therapies that areoften available in the United States. Bishops are sometimes asked, "What is the Church's position on such therapies?" The USCCB Committee on Doctrine has prepared this resource in order to assist bishops in their responses.

DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT

SEVENTH FRAGMENT

2009-01-04T17:40:00.009+01:00

Saturday 27th december 2008

By Raffaella Di Marzio

-----------------------------------------------

This fragment is dedicated to Martini, pseudonym of Simonetta Po.

An important piece of history is related to Martini, not the history written in the books and in the encyclopaedias, but the one important for common people like me and Martini, indeed. Those interested in knowing more about Martini and her activities can read the FAQ of Allarme Scientology.

The first time me and Simonetta "talked" was by email. It was the 1998 and I managed, together with my husband Alberto who realized it, the Web Site of the GRIS of Rome. Now and then we received requests for information and help also by email, a tool not so used then.

I would NEVER have forgotten the email of Harry and Martini (who managed together the WebSite of Allarme Scientology) because it signed the beginning of a cooperation which ended soon in the case of Harry, but surely not in the case of Martini who continued, impassive, her work of critical information on Scientology until today.

The two webmasters of Allarme discovered our website, which at the time was surely the most updated and specialized in the field, they understood that we pursued similar goals and they asked us some information before taking several initiatives of information on the Web.

Some times later, when I could know Simonetta personally, I realized that we were very different, especially in our ideas (I am catholic, she’s truly not). Notwithstanding we had a common desire: to do something to avoid that other people got trapped by cults and deceitful gurus, a thing we both experienced in different ways.

Simonetta chose to spread critical information on Scientology by herself, I decided that, further than informing, I would have tried to give help and assistance to those asking for it, because the association I was part of was involved also in this activity.

I remember with pleasure the first international meeting I attended together with Simonetta: the 1998 Turin Meeting of CESNUR. We went right to the "enemy’s house" (so the CESNUR is perceived in our world) to discover its weak points and, maybe if possible, to “disturb” a little.

It was really an important experience for both of us because, beyond our intentions, it was an occasion to know and open towards environments and positions different from ours. We didn’t share them, on the contrary we condemned them because we were sure that they harmed our "mission". Anyway, it was a way to know better our enemy and when you look your "enemy" in the eyes, he becomes less enemy and more "human".

At that time I didn’t realized all of this, it was only the first step, and it would have taken years to be able to look back at that experience with a more close and deep look.

Me and Simonetta talked a lot in those days: she told me that, despite I was catholic, she could find some points of contact with me on another level, the one of values. She told me she believed to see something she defined "intellectual honesty", preventing me from being hypocrite and, in her opinion, she never found this before in people self defining as "catholic". Usually those belonging to a religion strive to defend it and cannot see the Gospel’s "beam" in their eyes, while they see pretty well the straw in the others’ eyes. That was not my case and Simonetta seemed to appreciate it.

As for me, I was stricken by her self-devotion and respect for the reason, the "cult" for reasonableness and freedom of thought, the intolerance for any form of imposition, the will to learn and enlarge her cultural horizons. But all this couldn’t raise any affinity between two persons so different as we are, were we not united by another feature: the attitude to evaluate people not for their ideas but for what they are and for their actions.

I never hardly thought to "convert" her and she never looked at me with commiseration or contempt for my faith. So we met on human values and we appreciated each other for what we were, without thinking to make the other change.

I remember that, when I started my cooperation with CESNUR for the Encyclopaedia of Religions in Italy in 2000, I asked for suggestions to the president of GRIS, the association I belonged to, who encouraged me to participate to the project. When I talked about it with Simonetta she said it was good that someone of the opposite "fence" gave a contribution to the first work of the kind in Italy.

After that, I always kept her informed about how the works were going on, the problems I met in cooperating to a work which, by its nature, didn’t contemplate any "value judgment" on the several groups assessed. It’s been a very important experience and Simonetta is one of the very few persons I shared uncertainties, doubts, perplexities and successes with.

Simonetta was with me not only on the occasion of the first international meeting I attended in Turin, but also on the occasion of another equally important meeting: the one at the London School of Economics in 2001, where I celebrated my birthday at the table with the internationally best known (and criticized in the anti-cults context) scholars. That time too Martini (incognito) was there to share with me a special moment. The photo you see in this fragment was taken in London, during that meeting.

The third marvellous memory is that of the day we spent together with the lamented Maurizio Antonello, a special man I knew personally thanks to Simonetta and with which I shared for some time a beautiful mailing. We also exchanged some archives material.

Maurizio was an outstanding archivist, as well as a valuable professional, so we went to him to visit his library. On that occasion I asked Maurizio to help me to piece together the history of a couple of groups whose file I wrote for the Encyclopaedia: he knew these groups better than me as he had news aging to their birth. He was happy to cooperate and he was also quite pride that some documents in is library were not present in the one of CESNUR. As for me, I knew from Maurizio that he had not some files and publications of other groups that, instead, I had. So, as soon as I was back in Rome, I sent to him a pack with several books and reviews. He was happy for that: it was like he received a treasury!

But all of this didn’t last much: one day Maurizio told me the association he was part of didn’t appreciate him to have contacts with me: an exponent of the anti-cult world, obviously, didn’t have to write or share files with those (like me) cooperating with the CESNUR (a group of "very bad" Turiners "defending the cults"). So our mailing was suddenly interrupted, but I know that Maurizio was disappointed for that as he said it several times, in the following months, to one of his friends he usually phoned to. [With reference to this detail one person from ARIS, the Association founded by Antonello, in a comment to this fragment in Italian specifices that there is another version of Maurizio's denial to continue our cooperation and that such version, which I dont' know , can be communicated only privately].

Such beautiful memories ties me to Martini, and much more: knowing people, appreciating any good thing they have to say, doing different experiences, contending if needed but not precluding any road and always searching the dialogue.

Ten years after the first virtual meeting, we both changed due to the experiences, positive and negative, the illusions and the disillusions. In the last years we heard each other less than before, even if none of us stopped to bring on her commitment. But anytime a situation needs it, Martini’s back in her more appropriate guise: a paladin of freedom of thought and expression. It’s not a case that she’s been the first one who publicly shown sympathy when my web portal (SRS) was obscured. It was a long time we were not in touch, but it’s been as the time wasn’t passed.

The year 2008 has been a difficult year for both of us, but not due to "cults". If I think about it, we have this too in common: our presumed "enemies" indeed didn’t cause us so many problems as our "friends". A fact well described by the famous saying:

From my friends let’s God protect me, so that I will protect me by myself from my enemies!

So Simonetta was harshly attacked and slandered (just like me) on some forums and newsgroups by persons operating in the "anti-cult" world, which is her world. For this people and for associations like ARIS, Simonetta proved available in several ways, mainly as translator. But what was Martini’s serious mistake, which attracted on her such a hard fierceness? To have expressed sympathy to me, after the obscuration of the SRS Portal, on Allarme Scientology and some newsgroups. Since than and for months, some persons (one or two, maybe three, under multiple nicknames) still fully active diffused on some newsgroups trash-messages, which would not have caused any reaction in Martini, long used to this kind of "wars", was not that a certain point some "real" persons qualifying with name and surname, members and speakers of ARIS, openly and publicly approved the ones spreading trash on Martini with full hands on the web. In front of such "boldness", Martini did the right thing. Those interested in knowing what, can learn it from her own words, whose conclusion I quote because it perfectly applies also to the obscuration of my website, whose genesis today is clear:

It’s worth to highlight that this site does not "fall under the blows " of the feared Church of Scientology, which saved no effort in this sense, but under the blows – and the missed protection – of part of the so called Italian "anti-cult movement" boasting of doing information and protecting and helping the victims of several cult movements.

To conclude I could say that, in the end, in Italy the "cults" have nothing to fear.
The Italian anti-cult world tends to eliminate slowly and ineluctably its most able and brilliant members, operates legal vexations against its own members, creates internal fights absorbing a lot of time and money, dabbles in silencing any minimal disagreement, excluding the "mavericks" and slandering the next unlucky one (today to me, tomorrow to you). On the whole: real behaviours of destructive "intolerance" not only towards the "enemy" (the cults) but also towards the friends, those on the same fence.

Looking the phenomenon with detachment (difficult, but one can try) I can’t avoid thinking to the tens of studies promoted by sociologists and psychologists, which proved without doubts that the intolerant attitude is highly correlated with the ignorance or the poor culture.

The moral of the story: to be ostracized by these people begins to be a sort of "reference", a further score, were there contests for titles in this strange world.

Absorbed in these frantic activity, the Italian anti-cult movement has no time and resources left to deal about the "cults".

Let’s simply hope that the thing is not known roundabout: if the worst and more enterprising “gurus” abroad were to know it, they would move to Italy!

So, beware:

AFTER READING THIS FRAGMENT, LET’S CANCEL IT
AND KEEP IT ABSOLUTELY SECRET!

GOOD 2009 TO EVERYBODY ... ESPECIALLY TO MARTINI :))

To be or not to be a cult : THAT is the question

2008-11-29T15:37:00.005+01:00

When the information becomes a dogma, the committees become courts, the experts become “guru” and people remain, anyway, victim.

(By Raffaella Di Marzio, 22th of February 2008)

Read the article in ITALIAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article published in "La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno", 15th of February 2008, p.2

Case cult, roman blitz from police

Eighty adepts of "The Sacred Path" surprised in a hotel of the capital: also a priest. The activity of the presumed cult "The sacred path" continues, at least apparently. It would be proved by the blitz of the police of Rome, in a hotel of the capital. The agents found the presumed guru, Vito Carlo Moccia, 55 years, from Bari, together with eighty people, participating to a more or less ritual meeting, almost with candles. Among them, also a priest and a psychologist.

The agents interrupted the meeting, they asked names and addresses of the presents, confiscated some documents and the candles used. The inquiry file was transferred to the prosecutor Francesco Bretone, in Bari. Being to the inquiry ending in the notice of some informations of guarantee on last october, the "managing group" of the presumed cult diffused - with a certain consensus and also television popularity - the innovative psychological method "ARKEON". The head office of "The Sacred Path " is in Bari.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking this news as a starting point, I would like to do some remarks concerning four questions that, in this article, are approached together as they are strictly connected with each other:

1) the approximate and/or aggressive way of doing information (of which the article of "Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno" is only a pale and faded example)

2) the way certain media agencies, groups of expert professionals and citizens took control and are actually managing the case of ARKEON, name given to a path experimented and created by Vito Carlo Moccia

3) the consequences generated from a management of conflicts between social systems that does not point to the resolution and composition of the conflicts themselves, but to their radicalization, to the conflict between different parts, that in certain cases can produce the organisation of lobbies that activate intimidation, threat and anyway a climate of social tension.

4) the way to approach the study and the research about new forms of religions, spirituality and new forms of aggregations which point to increase the human potential and give an answer (religious, philosophical, anthropological) to the questions of the human being about himself, the sense of life and death. In this context the difficulty of the scholar is to compose and verify the different stories, those of the enthusiastic ones and those of the unhappy, those of who got benefits or was really abused.

As far as I’m regarded, I am involved in the ARKEON case against my will, because, until few months ago, I was not aware even of the existence of this group.

Some times ago I received a strange email from one of the masters of ARKEON, whose meetings were suspended since Octobre 2007, after the begenning of the inquiry. Six people, (Vito Carlo Moccia is one of them) were and are inquired by the Bari's Republic Prosecutor’s Office. One man that identified himself by name and surname searched for help because he, his family and the families of other adherents to the same group were object of some telecasts, news, and forums that described ARKEON as a "psicocult" or "satanic psicocult", its founder as a "guru" or "cult-chief" and the members, all together, as plagiarized or (even worst) accomplices of the misdeed of the "cult-chief".

This man indicated some links where you could see the registrations, telecasts, news, and forums where some people (we never know how many because they use nick names) denounced abuses suffered in the ARKEON "psycho-cult".

The ARKEON master that contacted me also asked me explanation on what should be brainwashing and plagiarism (he wanted to know how it worked the process in order to understand if there was something wrong in him) and I invited him to read some of my articles issued on this website (www.dimarzio.it/srs).

What puzzled me was the reason why this person wrote me: he was searching for help because, as a member of the "cult", he was swept away, together with dozens of other people and entire families, from a mediatic wave making him feeling "harmless", "confused", "astonished", "lost" and "powerless". Because, being defined a member of a cult, he was consequently "plagiarized" and so whatever he said or did, it would not have been taken in consideration by anyone. Whoever whould listen to a plagiarized ?

I never received a request of help of this kind.

The requests of help I receive comes from relatives of people that joined some group and ask me for help to recover their relative. Or they write to me people that left a cult and ask how to do in order to come back to their first life, recovering lost serenity. I receive also simple requests of information about groups of any kind from institutions or privates.

Two things striked me: the first was that this person told me that inside of ARKEON a process of reflection and self-criticism was longly begun, provoked also by the media influence and by the accusations against them. He told me also that probably there had been cases of abuse in some meeting and that learning it deeply touched them and pushed them to introspect themselves and to undergo the evaluation of external institutions. Their attempt was to understand where they were wrong and what they could do to correct and, if possible, to improve the path planned by their founder.

The fact that a "psycho-cult" showed available to self-criticism impressed me because, even when they are attacked, the "cults" defend themselves closing and attacking the critics in the same ways or with greater hanger.

The self-criticism is the last thing that sectary groups do.

The second thing that impressed me was that Pietro Bono, master of ARKEON, told me he contacted me on his own initiative and that the founder, the "cult-chief", did not know anything. In the cults it never happens that an adept takes an initiative of this kind (specially during an attack coming from outside) without authorisation from the "chief".

Considering that he was not an ex-member but a master of ARKEON, near and united with the founder, the thing astonished me and I begun to ask me: do I really find myself in front of a cult ?

It was undoubt that inside ARKEON someone had mistaken abusing of some people and there were some things not so clear, but could the entire organisation be accused of being a "psychocult"?

Apart from the sham and ridiculous specifications of those affirming that "cult" isn’t a disparaging term, we all know that, when a group is accused to be a "cult" that means a dangerous system, where systematic abuses are perpetrated on people and where the weakest are induced to think and to do actions that, otherwise, they never would have done. The "cult" tend to absorb its members in the system separating them from the other groups (family, friends, etc.), the cult drains the material properties and the mental resources of the people being part of it, of which many join the cult being cheated, without realising what kind of group are they adhering.

I could still continue for long about the description of what is a "cult", but I suggest to read authors as Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer and, for a critical vision of their theory, Massimo Introvigne, Mario Aletti and others. For further examination, also in this website you can find many articles on this subject.

While beginning to collect information about the ARKEON’s case I was also trying to think over and not to be too much influenced by the medias and the testimonies that I’ve read, all very critical.

The telecasts that I had seen were organized as a process where you already know who's guilty. The "bads" were prevented from talking, except in one case: one telecast of Maurizio Costanzo, where two members of ARKEON were invited and talked without being interrupted.

I read also the messages of people that in one forum relate their "devastating" experience in ARKEON and, in the same forum, I read also the messages from members of ARKEON that tried to speak their voice and to answer to the criticisms: they were from time to time made fun of or worse, so that at the end they stopped writing.

In any case, the testimonies of the critics were very serious, telling arguable and reprehensible episodes, actions and practices also judicially relevant.

After this first recognition of the informations circulating in Internet and off those diffused in the telecasts, I searched the Web-site of ARKEON to read their version of the facts or at least their way of presenting themselves, but their website were obscured, so in Internet there were only the critical messages.

I searched news about ARKEON in other contexts, in the universitary sphere and study centres, but nobody knew what to tell me about it, apart from what medias said.

I took note of this situation and I thought it was right to listen also the other part of the case, not only because it was a request of help from a person really suffering (I give an equal value on suffering, coming from a victim of a "cult" or from a victim of "anticult" people) but also and overall because I believe that the study of a phenomenon is valid and precise only by listening all people that are involved.

After a while, the founder of ARKEON, Vito Carlo Moccia, contacted me and he made me access the results of a research (to be completed) done about ARKEON from an internationally known institutional organization and told me that he talked with some managers of the GRIS (Group of Research and Social and Religious Information) asking also to them to study ARKEON to verify any wrong thing happened and still present and which positive aspects could be found in it.

After I examined the organization’s report of which I talked before and verified that the desire of self-criticism was real and the founder and other members close to him were ready to be met, I accepted the invitation to take part in an informative meeting with students and masters of ARKEON.

The reason of this meeting was to present myself and to make me know (naturally they were suspicious and they didn’t afford "scholars" or journalists), and to ask for their collaboration in a study about ARKEON. The meeting could also be the right moment to do some interviews and think over what was happening (included media campaign).

That meeting happened on February the 09th 2008 in Rome. There were students, couples, families with children, parents of students, globally about a hundred participants. There were professionals, housewives, psychologists, doctors, etc.

The room was prepared with the chairs on circle. Onece sit down, a person put in the centre of the room a beautiful almost big candle, that was lightened. I know that for members of ARKEON the fire has a symbolic meaning. That is why I was not surprised that that symbol was there. Moreover, tit remembered me the summer evenings on the beach, some years ago, when together with other teenagers we played to make a fire and to seat all around it to tell us our stories.

Once sit down, Vito Carlo Moccia, briefly introduced me and called upon me to speak.

I took the chance to come back to the beginning of my studies about cult’s phenomenology, to explain the reason why even today, after 15 years, I continue to work in this context of study, research and help, and, particularly, my interest to deepen the ArRKEON ‘s case.

I explained from a very critical perspective my considerations about how the different media-association-committees conduced the aggressive campaign against them and I indicated the potential keys to read the phenomenon.

While speaking I observed the people around me: I saw people crying while telling the devastating effects and the suffer that the media campaign had on their family, on their children, on their job. I saw people frightened and afraid of talking, not because they did something wrong, but because they were shocked about what was happening to them.

All these people, in many years, never witnessed the scenes described in the forums and did not know anything about the abuses that people on television were talking. They were dumbstruck.

During the morning, while I was listening and sometimes speaking, I observed the way the "adepts" acted in front of the "guru". Vito Carlo Moccia, during the meeting, was greeted by everybody with affection and gratitude but he was also strongly criticized by someone, then supported by others, who, even if renewing to him their esteem and gratitude, did not renounce to tell him what they thought of him, of ARKEON and of what was happening, asking the entire "circle" to do something to clear and define the ARKEON’s path in order to avoid further misunderstanding and, mainly, serious facts like those somebody is accused of.

While this was happening I observed the reactions: I could clearly see that in that "circle" and in that context Moccia wasn’t the undisputed leader. Nobody asked him: what must we do? ANyone who wanted to talk did it expressing personal reflections about what is happening to ARKEON, nobody was censored and nobody offered solutions.

Vito Carlo Moccia didn’t try to answer, but he rather seemed to listen and think over.

Another element I believe significant is that, despite the consternation and suffer that I could feel in present people, I heared NOBODY denigrate, offend or reveal secrets of the ARKEON’s ex members, that today are diffusing their experiences and testimonies to media.

The gossip against the ex members and the revelation of secrets to put them in a bad light are other typical aspects of the "cults".

Talking about their "enemies", they rather showed a deep pain for the possibility that someone was abused in the seminars and incredulity in front of the anger of some of these ex member.

With regard to this, I even heard telling of physical violences and I saw with my eyes letters of thread, intimidation, etc.

In the last two years anyone who came in contact with ARKEON, hosted (before they was suspended in October 2007) the people participating in the seminars, started studies about ARKEON (not directed to speak ill of it), talked in public with positive judgements about the path etc., suffered intimidations and threats of any kind.

It was also established a committee named "The families of so many victims of the devil Vito Carlo Moccia " which says to be forced to remain anonymous "to protect their families from negative consequences that would be perpetrated against them by Moccia in reprisal" and which sent long faxes saying that " to host ARKEON’s meetings, is like to be accomplice in Moccia’s misdeeds and probably also liable to prosecution".

Into the defamatory campaign of the press and the television, two priests were involved attracted with deception by certain journalists expert in such ways on doing "information" and shot from television camera in spite of the protests and before they could recover from the bitter surprise.

It’s no need to underline how these methods of pressure disadvantage everybody and contribute to create other victims, over the ones already existing.

I think the most correct modality to address these conflicts is to let each one do his own "job".

The proxy, the lawyers and the police forces have specific tasks they are already doing from a while. People investigated will have to defend from the charges and, if they will not succeed, they will have to pay for their crimes committed, those who are sure to have been damaged did their duty, that was to denounce.

Why are they ruthless, so ?

But let’s return to the 9th of February and to my observation.

Another aspect that hit me, knowing that ARKEON was born inside of a Reiki path (that today is completely abandoned) is that a certain number of people, when sharing their experiences in ARKEON, told me they returned or they turned to the catholic faith.

I talked with people separated from many years that married in the church, with people that had a dissolute life and baptized in adult age, I talked with alcoholic and drug addicts who overcame their addiction and today have a respectable activity, are married with catholic rite and have children that they chose to baptize.

Other people, instead, told me to be agnostics or atheist, but to respect the faith of others.

The exchange of information, reflections and suggestions went on until three o’clock in the afternoon when it was decided to make a lunch break.

At that point my impression-sensation was not to be inside of a sectary group, it did not seemed to me to have the cult’s characteristics. Of course, it was only a first impression, it was not an experience of ARKEON during a base or an intensive seminar, it was only a first contact. Anyway, this too is a starting point, a fragment to build a mosaic capable of improvement, adjustments and checks.

I was in front of two realities clearly opposed one to the other: the one described from media and Internet, and the one I was seeing with my eyes.

Could the truth, as usual, be in the middle ?

Maybe were not the present ARKEON’s members all under influence of brainwashing?

Or were all of them pretending with me in a performance well organized to deceive me?

If somebody is keen on conspiracy he could believe to this hypothesis. At the same time you could suppose a colossal conspiracy from somebody to damage ARKEON, but this too is pure conspiracy and I don’t like to interpret the reality using hypothesis and conspiracy.

So, I turn back to the facts happened on 9th of February.

During the lunch break, we saw some people coming in that we immediately identified as agents of the Digos. We were invited to give our documents, the agents confiscated the candle, the poster of ARKEON hanged outside the door of the room, a computer, videocassettes and also some posters of my web-site that I brought that morning (no problem, I am happy to give them for free to the Digos of Rome).

Immediately after we were told that, being people informed of the facts, some of us would have benn asked to answer some questions. I don’t know exactly how many testimonies were signed, but among the others there was also mine.

After almost three hours of formalities they gave us back the documents and they allowed us to return to the room and continue the meeting. Nobody was gone, except the ones that had to go, and many people shared their experience. I could listen to some testimonies that will be useful for the studies that I began. The meeting finished around 8 p.m.

As for me, I would like to try to be out of the chaos, to come close to the truth, to observe a social phenomenon in order to describe it.

ARKEON, as many others movements and groups that are in Italy and in the world, is a path in which you can find persons who, like other people attending other groups, search answers on themselves, on life, death, pain, suffering. It is a little social group with all the typical dynamics of social groups: inside them there is always a certain level of "manipulation".

What matters is to understand if this manipulation goes over a certain level of intensity or not, if people are respected into their freedom, into their feelings, into their sensibility or not.

As for me I learned from my mistakes not to draw a conclusion hurriedly and not to formulate a judgement under the wave of emotions, rancour and indignation.

I proceed, then, with my research on ARKEON and I’m ready to receive testimonies of people feeling damaged from this path, that suffered because of ARKEON just like I welcome the testimonies of the others.

The 17th February 2008 a user of this web-site posted for the first time in the Forums, inviting to reflect on ARKEON. Those who are interested,can read the different interventions that I think useful in order to understand the internal dynamics in the group and also the criticisms that comes from outside [ N.D.R.: all the Forum of this website have been temporarily closed down from 30^th April 2008].

Until now, beyond the experiences listened during the meeting (fifteen), I received the availability of other thirty people that frequented the meetings and had benefits inside ARKEON and from three people that criticize the path and declare damaged by it.

The thirty people of ARKEON gave me their name and surname, of the three people "unhappy", two are ex members (I know their name and surname), the third present herself as a mother of a member of ARKEON, but I do not know her generalities.

I thank all of this people for their availability and I wait for further information, from whichever "fence" they come.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this article are unprofessional translations of those included in the italian website www.dimarzio.it.

Curriculum vitae

2008-11-22T18:48:00.012+01:00

Raffaella Di Marzio, a clinical psychologist, is member of the National Board of the Italian Society of Religion’s Psychology (SIPR).

Born in 1958, living in Rome, she’s married with three sons. After getting the diploma in classical studies in 1976, she attends -simultaneously – the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the Pontificia Università Salesiana in Rome, where she graduates on February 1981 in «Educational Sciences» (specialization in Psychology) and the Faculty of Psychology of the University “La Sapienza” in Rome, where on July 1981 she graduates in Psychology (applied branch).

In 1981 she begins her activity as Teacher of Religion in the Secondary School of Rome and attends the Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose Ecclesia Mater, at Università Lateranense of Rome, where on December 1986 she gets the Magistero Superiore in Religious Sciences.

Particularly interested in the issues of Psychology of Religion and the problems involved in the religious education of youth, she holds a seminar called The religious education of the child at the Istituto Superiore Caymari of Roma. Later on she’s enchaged by the Vicariato of Rome as training teacher in the Updating Courses for the teachers of Catholic Religion.

In 1994 she associates at GRIS (Group for Socio-religious Research and Information) and she begins her activity of study and research on the New Religious Movements, which will become along the years part of her teaching in schools. In this context she deepens two branches of research: the ways of persuasion and conditioning inside religious groups and the catholic “fringe” movements.

For some years she’s member of the National Board of GRIS and episcopate encharged for the roman branch of the Association. She gives consultancy and assistance in the Listening Centre of GRIS in Roma and she’s Webmaster of the Web Site of the Association. At the end of the 90’s her activity of research, study and scientific divulgation grows to include also other collaborations like that with CESNUR (Study Centre on New Religions), ICAA (International Crime Analysis Association) and ICSA (International Cultic Study Association), in the USA.

In particular she cooperates with this organization as member of the Scientific Board of the review Cultic Studies Review: An Internet Journal of Research, News & Opinion (CSR).

Since 2010 she's ICSA international corrispondent for Italy in cooperation with Michael Langone, chief editor of ICSA TODAY.

To increase her cultural basis in the field of the study of Religions, she attends the Degree Corse in Historical-Religious Sciences of Università La Sapienza in Rome, graduating with laude on 26th March 2003 with a thesis in History of Religions titled Kanungu: the Uganda Apocalipse.

She created and manages, since February 2002, the online Centre for Consultancy and Information Sects, Religions, Spirituality (SRS, www.dimarzio.it).

From 1998 to 2009 she periodically held monographic lessons as part of the Course ”Sects and New Cults”, at the Superior Institute of Religious Sciences “Ecclesia Mater”– Pontificia Università Lateranense di Roma.

Starting with the 1990’s she teaches as expert on New Religious Movements and on problems concerning social control inside religious groups, also at Università Urbaniana of Roma, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Rome, Istituto di Scienze Religiose S. Maria di Monte Berico of Vicenza, in public and private companies, in updating courses for teachers of Religion, priests and laics committed in the pastoral of new forms of religiousness.

In 2001 she’s speaker in the International Congress "The Spiritual Supermarket. Religious Pluralism and Globalization in the 21st Century: the Expanding European Union and Beyond", at the London School of Economics. In 2002 she’s organizer and speaker at the first National Congress on the issue “Sects, Religions, Spirituality: between culture, society, school”, organized and promoted by ADR (Association of Teachers of Religion) and by the Study Centre of SNADIR (National Independent Union of Teachers of Religion) under the authorization of the Ministry of Education. Under the request of the School Office of the Episcopate of Cagliari, she’s been teacher at the third Course for updating, requalification and theological professional training for teachers of Catholic Religion in the nursery, primary and secondary school on the issue “Teaching Catholic Religion in front of the new forms of religiousness and the alternative religious movements”, held in Cagliari. The Course was authorized by the Ministry of Education – Sardegna Regional Direction.

In 2003-2004 she’s co-organizer (together with CESNUR) and editorial director of Corsiweb (http://www.corsiweb.org), the first project for distance training (online courses) organized in Italia on these issues: the Religious Phenomenon in Italy and the Islam. In 2005 requested by the Episcopate of Matera she’s been speaker at the Congress on “New Religious Movements: Pastoral issues”, held in Matera. Since 2005 she cooperates, under the direction of Massimo Introvigne and PierLuigi Zoccatelli, to the online projects “Religions in Italy”.

Since 2003 she’s ordinary associate of the Italian Society of Psychology of Religion (SIPR) and since 2005 she’s member of the Board of the same Association. In the Academic Year 2004-2005 she taught Psychology of Religion at the Faculty of Sciences of Education Auxilium of Rome.

In November 2007 she’s speaker at the National Congress organized by AESPI and UNAMS_SCUOLA: School and religious pluralism in Italy.

In the months of December 2007 and January 2008 she’s invited by the School Office of the Episcopate of Foligno to hold a Training Course for teachers of Catholic Religion on Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue.

In February 2009 she’s invited by CIB (Center of Biblical Information) to hold a Training Course for teachers on the subject "Dio lo vuole o è solo un caso: il caso, il destino, la Provvidenza nel pensiero biblico".

Thanks to her studies on the on the teaching use of the new technologies, in 1999 she’s Teacher of Non Verbal and Multimedia languages in an Experimental High School in Rome.

In this field of research she’s co-author, together with Alberto Amitrani, of the textbook for the students of the High School: A Computer as a Friend, Garamond, Roma, 2000 and trained teachers of the High School of several Italian towns. In the High School where she works, since many years she created and directed a project to increase the motivation to study of the students with serous learning problems and to prevent the school abandonment.

PUBLICATIONS

SIXTH FRAGMENT

2008-11-22T18:14:00.006+01:00

SUNDAY 9TH NOVEMBER 2008

By Raffaella di Marzio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE. Much of the news reported are taken from Antonella Beccaria’s book "Satan’s children". In case of any imprecision or mistake in the reconstruction of facts and in the way the role of some protagonists is treated, please report it in the comments or writing at the email (rdm@dimarzio.it).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A poor devil

This fragment is inspired by a book I was suggested few days ago and that I read with great interest even stealing time to my sleep. It's Antonella Beccaria's book "Satan’s children", published in 2006. The book, also published on my website, tells, 10 years after, the judicial vicissitude of Marco Dimitri, president of the Satan’s Children Association. A punctual and synthetic reconstruction of the story can be also found in the graduation thesis of Simone Zanin, published on CESNUR'S Website, of which I report an extract in RDM ilBlog. A file on the Satan’s Children is published on CESNUR'S Website.

Antonella Beccaria’s book reconstructs the story starting from a now established fact: the case of Satan’s children was a judicial mistake, an incredible judicial story based on nothing, which had as main character a satanist.

To read this book remembered me stories I lived in first person because, in 1996, when the judicial problems for Dimitri and other people near him started, I was associated to GRIS since a couple of years. The association was still named "Group for Research and information on Sects " (the word "Sects" disappeared and was then replaced by "Socioreligious"). I was a beginner and I couldn’t get my bearing yet in a world so complex e and also so full of mystery, pain and evil. For me it was still a world much "obscure", in any sense. When the Dimitri case exploded I considered it, as anyone in the GRIS, a case of savage satanism, one of the few finally come to the light in which the leader and his followers had been discovered thanks to the courageous testimony of a repentant come out and to the effort also of the members of the directive council of the association I belonged to.

It was right and dutiful that the police and the magistrates verified the facts and punished the criminal satanists. Inside the association there were voices that people from the Bologna branch cooperated in discovering the satanic group, together with local priests and exorcists, but there was no official statement. At least, I knew nothing more. Personally I took the silence and the reticence of people from GRIS, to which now and then I asked for information, as a sign of the importance of keeping the discretion on the information during the inquiry. What I couldn’t understand, however, was the enormous quantity of information published on the newspapers about the accuses and the assertions of the super witness, the interviews released by the members of the GRIS of Bologna and by famous exorcists like Father Amorth: it seemed that everybody knew everything, the newspapers were super informed on Dimitri and his "ritual murders", the interviews to the experts were a daily fact, everybody talked, witnessed, published.

My questions, instead, seemed always out of place and got no answer. I was a beginner: I asked for explanations to learn and understand what was happening and which was the role of the association I belonged to in that story. The very simple question I several time asked to expert people with a directive role in the GRIS was: "But has really Dimitri done what’s written in the newspapers? Really do you know the witness as the newspapers say and the little Federico who was put in the coffin with the corpse of Margherita?" The answer was evanescent: "We know, we know, there are witnesses. Dimitri? He’s a satanist: he MUST have done something ... it’s not our role to say if he’s guilty. It will be the justice".

Despite the evasive answers and the half statements, meanwhile Radio Maria broadcasted a transmission on satanism in the programme conduced by Giuseppe Ferrari with an interview to the Public Prosecutor Lucia Musti, the “Osservatore Romano” got involved directly publishing some articles on the story, of which one signed by the Public Prosecutor herself, exactly when the process to Dimitri was beginning.

That is: you couldn’t talk about it, but EVERYBODY did it.

In the GRIS there was a feeling of satisfaction for what was happening. Finally a satanist was about to be condemned for terrible crimes he committed. I remember, in particular, an evening when I was quite impressed by the image of Dimitri on a megascreen interviewed on a popular TV programme, broadcasting from Bologna. It seemed to me a very strange person, an untrustworthy fellow (following my criteria for a "trustworthy fellow"). Dimitri, clearly angry and unable to control his feelings, accused on live broadcast a popular anthropologist, well known in Italy, who was present in the studio: according to him the anthropologist had said (or written) a lie: that the walls of his flat were covered with excrements. The anthropologist’s answer to this accuse was that she got the information from a third person.

Certainly the issues of the "debate" of that transmission were also other, but this example says many things on the trustworthiness of certain "antisatanist" or, better then, "antidimitri" sources.

Indeed that programme gave no insight on the story to a beginner like me: but surely it contributed to reinforce the negative image I already had of Marco Dimitri and his sect. I use the word "image" because it’s just what was happening: everything was based on an image, that is an "impression, idea that a character gives of himself to the public based on his look or the way he shows himself ". It was just an image, that of Dimitri, and I believed it was reality.

The satanism is something disgusting me, Dimitri does not arouse any sympathy in me even today, but what happened to him remains in my advice very serious. Today I realize that me and the people of GRIS were not the only ones to believe to the truth of that "image", but millions of people shared it: everybody’s reading the newspapers, listening to the radio and watching the TV.

Reading Antonella Beccaria’s book, of which I will quote some part in brackets and in different colour, today I could reflect on those years and I understood much more on what happened then and on the role of the GRIS in the story.

Antonella Beccaria refers that the first contact between the GRIS and the protagonists of this story "is dated august 1995, when the father of Elisabetta Dozza (the superwitness, note of the author), who would have started attending satanists, asks information on Marco Dimitri and his group just to the association of Mount street (the seat of GRIS in Bologna is in Mount street). Then in October, when they start to suppose that Federico (the three years old child who would have been raped by Dimitri and his friend and then put in the coffin with the corpse of Margherita, note of the author) has been victim a ritual satanic abuse, the mother of the child applies to Padre Dermine. Meanwhile also the mother of Elisabetta asks again support for her daughter. The psychologists suggested to the families are indicated by the group of study".

From the reconstruction of the author it seems that everything started with a notice from parents having problems with their sons (Elisabetta and Federico), they ascribe them to Dimitri and his sect and they apply a local helping group: one of many requests arriving in the helping groups. The parents, in this case, feared their sons could be “victims” of a satanic sect. So the story begins as many other similar ones of which I talked in the First fragment.

In her reconstruction Antonella Beccaria continues like that: "... as the first hypothesis of crime is formulated, the seat of GRIS becomes an obliged step also for the police, as confirmed by the depositions of marshal Cabras on February 1996, which will resort to the experts found here as its consultants. Furthermore the GRIS already knew the Satan’s children, as it had been the object of some phone jokes from Dimitri, and – more relevant – received the fanzine cured and diffused by the satanists. Following, the relationships with the police were often characterized by requests for bibliography on the subject and information about the relationships existing between the satanic groups active in Italy ".

This too is a script continuously repeating when you assume crimes happened inside religious or para-religious groups. The information nearly always comes from associations of victims: their use strongly depends on the magistrates inquiring and on the public prosecutor.

As I already stated in the Fourth fragment the issue of the trustworthiness of the information and of their use from the magistrates and the police is a very serious one. The Dimitri case is a typical example. Dimitri goes to jail at the end of January 2006 and then again for 400 days in June of the same year.

His lawyers will have no problem "to demonstrate that the dates of the presumed violence (the rape of Elisabetta, note of the author) are unlikely, that you cannot bundle like a sweet a wicked paint big near as a wall to bring it around for the umpteenth black mass. Or again that the corpse of the victims of a ritual sacrifice couldn’t have gone into a small gas ring used, according to the reconstruction of the prosecutor, as an improvised crematory because its dimensions wouldn’t have been sufficient to burn even a wedding cake". "There is not even trace of the first aid medical report written by the doctor who would have visited Elisabetta Dozza the night of the rape, would have she used a true name or a false one ".

Every detail revealed by the girl shows to be unproved. For example that of the "Master": a mysterious man named “the Master” would have taken part in the rape of Elisabetta. It will be then clear that the mysterious Master is Damiano Berto, a man “sui generis” who "to eke out, gives private lessons to fathead students. With these words becomes clear the origin of the nickname “the Master”. Anyway the day of the presumed rape Berto was not even in Italy, but in Thailand. The date of the rape is changed of a week but again this time things go wrong: in the presumed night of the rape Elisabetta suffers no harm but is out with her boyfriend. The proof is a fine he gets, while driving with her, because he didn’t respect the red light.

Very soon the second accuse arrives: Dimitri put a three years child, Federico, in a coffin with the corpse of a woman, Margherita, after raping him together with the others. But who is Federico? Federico is a child starting to show strange behaviours: he accepts only milk and no solid food, he doesn’t want to be changed the napkin, he gets angry if the father takes care of him, he awakes frightened in the midst of the night, he shows anxiety and becomes uncontrollable when the mother, psychologist, goes out to work. Federico begins a therapy and in that period he remains at home with the baby sitter, a lively fourteenth cousin of Federico. He doesn’t improve, meanwhile a small sister arrives. The baby sitter is sent away and later on will be accused of having brought the child (Dimitri’s prey) in the sect. As Federico’s parents are convinced that the child is influenced or possessed by the devil, they entrust to a local exorcist. Federico is exorcized and, later on, he will be followed also by another priest who’s already following Elisabetta.

Meanwhile the number of the inquired people rise to nine: among them also Efrem Del Gatto (roman satanist), the marquis Bevilacqua and Federico’s baby sitter, all finally proved completely uninvolved in the facts. The "poor" Efrem Del Gatto will be involved once again even after the discharge of Dimitri and the others, in a subsequent inquiry of 1999, when he was already dead since three years for a heartache. But let’s return to the inquiries.

Antonella Beccaria, in her book continues like that: "So, summing up, Federico has strange behaviours and hence violences are desumed, Elisabetta confirms them saying she personally participated to rituals, and the words of the girl are supported by the exorcist, father Clemente Leonardi. Apart from the words of the witnesses, no shadow of any proof".

Anyway the press goes on amplifying the panic and increasing the target: thanks to the “Resto del Carlino” also the "Satan’s Children Corporation" is born: the news of ritual and satanic groups operating under the name of Dimitri now come from any corner of Italy: Pompei, La Spezia, Roma, Sondrio etc. "The Satan’s Children will be charged of ritual sacrifices, bloody murders consumed together with men above suspicion inside their luxury houses. The victims would be one immigrant, rom children and maybe also a homeless. Unfortunately not so much a corpse is found to prove these tales". But it’s easy to find a reason for the lack of corpses: they’ve been burned and, to support such thesis, the "notorius" gas ring found in Dimitri’s house is supposed to have been used.

The last step towards the thesis of the big conspiracy is done: there is a "third level". Personalities and high society persons would be involved in the satanic context. One first example of these presumed untouchable and influential persons is the unlucky Ippolito Bevilacqua Ariosti, a marquis from Bologna, who "learns, in November 1996, about his involvement in the second inquiry on the Satan’s Children from the “Resto del Carlino”. So he realizes to be inquired for murder and his house is rummaged. Only a black duffel is founded which could be a proof of satanism. Indeed it was a duffel used only by the manservant to cover a piano. I twill be again from the same newspaper that the marquis will discover, in August 1998, the nonsuiting of the branch of the inquiry concerning him. "Really has the inquiry concerning me been nonsuited? You give me good news, I didn’t know it yet. Even if I imagined it, given the outcome of the first process – the marquis himself will comment ".

But let’s go back to the "third level". I well remember that in those years I often heard speaking of the existence of a "third level" in anticult contexts and inside associations helping victims. They told me that satanism in Italy and in the world was headed by influential and above suspicion people, all linked to each other and very powerful.

As Antonella Beccarla says: "Said otherwise, Dimitri and his fellows would be too much bum to be more than simple mercenaries of the occult, in the end they would operate with the only aim of selling human flesh, better if children’s. At this point, the fear of the paedophile is tangible...".

I was frightened by the idea of a third level more important than Dimitri and his group: if they were so criminal, what could be done by those heading the pyramid? What nobody could explain me was why they passed from a first level (that of Dimitri and fellows) to a third level skipping the second (who was at this second level?).

I never got it until I discovered a third level never existed. This thing and many more I would have discovered later on, when I began to study and not to rely "in toto" on second hand information. The end of the Dimitri case is exemplar: it renders a bit faith in justice. He’s acquitted the first time on 20th June 1997. The Judging Committee reads its decision acquitting the accused ones from all the “satanic” accuses “because the fact didn’t happen”. "The 2000 is the year of the second degree acquittal of Marco Dimitri: the 25th of January, indeed, the Court of Appeal confirms the first degree decision of two years and a half before closing definitively the judicial chapter of the Satan’s children without going to the Supreme Court".

In the new decision, completely similar to that of the judge Sergio Cornia, it’s stated once again the innocence of Dimitri, Bonora, Luongo and the other accused. It’s confirmed also the untrustworthyness of the super-witness Elisabetta Dozza while, as far as little Federico is regarded, it’s repeated that maybe the child suffered some kind of violence, but more probably he was imposed the silence after seeing the cousin baby sitter having sexual relationships with her boyfriend. The president of the Satan’s children got one hundred thousand euros compensation for undue jailing, money come out from the State cash, that is from our pockets.

After more than ten years what has happened to the Satan’s children? Antonella Beccaria says that "Now the Satan’s children comprise more or less 1200 fellows. But the activists aren’t more than twenty. Much of the associates subscribe on internet and don’t even pay the association fee, fifty euros per year. Meanwhile the website has grown, collecting documents on pagan satanism and on exoteric culture."

So, the story created much pain, signed the life of innocent persons on both sides but it has not cancelled Dimitri and the Satan’s children from the face of earth, as someone wished. The opposite: it gave them more visibility. It didn’t prove useful neither to prevent further crimes in other satanic group of greater criminal weight like the Satan’s Beasts, in which case the police intervened when unfortunately they already had made victims.

I don’t know which has been the destiny of the super-witness and her family nor that of Federico and his family: I hope that they solved their problems, but if this has happened it was certainly not due to the scandal and the witch hunt created by persons (I insist to believe it) in good faith doing only what they thought to be their duty. Anyway it would be nice if the story of Dimitri would have taught us something, especially to us committed in giving help, advice and trustful information to families worried about their relatives belonging to some “strange” religious group.

In his graduation thesis, Simone Zanin quotes Jenkins (1992), who, "at the end of his study on moral panic in late 80’s and first 90’s England, thinks that the social alarm about “women” and “children” will keep on growing, mainly due to the irreversible change path of the family in its traditional sense and the feeling of awkwardness link to this social process" and another researcher, Stanley Cohen (1980), who "asks at the end of a famous book: who will be the next one?".

I would change his question to the plural: who will be the next ones? After Dimitri we got further "demons" and "witches" accused and there are still many other put today on the mediatic gallows. We cannot illude ourselves: there will always be some because, as Lucarelli says in the preface to Antonella Beccaria’s book:

"This books makes us reflect also on this morbid and deviating charm of evil. On that anxious excitement that make us run to the newspapers anytime we read that word, satanic, just as if we were crazily wishful to see realized our worst fears, instead of asking ourselves what exactly does it mean that word, on what is it practically based the right to evoke it, and pretending accuracy and professionalism from those using it. And then, maybe, extending this care to many other words equally abused by the chronicle and by our fancy".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this article are unprofessional translations of those included in the italian website www.dimarzio.it.

Overcoming the bondage of revictimization

2008-11-16T22:46:00.008+01:00

Overcoming the bondage of revictimization:

a rational/empirical defense of thought reform

In Response to "Overcoming the Bondage of Victimization", By Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1998

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

In 1994 Christian counter-cult researchers Robert and Gretchen Passantino published a major article in Cornerstone magazine attempting to debunk the theory of cult mind-control.* Beginning with a rundown of several alleged "assumptions of mind-control" and proceeding to numerous objections to mind-control, the authors sought to demonstrate what they consider to be the faulty basis of the mind-control model of cult recruitment and influence, as well as the incompatibility of the mind-control model with Christian theology. The present article shows that the Passantinos’ assertions are incorrect and misguided. Specifically, this article demonstrates that mind-control is more than cult conversion; that, while mind-control does not rob people of moral responsibility, it mitigates it; and that there is no conflict between biblical theology and the reality of mind-control. We contend that theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults. Cults distort one’s perceptions of both natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. Since the former is supposed to reveal the latter, as in the Christian tradition, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to cultists.

* "Mind-control" is used with a hyphen in this article to be consistent with the Passantinos’ many quotes.

Long-time cult researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino criticize the notion that through the use of powerful and sophisticated thought-reform techniques, some cult conversions drastically and negatively alter some
Individuals’ lives (Passantino & Passantino, 1994). The Passantinos assert that thought reform is an erroneous theory, even though most exit counselors and countless professionals across disciplines use it to explain the changes seen in cult members. The purpose of the article by the Passantinos is, they say, to "look behind the assumptions of the mind-control model and uncover the startling reality that cult mind-control is, at best, a distorted misnomer for cult conversion that robs individuals of personal moral responsibility" (p. 31). They go on to say, "While mind-control model advocates rightly point out that cults often practice deception, emotional manipulation, and other unsavory recruitment tactics, we believe a critical, well-reasoned examination of the evidence disproves the cult mind-control model and instead affirms the importance of the informed, biblically based religious commitment" (pp. 31-32).

The Passantinos are well known and respected evangelical writers. Consequently, their critique, which is rife with errors and misinterpretations, disturbs us very much and calls for a detailed rebuttal. In this article, we will show that the Passantinos' assertions are incorrect and misguided. We will demonstrate that (1) use of mind-control, or thought reform, brings about a special variety of conversion; (2) having been under the influence of a thought-reform program, mind-control mitigates an individual’s moral responsibility, although it does not remove it entirely; and (3) there is no conflict between biblical theology and the reality of mind-control.¹ For us, theological considerations inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological destruction caused by cults, although others hold similar positions without considering theological issues. Cults distort one's perceptions both of natural reality (sociological and psychological) and spiritual reality. In the Christian tradition, the former is supposed to reveal the latter; therefore, those interested in spiritual issues must address both sides in order to minister adequately to former cult members.

The Passantinos misstate the fundamental concepts of mind-control, then imply that many countercult workers do not support the mind-control theory, and finally argue that the mind-control concept is counter to or incompatible with biblical Christianity. Whether or not all, most, or only a few countercult workers support a mind-control model is irrelevant to our critique of the Passantinos' misrepresentations. Certainly, experience with models of psychotherapy has shown that different models can be applied with equal effectiveness to similar situations. Therefore, there is room for disagreement about which theoretical model is most internally consistent, parsimonious, and consistent with empirical data. We do not claim that current mind-control models are the end-all and be-all of countercult thinking. Indeed, we believe that this field needs newer theoretical models that are more amenable to empirical testing. We are not so much defending the mind-control model as we are refuting the Passantinos' misleading interpretation of that model. If the model is to be criticized, let it be criticized for what it really says, not for misrepresentations of what it says. We use the term "mind-control," despite its sometimes being used in a sensationalized way, because we believe it expresses in simple language what this dispute is about, namely, the control (which doesn’t necessarily mean "total control") of the mind by forces outside that mind.

Exit Counseling and Postcult Treatment

The Passantinos' article begins with a description of a concerned parent seeking help. The authors cite former Unificationist and current exit counselor Steve Hassan as stating that the average fee for exit counseling is $3,000 plus expenses for about four days of exit counseling. That is probably not too far off the mark. In spite of the authors' insinuation that exit counselors make good money, few have a gross annual income of more than $35,000. Because of the nature of their work, exit counselors must be on call virtually 24 hours a day, like firemen and paramedics. The $3,000 to $4,000 is not much, given that an average of one case a month is about all that is possible–many exit counselors do not even do that many cases. Many counselors spend much time in research and preparation, and they must be willing to go where circumstances demand. Considering the work involved in a thorough exit counseling, we believe that the Passantinos' reaction to exit counselors' fees is unwarranted.

The Passantinos' implied criticism of the fees for postcult residential treatment demonstrates their complete ignorance of the overhead and staffing costs necessary to maintain a center such as the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center, where we work. If Wellspring were making as much money as the Passantinos insinuate, it wouldn't have a history of financial crises, as did all other postcult rehabilitation centers, of which Wellspring is the only survivor. Wellspring's weekly fee for room, board, and a highly individualized treatment program (we rarely have more than three clients at one time) is lower than that of some specialized psychiatric inpatient facilities.

The Passantinos write, "Of course, there were no guarantees: some ex-cultists needed additional in-patient counseling at a special 'recovery center'" (p. 31). This statement implies that exit counseling is unreliable. It also ignores the reality of postcult psychological distress that calls for professional treatment. Research (Martin, Langone, Dole, & Wiltrout, 1992) on the psychological state of cult members before and after exit counseling demonstrates that, despite the effectiveness of exit counseling in helping cult members make a decision to leave their cults, exit counseling does not usually relieve the psychological distress. This is not surprising because exit counseling is an educational intervention designed to help clients reevaluate their group involvement, not to "recover" from it. Consequently, a client's attending a residential treatment center after exit counseling reflects not on the exit counseling's ineffectiveness, as the Passantinos imply, but on the psychological needs of the client due to the aftereffects of cult involvement. Recommending postcult counseling may be considered an ethical obligation of exit counselors, not a sign of their inadequacy. Moreover, only a small percentage of exit-counseled clients actually seek out residential postcult treatment.

All-or-Nothing Fallacy

In their book Witch Hunt, under the heading "It's Not Always Either/Or," the Passantinos state: "Another problem Christians often have in discerning between good and bad is the tendency to miss some of the options" (Passantino & Passantino, 1991, p.113). Remarkably, the article that concerns us relies on the all-or-nothing fallacy criticized by the Passantinos. They suggest, for example, that all who subscribe to a mind-control model believe that every cult member is completely under mind-control, and totally and always unable to think for himself or herself.

No responsible researcher or practitioner subscribes to the mind-control model described by the Passantinos. In Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Robert J. Lifton wrote:

Behind this web of semantic...confusion [regarding the definition of thought reform] lies an image of "brainwashing" as an all-powerful, irresistible, unfathomable, and magical method of achieving total control over the human mind. It is of course none of these things, and this loose usage makes the word a rallying point for fear, resentment, urges toward submission, justification for failure, irresponsible accusation, and for a wide gamut of emotional extremism (1961, p. 4).

In Cults in Our Midst, Margaret Singer and Janja Lalich write:

Thankfully, these [thought reform] programs do not change people permanently. Nor are they 100 percent effective. Cults are not all alike, thought reform programs are not all alike, and not everyone exposed to specific intense influence processes succumbs and follows the group. Some cults try to defend themselves by saying, in effect, "See, not everyone joins or stays, so we must not be using brainwashing techniques." Many recruits do succumb, however, and the better organized the influence processes used, the more people will succumb (1995, p. 61).

In an essay entitled "Persuasive Techniques in Religious Cults," Dr. Louis J. West wrote:

The persuasive techniques used by totalist cults to bind and exploit the members, while not magical or infallible, are sufficiently powerful and effective to assure the recruitment of a significant percentage of those approached, and the retention of a significant percentage of those enlisted. (1989, p.188).

The Passantinos’ Assumptions of Mind-Control

In a section headed, "Assumptions of Mind-control," the Passantinos contrast biblical apologetics with psychological techniques. The authors suggest that postcult recovery should involve conversion, but that the secular mind-control model concerns itself only with the recovery of precult personality. These two notions, the biblical and the secular, cannot be reconciled, according to the Passantinos. They assert that mind-control adherents do away with theological concerns: "Biblical analysis and evangelism of the cults has been overshadowed by allegedly 'value neutral' social science descriptions and therapy-oriented counseling" (p. 32). This all-or-nothing dichotomy is not characteristic of the program we offer at Wellspring, nor that of many others.

The Passantinos list, summarize, and critique eight categories that they say represent "the principal assumptions of the cult mind-control model" (p. 32). Before addressing the details of their critique, we want to state that the Passantinos' eight-assumption model is inaccurate in so many respects as to be useless as a summary of mind-control models, although aspects of their summary are valid. Our critique will attempt to show what is false and what is correct in their analysis.

Assumption One

"Cults’ ability to control the mind supersedes that of the best military 'brainwashers'" (p. 32). In a footnote, the Passantinos mention two factors offered by proponents of the mind-control theory to account for cults' success: "(1) greater levels of sophistication, technology, and psychological knowledge; and (2) the addition of hypnosis techniques to the practice" (p. 40). Not mentioned, however, is one factor we believe is perhaps more significant than either of these two¾ namely, that in military brainwashing the subjects were unwilling participants, and, in fact, antagonists of the brainwashers (at least in the most well-known instance of the brainwashing of Korean War POWs); whereas in cultic mind-control, generally the subjects are favorably disposed toward the cult members and, indeed, toward the teachings with which they are being indoctrinated. This factor must not be ignored or minimized. Moreover, the indoctrination of cult members is so subtle and deceptive that they often do not even realize they are objects of persuasion, unlike POWs who were painfully aware of their captors' desire to change them. So, it really is not at all surprising that cultic mind-control is more successful than the "brainwashing" inflicted on POWs. We will elaborate on this point when we criticize the Passantinos' objection to the "brainwashing connection."

Assumption Two

"Cult recruits become unable to think or make decisions for themselves" (p. 32). This is another example of all-or-nothing thinking, which the Passantinos have criticized in other works. We reject the implied assertion that we and our colleagues in this field accept this statement as it is written. We are well aware that many cult members do retain the ability to think for themselves in many areas of life, even in matters religious. We have always recognized that there are many degrees of mind-control, depending on numerous factors, including, but not limited to (1) the type and severity of any precult spiritual or psychological problems; (2) the degree of divergence of the cult's teachings and practices from the cult member's prior religious affiliation; (3) the intensity of the cultic indoctrination; (4) the degree to which the cult severs the cult member from his or her previous connections (family, friends, activities, etc.); and (5) the kind and degree of any corrective or disciplinary measures exercised by the cult on members who step out of line.

Having said this, we hasten to add that during the 12 years of Wellspring's operation we have worked with many ex-cult members who did have very serious difficulty thinking for themselves and making decisions. Their problems cannot be glibly dismissed as "precult problems" that presumably had nothing to do with the cultic experience. One girl who came to Wellspring from a well-known "shepherding movement" would sit at the dinner table and wait until she received permission to eat any item on her plate before she would do so.

Assumption Three

"Cult recruits assume 'cult' personalities and subsume their core personalities" (p. 32). This statement conforms to clinical experience. For example, most ex-cult members who come to Wellspring recognize this very thing about themselves. They report that while they were in the cult they became more aggressive or more passive, more self-assured or more confused, more judgmental of others or more arrogant. Some have told us that they lost touch with their own feelings and became emotionally numb, while putting on a happy front when with parents or noncult friends. We have seen these things ourselves in ex-cultists, and we have witnessed the dramatic changes when these individuals reverted to their normal, precult selves. But again, we would acknowledge degrees of this "personality replacement." Not every cult member changes to the same degree; and, in fact, some might already have a personality that meshes with the cult, and so they will not change much, if at all. The assumption the Passantinos uphold for ridicule is, in our opinion, generally valid, unless it is interpreted in an all-or-nothing way.

Assumption Four

"Cultists cannot decide to leave their cults" (p. 32). We do not know anyone who would make such a blanket statement. It is manifestly contradicted by the hundreds, if not thousands, of former cult members who have left their cults of their own volition. What we would assert, however, is that many cult members find it difficult to leave the cult, even when they may want to. Often this is due to fear of the threatened consequences of leaving (e.g., forsaking God, being condemned to hell, suffering divine wrath in the form of accidents or disease). Even the thought, "What if the cult leader really is a prophet of God or the Messiah?" can hold a member in a cult long after the bloom has faded. One female member of the Branch Davidians being interviewed for an Australian television broadcast was asked, "Do you believe David Koresh is the Messiah?" Her response as she smiled up at the camera: "I hope so." She was one who stayed and perished in the final conflagration.

Assumption Five

The Passantinos contend that those who hold the mind-control model believe that "successful intervention must break the mind-control, find the core personality, and return the individual to his/her pre-cult status" (p. 32). We would qualify this assertion by acknowledging that even the most abusive organizations have some redeeming qualities—few are all bad. In cults it is possible, for example, to learn the value of giving oneself to a cause, to learn the benefits of hard work, of getting along with others in a working environment, and so on. Further, we would emphasize that if the cult in question is a Bible-based organization on the order of the "shepherding" movement, or what we refer to as a TACO (a totalist aberrant Christian organization), which teaches orthodox biblical doctrine while committing emotional, spiritual, and behavioral abuses, then clearly not everything of the cult needs to be stripped away. Whatever was accurate, orthodox, and healthy can remain, while the inaccurate, aberrational, and unhealthy must be excised. Probably no cult (except some satanic cults) is all bad; therefore one of the most important, and difficult, tasks of the counselor is helping the ex-member winnow out the bad from the good.

Assumption Six

"Psychology and sociology are used to explain cult recruitment, membership, and disaffection" (p. 32). Another blanket statement, this is worded so as to exclude other disciplines as sources for explanations, specifically theology. While many secular proponents of the mind-control model might reject the role of theology in seeking such explanations, we do not, nor do other evangelical proponents of the mind-control model with whom we are familiar. Later in the article the Passantinos (p. 32) quote from an official description in an article in Wellspring’s newsletter entitled, "Wellspring's Approach to Cult Rehab":

Paul Martin asserts that cult mind-control renders its victims virtually unresponsible for their actions or beliefs: "The process whereby he or she was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful force over which he or she had little or no control and therefore they need not feel either guilt or shame because of their experience" (Wellspring Messenger, 4(5), p.1. November/December 1993).

While the Wellspring statement might be slightly overstated, the Passantinos overstate it further in their summary. By itself, the Wellspring statement could be broadly interpreted, as the Passantinos have chosen to do. However, the original context is concerned specifically with joining a cult.² It was not a blanket statement concerning anything and everything cult members may have done after they joined. Regardless, our experience in treating more than 400 former cultists and interviewing hundreds more indicates that most people who join cults think they're joining a good group, a moral group, a healthy group. But this is largely because they have not been afforded full information about the group they are joining. We would agree that those who join cults are "guilty" of not asking all the right questions, of not examining the cult’s claims thoroughly enough against the records of history and Scripture, of not adequately applying the rules of logic to the group’s teachings and explanations, and of not having an adequate knowledge of coercive persuasion techniques. In other words, cult recruits are "guilty" of allowing themselves to be deceived. But is that a sin? Should we rebuke the victim of a con artist for allowing himself to be victimized? Do we blame the battered wife for falling in love with and marrying a batterer?

We feel it is crucial to distinguish between true guilt and false guilt. Cult members are constantly made to feel guilty for actions and thoughts which neither society nor the Bible would consider sinful. In such cases, the guilt is false and one needs to understand and accept that and move beyond it. (The Passantinos imply as much when they refer later to "unscriptural feelings of guilt" [p. 33].) Where truly sinful, immoral, or illegal actions have been committed, these actions need to be acknowledged and owned by the perpetrators. We insist, however, that to the extent that such actions are committed while under the influence of mind-control techniques, or a thought-reform program, the perpetrator must be held less culpable.

Under mind-control a man may be persuaded to believe or do things that would have normally violated his conscience. His conscience may tell him that an action or belief is wrong, but what the cult leader has persuaded him of has so strongly influenced him that it may override his conscience. He may be led to believe that the promptings of his conscience are really of his "lower nature," "of the flesh," and that the mission of the group is of a "higher purpose," that the thoughts of his conscience are doubts that show lack of faith or signs of rebellion. Thus, he may still have a conscience, but through the powerful influence of the group he has reinterpreted it, or reframed his moral outlook.

The Passantinos seem unable to conceive of noncoercive mind-control that does allow for some measure of "free will." No one drags people into a cult. They do join freely most of the time. When they don't, it's the rare exception rather than the rule. The point here is not whether these people are acting as free, volitional, rational beings. The point is they don't join a cult—that is, they don't see the group as a cult. They don't see the fine print because in most cases, it is kept from them. The prevalence of such perceptual and judgmental errors in all areas of life is why we have laws regarding defective products, "truth in advertising," and fraud. It is also why for centuries the law has recognized the concept of undue influence. The same principles hold here.

The Passantinos do not seem to realize that human beings operate by certain laws of human behavior. Consider the case of a Christian college student who goes out and buys a used car, considering herself to be very responsible. Later, she finds out that the car is not as "perfect" as the salesman told her it was. In fact, it throws a rod on her way to work. She goes back to try to have the car fixed, but the salesman informs her that the warranty is also not exactly what he told her when she bought the car. Now, the unfortunate girl is left with a lemon on her hands. The church would not castigate her as having some sort of spiritual problem because of this plight, would it?

If the same girl would go out and start attending a Bible study that later turned out to be a Way "twig," then the Passantinos would put a spiritual twist on it, impugning her motives or her spiritual state for leading her into a "heretical" Bible study group. But if she buys a car that breaks down, the Passantinos would, we suspect, hold her innocent. There seems to be a double standard here.

One other point regarding the Wellspring statement quoted above by the Passantinos: by broadly interpreting the statement, they have misrepresented us. The senior author of this article [PRM] testified in the criminal case of a cult member who participated in the killing of five people³. Martin and his colleagues in this case did not argue that the cult member was innocent and need not feel guilt or shame. They argued that the young man was guilty. The defendant was Danny Kraft, Jr., who had been a member of a small cult led by Jeffrey Lundgren, who killed a family of five in Kirtland, Ohio.⁴ Nevertheless, in this case the defendant's attorney maintained that although Mr. Kraft was guilty, there were mitigating circumstances¾ namely, that Kraft was under the influence of Lundgren through a process of mind-control. Therefore, Kraft was not acting entirely as a free, moral agent because he was suffering from a mental disorder. In other words, Kraft was made to believe something that was not true, namely, that Lundgren was the prophet of God, and, thus, whatever he said was divinely inspired. The court unequivocally concurred that the techniques used by Lundgren were those of mind-control. The court agreed that Kraft did indeed suffer a dissociative disorder, identified by the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as scientific. Kraft was sentenced to many years in prison, but his sentence was lighter than it would have been had mind-control not been seen as a mitigating circumstance.

The Passantinos attempt (p. 33) to strengthen their argument by quoting Hassan:

Hassan recognizes that the cult mind-control model (which he has adopted) is incompatible with the traditional philosophical and Christian view of man as a responsible moral agent: "First of all, accepting that unethical mind-control can affect anybody challenges the age-old philosophical notion (the one on which our current laws are based) that man is a rational being, responsible for, and in control of, his every action. Such a world view does not allow for any concept of mind-control" (Hassan, 1988).

The problem here is that Hassan is simply wrong, and so is the Passantinos' attempt to attribute Hassan's error to all advocates of the thought-reform model. First, our current laws do recognize diminished capacity in the commission of crime as exculpatory, as it recognizes undue influence in the civil arena. Second, the biblical worldview also recognizes exculpation by reason of diminished capacity due to mental underdevelopment (Dt. 1:39); lack of knowledge (Luke 12:36-48) or demonization (Mt. 8:28-34; Ac. 16:16-18⁵). So, neither Western, secular philosophy nor Judeo-Christian doctrine views man as always fully rational and responsible for his actions. In addition, the apostle Paul writes, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?" (Gal. 3:1, New American Standard Bible). Translated, the word "bewitched," baskaino, means "bewitch, as with the 'evil eye'" (Bauer, Arndt, & Gingrich, 1979, p. 137) and "to bring evil on one by feigned praise or an evil eye, to charm, bewitch one, hence, of those who lead away others into error by wicked arts." (Thayer, 1972, p.98). It is doubtful that in the Galatians reference Paul is expressing belief that the Christians actually had the "evil eye" directed at them. However, in conjunction with the word "foolish" (anoetos = not thinking or mindless), it seems evident that Paul recognizes that the Galatians had been manipulated to a point where they were no longer thinking clearly. Thus, the concept of mind-control may apply to the situation described by Paul, or at least to quantitative extensions of the Galatians' problem.

Assumptions Seven and Eight

We accept assumptions seven and eight as written, but reject what the Passantinos infer from these assumptions: "7. Religious conversion and commitment may be termed mind-control if it meets certain psychological and sociological criteria, regardless of its doctrinal or theological standards"; and "8. The psychological and sociological standards, which define mind-control, are not absolute, but fall in a relative, subjective continuum from 'acceptable' social and/or religious affiliation to 'unacceptable'" (p. 32).

The Passantinos conclude this section by saying, "According to most cult mind-control model advocates, no one is immune to the right mind-control tactics used at the right time. Anyone is susceptible" (p. 32). After quoting Hassan, the authors quote from Martin’s book, Cult-Proofing Your Kids: "But the truth of the matter is, virtually anyone can get involved in a cult under the right circumstances... Regardless of one's spiritual or psychological health, whether one is weak or strong, cultic involvement can happen to anyone" (Martin, 1993, pp. 21, 179).

Claiming to state the views of mind-control model proponents, the Passantinos write, "Cult mind-control must be distinguished from 'mere' deception, influence, or persuasion. A main distinguishing characteristic at the core of mind-control is the idea that the individual becomes unable to make autonomous personal choices, not simply that his or her choices have been predicated on something false" (p. 32).

This paragraph again reveals the authors' fundamental misunder-standing of the model as propounded by most of those who hold it. Mind-control advocates do not deny that cult members make choices; rather, the advocates assert that these choices result from a systematic, intense, and prolonged program of "deception, influence, [and] persuasion." Mind-control is not something qualitatively different from deception, influence, and persuasion because it subsumes all of these. It is an extension of these processes and others (e.g., lack of information, fear of considering certain choices, and perceptual narrowing due to dissociative processes such as prolonged singing, chanting, tongue speaking, meditating, listening to charismatic speakers, etc.). This is a crucial point. It is not either deception or mind-control. Mind-control involves deception and other processes that affect making choices—that is, the cult member, and on occasion even the recruit, is gradually manipulated to the point where other options are no longer considered viable.

Objection: The Brainwashing Connection

In a section entitled "Objection: The Brainwashing Connection," the Passantinos allege that mind-control advocates demonstrate a "contradictory embracing and rejecting of the brainwashing connection" (p. 33). According to the Passantinos, mind-control advocates say that the early methods of mind-control were ineffective compared to later methods, which require less coercion and employ techniques such as hypnosis. The Passantinos write:

"However, it stretches one's credulity to believe that what highly trained and technologically supported CIA, Russian, Korean, and Chinese experts could not accomplish under extremes of mental, emotional, and physical abuse, self-styled modern messiahs like David Koresh (high school dropout), Charles Manson (grade school dropout), and Hare Krishna founder Prabhupada (self-educated) accomplished on a daily basis and on a massive scale with control methods measurably inferior to those of POW camp torturers." (p. 33).

However, the Passantinos' quotation from Hassan two paragraphs earlier (p. 33) responds to this objection. Hassan points out that "mind-control… is more subtle and sophisticated. Its perpetrators are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much less defensive. He unwittingly participates by cooperating with his controllers and giving them private information that he does not know will be used against him. The new belief system is internalized into a new identity structure" (Hassan, 1988, pp. 55, 56).

The subtlety of mind-control is the key to its effectiveness, and "love bombing" is one key to its subtlety; the overwhelming "friendliness" of the cult recruiter tends to disengage the potential recruit's defenses, catching him off guard, and luring him into the net. Despite the ridicule expressed by the Passantinos and others, the fact is that some contemporary cults are indeed able to control members more effectively than did the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

If those who heap ridicule on this assertion studied the early "brainwashing" literature more closely they might understand that their criticism is unfounded because it is based on the false assumption that early instances of brainwashing depended on physical coercion. On the contrary, much of the early brainwashing literature concerned situations involving civilians. Chen (1960), for example, amply documents that half a million Chinese Christians signed pledges of allegiance to Mao. (Was it mere coincidence that so many "weak-willed" Christians happened to live in China at that time?) Lifton's best-known research dealt with the effects of thought reform practiced in Chinese Communist revolutionary colleges (Lifton, 1961). There was no physical restraint or confinement in those environments. There was very little overt coercion, and yet there was massive thought reform. Schein and his colleagues also found that the Communists effectively used thought reform without using physical restraint or coercion (Schein, Schneir, & Barker, 1961). In fact, Segal (1957) demonstrated that there was an inverse correlation between threat and physical abuse and the degree of compliance on the part of American POWs in Korea. Testifying before a congressional panel, he stated that "70 percent of all the repatriated Army PW's [sic] made at least one contribution to the enemy's propaganda effort (p.89)."

The Passantinos, Bromley and Shupe, and others have misunderstood the mind-control model in a fundamental and vital way. Bromley and Shupe, for example, ridicule what they describe as claims that "such rapid transformation can routinely be accomplished by neophytes against an individual's will" (Bromley and Shupe, 1989, pp. 325, 326). But this is a patently false representation of mind-control models, even some of the less sophisticated models. The transformation that cults bring about is not against an individual's will. He no longer sees things as he once did, he does not have adequate information to make an informed choice, and he has been manipulated emotionally to make the choice presented to him by the cult. The cult recruit is brought to the point where he either gives up his own will in order to be taught and directed by someone (the cult leader) who knows better than he, or he "wills" what the leader wants because the member's perceptions and judgments have been changed as a result of a series of manipulations. As former Children of God member Rick Seelhoff said in "Thy Will Be Done" (Moore, 1980). "I wanted to put myself over onto someone that knew better than I did... I willed to not will."

The authors dismiss hypnosis as a factor in cult involvement in toto. They miss an important point in their own references. In their notes (p. 40, n., 5) the Passantinos quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Altogether then hypnosis should not be considered as a technique for achieving supernormal performance or control. Rather it is a collaborative enterprise in which the inner experience of the subject can be dramatically altered (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, and Vol. 9).

The dramatic alteration of inner experience is precisely what cults hope to effect by their efforts. A predictable internal experience can be induced on willing participants, and then cosmic, supernatural, or spiritual significance can be ascribed to it. Thus, what is actually a physiological process takes on a cosmic perspective. This is essentially what Lifton called "mystical manipulation."

We further suggest that mystical manipulation is a pathway to the other seven criteria listed by Lifton. Appealing to the initial event of dramatically altered "inner experience" can then enhance control. Cult recruiters, for example, tell their prospective converts to ask God for a "sign" as to whether their movement is the true path to enlightenment or their church the true church. Those who see the "divine light" or receive the "burning in the bosom" as a result of their earnest prayer easily interpret it as the sought-for "sign." But they are not aware of how their internal experiences have been manipulated by outside events.

Objection: The Deterministic Fault

The Passantinos' false argument that the concept of mind-control is counter to biblical Christianity has been addressed earlier, but we believe their argument deserves additional discussion.

Part of the marvelous power of the human mind is its ability to analyze information and make value judgments about that information. However, as with electronic "minds" (computers), the human mind’s conclusions are only as good as the information it receives. When individuals receive erroneous information about a subject in the absence of correct information about that same subject, they will make erroneous judgments.

Persons can also discount their own knowledge and abilities in favor of other persons believed to be more competent. In such cases, individuals will tend to reject conflicting data, not because it is illogical or fails to correlate with previous experience, but because it does not line up with the external "mind" they have "freely decided" to trust (what philosophers call "argument from authority"). If the authority is incorrect, these individuals once again base their decisions on false information and make incorrect judgments.

In both of these situations, one could argue that these individuals’ freedom has been compromised. They may be free to decide, but how meaningful is that freedom when the information on which they base their decision is incorrect, or even deliberately falsified by someone seeking to control them? Is the false information base—especially when it is deliberately concocted—a mitigating circumstance in evaluating moral responsibility? Would Adam and Eve have been as guilty for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if God had never told them to avoid that tree? And would they have been guiltier if there had been no tempter, if they had merely said to God, "You're not telling me what to do!"? The Passantinos do not seem to take such nuances into account when evaluating the moral responsibility of cultists, especially with regard to the mind-control model.

The Passantinos state that "many cults have made deceptive claims, used faulty logic, misrepresented their beliefs, burdened their followers with unscriptural feelings of guilt, and sought to bring people into financial or moral compromise to unethical demands. Yet it does not necessarily or automatically follow that these pressures, practices, or demands remove an individual's personal responsibility for his or her actions" (p. 33). The key word in this statement is "remove," an all-or-nothing word: either something is removed or it is not. The more appropriate word would be "mitigate." Deception, group pressure, and so on may not remove all personal responsibility; but they do diminish it. Choices that "have been predicated on something false" (p. 32) are not truly free choices. The outcome is predetermined by the skill of the information provider, not the ethical or even rational faculties of the agent making the "choice." What sense can be made of "free agency" when choices are based on false data? If "free choices" result in agents’ being cut off from any further source of information for a lifetime, are the agents free in any meaningful sense? Further, in what sense can agents make a free choice to return to a life in which they will continue to be deceived? Might the agents’ capacity to make informed choices (their minds and wills) be under the control of those who control the information? If agents respond to personal experience or outside data on the basis of false information about the consequences of certain actions, are they making free choices when they reject true data on the basis of lies? In what sense are such persons truly responsible for their decisions?

We are reminded of several biblical passages. While hanging on the cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Jesus also said, "That slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few" (Luke 12:47-48a, New American Standard Bible; see also Mt. 11:20-24). In other words, the moral responsibility taught in the Scriptures is based on how much one knows. If one has been deceived, if one has been pressured, if one has been denied access to information, or if the truth has been made to seem like a lie, then one is either held completely guiltless or regarded as only partly culpable. We have yet to meet one person in 12 years of working in this field full-time who says, "I knew what I was doing; I knew I was joining a cult. I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway."

That is exactly what the Passantinos are attempting to force the ex-cult member to admit: "I knew it was wrong." But if the ex-cult member denies that he knew it was wrong, the Passantinos are faced with the unfortunate dilemma of saying, "Either you are lying or you're deceived." It is difficult to accuse tens of thousands of cult members from hundreds, if not thousands, of groups of lying. So, the Passantinos must conclude that at least some of these ex-members were deceived. Acknowledging the diminished, though not nullified, moral responsibility of these ex-members would be consistent with common sense and Scripture. However, in many cases the deceit is so cleverly contrived and engineered that only God himself could see the intrigue. But it seems that the Passantinos are so single-minded in their desire to discredit the mind-control model that they turn it into a vulnerable all-or-nothing strawman that compels them to advocate an all-or-nothing view of human culpability, at least with regard to cults. In our view, their position is unbiblical and unkind.

The Passantinos' position, by way of extrapolation, would hold, as do some New Age trainings, every battered wife responsible for ending up married to an abusive husband. To be consistent, the Passantinos would have to argue that these women knew what they were getting into. The senior author [PRM] of this article has explained the dynamics of thought reform to hundreds of former cult members and asked them, "Did you know that this was what your group was doing when you decided to join?" The ex-members have all answered, "No." They are then asked, "Would you have joined if you knew they practiced thought reform?" Again their answers were all "No."

The Passantinos' assertion that there is no diminished responsibility without the gun-at-the-head, strawman view of mind-control that they advance runs counter to biblical and legal traditions of fraud. Lack of knowledge has, throughout the history of law, been used to reduce a person's culpability, and the same is true in the case of cultic deception and mind-control. It seems to us that the Passantinos have confused bearing responsibility with facing consequences. An investor who is conned into committing resources to a fraudulent enterprise must face the consequence that those resources may never be recovered. The investor is in every sense a victim of the con, even if in hindsight one can identify events or choices that may have adumbrated the coming con. It is, however, not the investor but the con artist who is morally and legally responsible for the investor's flawed decision.

In the current legal climate, a con artist who cheats investors out of money faces prison, fines, and/or court-ordered restitution; yet, a cult leader who precipitates wrongful death by discouraging or prohibiting medical care on the basis of false or misleading information faces no legal penalty. It seems that the Passantinos support this unfortunate state of affairs and would absolve the cult leader of his or her responsibility, laying it completely at the feet of the follower. The injustice of the present legal system, we hope, will eventually be rectified in spite of such reasoning, but the psychological damage caused by blaming the victim will undoubtedly continue.

Objection: The Double Bind

The Passantinos’ section on the double bind, or circular reasoning, is rather curious. The Passantinos assert that the exit counselor provides no proof to the cultist that his or her group uses coercive persuasion. The authors say, "If you leave the cult as a result of deprogramming (or exit counseling), that proves you were under mind-control. If you return to the cult, that proves you are under mind-control" (p. 34).

This quote presumes that exit counselors don't do any homework before taking on a case, that they simply come into a situation and say, "Yup, it's mind-control." Before seeing a cult member, exit counselors who are thorough will make a reasonable determination that the group member really is in a group that uses thought-reform techniques. Those who are not subjected to mind-control, even though the family may think they are (e.g., a family complains that their son in Baha’i no longer goes to Christian church services and therefore must be under mind-control) will not be considered for an exit counseling. Thus, competent exit counselors do not place group members in a double bind because the counselors determine that exit counseling is appropriate before seeing the person. We are not saying that no exit counselor views every unorthodox group as characterized by mind-control, or that such a person would not place group members in a double bind. We are saying that the exit counselors we have worked with demonstrate much more discernment and integrity than the Passantinos give them credit for.

Thus, the Passantinos are mistaken when they say, "The standard for determining mind-control is not some objective evaluation of mental health or competency, but merely the assumed power of mind-control the critic accords to the cult" (p. 34). The Passantinos seem to overlook the fact that exit counselors arrive on the scene literally with suitcases full of evidence. Responsible exit counselors will have documentation on the practices of the group and how those practices relate to principles of mind-control. Such documentation may take the form of personal testimonies of former members of the group, of relatives of members or former members, or of law enforcement officials or other agency personnel who have investigated the group or otherwise had dealings with it. The documentation may be from news reports on the activities of the group or the writings of mental health professionals. Exit counselors will also have a history of how the cult member’s personality has changed since joining the cult. Exit counselors will note the member's reactions to their presentation of information about the group and its practices. For example, the cult member may meet contrary information with a response such as, "All this stuff is just a bunch of lies of the devil." An experienced exit counselor will show the cult member that such remarks really do not settle the issue of whether or not the information is correct. The exit counselor will challenge the cult member to examine the evidence, to put the evidence to the test of veracity. Although one might challenge the persuasiveness of the exit counselor's evidence, fair-mindedness demands that their competence and diligence be respected. Exit counselors—at least the competent and ethical ones—are not the unthinking, hired guns that the Passantinos make them out to be.

The remaining part of this section in the Passantinos’ article has to do with definitional issues. Here the Passantinos do two things. First, they demonstrate that the network of cult critics disagree about how best to define terms such as "mind-control" and "cult." This is true. Their discussion of Enroth (1977, 1992) and certain contributors to Langone's (1993) Recovery from Cults (Zimbardo, Andersen, & Galanti) demonstrates simply that different scholars in the field conceptualize the issues somewhat differently from Singer, Martin, and others. None of us tries to enforce a "party line." And, as noted previously, theoretical clarification and refinement is a need in this field. However, these differing perspectives do not negate a common base, a common recognition that certain groups do things to some people that seriously diminish their informed consent and seriously violate a number of generally accepted ethical precepts.

The second point the Passantinos make, however, is way off the mark. They say:

A definition of mind-control that removes its involuntary component is intrinsically at odds with the prevailing teachings of Singer, Hassan, Martin, and others that cult victims are unable to think for themselves or make decisions. Instead, it is more in agreement with the case we have been arguing — that cult members are capable of independent thought and rational choice-making, but because of factual and spiritual deception, faulty presuppositions, fallacious reasoning, and improper religious commitments, they make unwise choices and adopt false beliefs instead (p. 34).

Again, there is a little truth mixed in with error here. We reiterate: we do not believe Singer, Hassan, and others hold this robotic view of mind-control that the Passantinos attribute to them. Certainly, we do not. Further, the Passantinos' description of cult dynamics in the above quote fails to recognize that through deception and seductive, specious reasoning cult members have been taught that "independent thought and rational choice" are "rebellious," "factious," "divisive," and/or "of the devil." This is not to say that cult members are totally incapable of independent thought. On the contrary, in many areas, most members are still able to make their own decisions; but typically these are areas in which the cult has not made rules or pronouncements. We would also expand the Passantinos' description of cult dynamics to be more specifically applicable to spiritually legalistic or restrictive cults. Such groups present a form of religious legalism (rule keeping) which, through cunning and clever reasoning, a "spiritual leader" is able to persuade his followers is the will of God. The cult member, convinced that this is "of God," may be driven by guilt and fear to the point of exhaustion. Such an environment can lead to severe depression, anxiety, or even, in some cases, nervous breakdown and attempted or successful suicide.⁶

In addition, how do the Passantinos know that solely spiritual deception, faulty presuppositions, fallacious reasoning, improper religious commitments, and unwise choices cause cultists’ problems? If a person joins a cult, according to the Passantinos, he has been spiritually deceived and has made an improper religious decision. Well, how do the authors know? Have they talked to him? The Passantinos may respond, "Well, yeah, we did, but he denies he's deceived." So, the Passantinos could end up in circular reasoning themselves. If the ex-cult member admits he was spiritually deceived, then the Passantinos are right. But if he denies he was spiritually deceived, he does so, according to the Passantinos, because he is spiritually deceived.

Objection: The Brainwashing Evidence

In the section on brainwashing, the authors argue that all the relevant literature shows that brainwashing is not particularly effective. This argument is very odd. Are the Passantinos saying there is no such thing as brainwashing? Are they saying there is brainwashing, but it does not work very well? Or are they saying, "Brainwashing does work, but only on a few people"? It seems that the Passantinos are suddenly jumping from presuppositional arguments against brainwashing of any kind to admission on empirical grounds that there is brainwashing of an involuntary, robotic, Manchurian-Candidate type, but that it doesn't happen very often. Which way do they want it? Do they discount brainwashing on biblical and other presuppositions? If so, then they can't allow for even rare cases of brainwashing on the basis of empirical evidence.

They go on to state that the Koreans and Chinese used extreme forms of physically coercive persuasion, but very few prisoners changed their basic worldviews and commitments. However, the footnote attached to this remark (n. 36) quotes psychologist Gary Collins as writing,

Fewer than 15% of the prisoners in Korean detention camps collaborated with the enemy. When the war was over and prisoners were given their freedom, only a few chose to remain in Communist China. Of these, several later rejected the Communist way of life and returned home (Collins, 1969, p. 148).

The figure of 15% seems to us, however, to be quite high, especially when the standard is collaboration. Apparently, the U.S. military was sufficiently impressed by these results that soldiers in Vietnam were warned not to resist, but instead were told to do whatever it took to stay alive.⁷ Moreover, others report much higher figures related to collaboration.

In addition to Segal's (1957) assertion that "70 percent of all the repatriated Army PW's [sic]" collaborated in some way with the enemy, Hinkle and Wolff, in their testimony at hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the U. S. Senate (1956), when asked, "What percentage [of POWs] confess in some manner?" agreed that the figure would be "well over 90 percent" and that "it would be a very small group who do not sign some form of protocol, which is called a confession..." (1956, p.20).

Further, what about the huge numbers who were radically transformed in the Chinese revolutionary colleges mentioned earlier? What about the large segments of the Chinese Christian community that succumbed to Mao? What about the classified military experiments that were discontinued because those conducting them could not devise effective means to resist brainwashing?⁸

Why would mothers in Iran during the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime send their young children into the minefields to explode mines so that the soldiers could then cross the fields? History is replete with examples of horrendously irrational behavior that people engage in when under the influence of mind-control. We have talked to many women who, while members of the Children of God, willingly engaged in "flirty fishing" (using sex to recruit new members) at the urging of their leaders. When they came out of the group's mind-set they said, "I just can't believe I did that. I wasn't in my right mind." Any historian can document that some of the most radical things that have ever been done in history, especially current history, were done by men who had put masses of people under their control. We only have to look at Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Khomeini. The senior author of this article has had hundreds of desperate parents tell him, "Our son isn't the person we once knew. We don't know what has happened to him." If mind-control does not exist or is ineffective, we would hate to see something that is effective.

The Passantinos state further that the Korean and Chinese "techniques of torture, beatings, and group dynamics," and the CIA experiments with drugs, all failed to produce even one potential Manchurian Candidate, and that the CIA program was finally abandoned. The Passantinos have chosen the most infamous examples of failed attempts of using mind-control, and then try to use them to debunk the effectiveness of all methods of mind-control. This seems like another instance of the Passantinos' violating one of their own cautions from their book Witch Hunt, namely, "Similar Does Not Prove Same" (Passantino & Passantino, 1991). They have failed to take account of the GAP study (Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1957, pp. 272-274) of downed American pilots in Korea and how many of those were led to believe that the US was engaging in germ warfare—well over 50% of the American pilots not only signed statements that America was engaging in germ warfare over Korea, but they also believed it. We do not consider a 50+% success rate ineffective. If the Passantinos are going to cite the brainwashing literature, they should cite all of it, including the studies that point to the remarkable successes of some mind-control efforts.

The Passantinos say, "Some mind-control model advocates bring up studies that they feel provide objective data in support of their theories. Such is not the case. These studies are generally flawed in several areas: (1) Frequently the respondents are not from a wide cross section of ex-members" (p. 37). First of all, invoking methodological purity is a common ploy for avoiding the real issue in psychological discussion. Psychology is not nuclear physics. It is rare to find fields in which all the relevant research uses representative samples. That is why replication of empirical studies is so important and also why clinical findings are respected, despite their limitations. These methodological problems are compounded by ethical constraints on research (one cannot study the effects of trauma, for example, by randomly assigning one group of subjects to a bus crash and another group to a pleasant bus ride) that are especially applicable to the field of cultic studies. Nevertheless, a growing body of empirical literature and a huge amount of clinical experience supports the primary contention of mind-control advocates¾ namely, that cult involvement causes psychological distress to many if not most cult members (Galanter, 1989; Langone, 1993; MacDonald, 1988; Martin et al. 1992; Yeakley, 1988).

The Passantinos also say that it is "almost impossible to gather data from the same individuals before cult affiliation, during cult affiliation, and after cult disaffection" (p. 37). This is true, but it does not mean that psychological researchers are helpless. The same problem existed with regard to the study of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among Vietnam vets. There was no way to study them before they suffered PTSD; yet some excellent studies have been done using regression analysis (Winocur, Whitney, Sorenson, Vaughn, & Foy, 1997).

Objection: Low Recruitment Rates

The Passantinos raise an objection to the mind-control model on the basis of "low recruitment rates." They write:

Studies show that the vast majority of young people approached by new religious movements (NRMs) never join despite heavy recruitment tactics... Eileen Barker documents that out of 1,000 people persuaded by the Moonies to attend one of their overnight programs in 1979, 90% had no further involvement. Only 8% joined for more than one week and less than 4% remained members in 1981, two years later (p. 37).

In our opinion, the fact that almost 4% stayed in the group after one overnight program is remarkable! That is amazing compared to Billy Graham's crusades in which only about 1% of the attendees heed the altar call. And those who do heed the altar call return to their families, jobs, and personal lives. They do not become full-time missionaries like the 4% who join the Moonies after a brief workshop (Langone, 1993). That the Passantinos seem impressed by Barker's finding reveals again their lack of understanding of mind-control. No responsible mind-control advocate ever said that mind-control is 100% effective on everyone, just as no doctor ever said that Tylenol is ineffective because not everyone who takes it finds relief from headache. Are the Passantinos saying that mind-control must be 100% effective in order to exist at all? Are they again shifting from a presuppositional position, which says that mind-control cannot exist because people can't lose their free will, to an empirical argument that says mind-control does exist, people do lose their free will, but it doesn't work very well because only a very few people succumb? What do they really wish to say?

Low recruitment rates demonstrate that a mind-control environment interacts with idiosyncrasies within the person or his situation, not that mind-control does not exist. A net will only catch fish bigger than the net's holes. If a majority of fish pass through the net safely, one does not conclude that the net does not exist. Mind-control is defined by its conditions, not its results, just as a net is defined by its structure, not how many fish it catches. The power of mind-control is revealed in what it does to those whom it captures, not by the number that it captures. Recruitment creates the opportunity for mind-control to occur. Recruitment, though it may be very manipulative, is not necessarily a full-fledged mind-control program (Zablocki, 1997).

Objection: High Attrition Rates

The Passantinos' next objection is a corollary of the last—-namely, "high attrition rates." The authors assert that the fact that many people who join cults eventually leave them within a year or two without outside aid is "deadly to the mind-control model" (p. 37). If mind-control did exist, they imply, no one would be able to break its hold by himself. This is a distraction. The issue is not whether there are high attrition rates or low conversion rates. The issue is whether mind-control exists. We know of no professional who believes that mind-control is 100% effective. On the other hand, an examination of history reveals that when mind-control is effective, it can be deadly. How else do we explain the mass suicide of 912 people in Jonestown?⁹A coincidental gathering of spiritually deceived individuals? What kind of hold did David Koresh have over his followers that made them stay in the building after the FBI started spraying tear gas into it? They had from about 6 o'clock in the morning untill about noon to leave before the building finally caught fire. They could have left. What kept them in there? What made one woman run back into the fire after she had run out of the burning building? We could offer story after story of similar incidents. What led an innocent boy from a small town in Illinois, Danny Kraft, to participate in the killing of a mother, a father, a 13-year-old girl, an 11-year-old girl, and an 8-year-old girl? What led the Nazis to gas Jews by the millions, and what led millions of Germans to pretend they did not know what was going on?

The effects of mind-control can be diminished by numerous factors. One of them is how conflicts and dissonance are dealt with. One young woman, describing her own voluntary exit, said that every time she had a doubt or a misgiving about the group she would put it on an invisible shelf so she wouldn’t have to deal with it. But then one day, the shelf got too heavy and caved in (Tobias & Lalich, 1994, p. 55). In other words, eventually there were simply too many doubts and questions, and she was no longer able to ignore them; she had to deal with them.

Another factor that may weaken mind-control is a traumatic event that occurs in the cult member's life or in the group as a whole. This could be a beating administered (or threatened) by the leader or another member at the leader's behest. Haferd and Outlaw describe one such incident involving Rose Watson Thomas, a member of an obscure group named the Christian Alliance Holiness Church. They write:

Rose was terrified of what would happen when [an expected phone call from the imprisoned leader] came through. Since the night before, the commune residents had harangued her and threatened her with punishment. And she had seen the punishment that Bishop Thomas [her father-in-law] meted out to those who displeased him in his Christian Alliance Holiness Church—merciless bloody beatings that left men and women with flayed skin on their backs and flowing wounds for days afterward. This time, Rose felt sure, she was going to be the one who would be beaten. She was sure the bishop's next orders would deal with the punishment to be inflicted upon her. So Rose had decided to take her son and run away from The Frontier [the cult's compound in eastern Ohio] (Haferd & Outlaw, 1993, p. 5).

The ability to leave a cult on one's own is not necessarily a sign of health, that is, that the individual has been unaffected by the group. To say and acknowledge that many people do leave cults on their own does not address the question of why they leave, or whether they have been detrimentally affected during the time of their involvement, in spite of the fact that eventually they are able to walk away. We believe it is a gross error to assume that those who leave cults on their own are as healthy psychologically and spiritually (or even physically) as when they joined.

Objection: The Anti-religious Bias of Mind-control Assumptions

The Passantinos' next objection is "the anti-religious bias of mind-control assumptions." Basically the Passantinos say that brainwashing is a value judgment rather than an analytical concept, and that the brainwashing/mind-control model almost inevitably arises from or creates an antireligious bias. They quote sociologist Thomas Robbins, who says that the mind-control model derives from Enlightenment ideals that seek to liberate man from religion. Then, they quote William Sargant, who argued that Christian evangelical preaching techniques are similar to Communist brainwashing methods. Finally, they refer to Conway and Siegelman, who criticized fundamentalist Christians in the first edition of their book Snapping.

We fail to see, however, what relevance the antireligious sentiments of some authors have to do with the modern concept of cult mind-control as held in particular by evangelical proponents of the model. That some people in the field might be biased against religion does not mean the concept itself is antireligious or necessarily leads to such a bias. Mind-control theories can apply to a religious setting, a psychotherapy setting, a political setting, a business setting. Are mind-control advocates, then, antipsychotherapy, antipolitics, and antibusiness? Are mind-control advocates antimilitary because the concept was first studied under military conditions? Hardly.

Ron Enroth, well known for his evangelical convictions, cannot be accused of an antireligious bias when he says there are churches that abuse (Enroth, 1992). Rather, he speaks as a modern prophet against mistreatment of God's flock. Did the prophet Ezekiel have an antireligious bias when he rebuked the wicked shepherds who were exploiting, harming, and destroying the people of God? In this section, the Passantinos employ an ad hominem argument that is rather poorly thought out. If we were to employ this form of reasoning, we might conclude that the Passantinos are guilty of an "antisecular" bias. It seems that once again the Passantinos have violated their rule, "Similar Does Not Prove Same" (Passantino & Passantino, 1991).

The Passantinos also maintain that the inability to draw a clear-cut line between a legitimate religion and a cult is final proof that mind-control does not exist. Would they use the same reasoning regarding domestic abuse? When does a husband's verbal criticism of his wife become verbal abuse? When does spanking a child become child abuse? Where are the clear-cut lines in these cases? Or where is the clear-cut line between political authority and dictatorship? If the authors can locate it, they will be in great demand all over the world.

The last paragraph of this section is particularly troubling. The Passantinos write, "In short, there is no objective, evidential way to define groups that are 'good' (not using mind-control) versus groups that are 'bad' (using mind-control)" (p. 38). But this is simply not true. A group can be evaluated according to explicit criteria. For example, is it characterized by the use of certain techniques, such as Lifton's eight criteria of thought reform? That is, does it use milieu control, mystical manipulation? Does it have a sacred science? Does it practice doctrine over person? Does it have a loaded language? Does it have a "cult of confession," the demand for purity? Does it dispense with the existence of nonmembers, whether spiritually or physically? One of the most famous books in psychology, The Open and Closed Mind, explains how these systems work (Rokeach, 1960). There is a wealth of literature in the social sciences about controlling, tight organizations versus loose organizations. There are criteria in political science for determining what is and is not a totalitarian system. Moreover, research is now underway to validate the first measure of group psychological abuse (Chambers, Langone, Dole, & Grice, 1994). Undoubtedly, future research will result in improvements in our capacity to evaluate the destructiveness of group environments.

Objection: Creating Victims

The Passantinos object to the mind-control model because, they say, it "creates victims." We would argue instead that it is mind-control, not the mind-control model, that creates victims. We would also argue that cult survivors are revictimized by those, such as the Passantinos, who lay all or most of the blame for their plight at their own feet.

The authors introduce this objection by writing:

Many people who join cults want to help the needy, forsake materialism, or develop personal independence from their families—not necessarily bad goals, although misguided by false cult teachings. The cult mind-control model, however, attributes cult membership primarily to mind-control and thereby denigrates or discounts such positive activities and goals, misaffiliated to cults as they are (p. 38).

This passage again illustrates the Passantinos' failure to clearly understand what mind-control model advocates actually say. Mind-control is not exercised in a vacuum—it needs information to work with, whether it is cult-generated doctrine or the hopes, dreams, fears, and hang-ups of the potential recruit. Thus, the goals listed by the Passantinos may be used by the cult recruiter as "hooks" to draw the target into the sphere of the group. We do not denigrate such goals at all. We applaud any positive aims and activities. The problem is that they can also be used as lures to attract new members, or as ploys to achieve legitimacy in the community. Most of our clients at Wellspring say, "This is why I joined the group. I wanted to help the needy, forsake materialism, develop some personal independence from my family, and grow up. I wanted to serve the Lord." Jim Jones' Peoples Temple took over nursing homes in the San Francisco Bay Area, significantly improving them to the benefit of the residents. Peoples Temple members also helped drug addicts kick their habits and obtain education. These and many other activities of the Peoples Temple were highly commendable and worth doing, were it not for the fact that Jones exploited these achievements ultimately to lead people to their deaths.

The Passantinos go on to say:

The mind-control model also fails to give proper weight to the role natural suggestibility plays in making people vulnerable to the cults. Highly suggestible people are especially susceptible to religious salesmanship as well as many other "sales pitches" (pp. 38-39).

On the contrary, this is exactly the point we have made. Suggestibility probably does make people more susceptible to mind-control. ¹⁰ Some people are naturally more suggestible than others, others go through periods in life in which they are more suggestible than at other times (e.g., times of crisis, bereavement, or transition of some kind or another). In such a condition people may be victimized, whether by a con artist, a Lothario, or a cult recruiter. It is not "adopting a victimization perspective" that "strips the cult member of his capacity for rational activity." Rather, it is the victimization itself that does this—though we acknowledge that it does so to varying degrees in different people.

The Passantinos assert that "the cult mind-control model epitomizes a 'victim' mentality" (p. 39). They quote Hassan's remarks about the cult member being caught in a trap as an illustration of this "victim" mentality. We find it surprising that the Passantinos should object to this in light of the Apostle Paul's admonition to the Colossians, "Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ" (Col. 2:8, Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added). Elsewhere, Paul reproaches the Christians of Corinth for "tolerating somebody who makes slaves of you, makes you feed him, imposes on you, orders you about and slaps you in the face" (2 Corinthians 11:20, Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added).

Next, the Passantinos appear to digress into a victim-bashing section in which they take potshots at John Bradshaw and his dysfunctional family theory, adult children of alcoholics, the various 12-step programs, and claims of repressed memories that later proved to be false memories.

Some would argue that in some cases mind-control by unethical or incompetent therapists caused false memories of abuse to arise. But that is only one of many possible explanations. We agree with the Passantinos that a person’s developing false memories in therapy does not necessarily mean the therapist was practicing thought reform. Yet ironically, false memories are sometimes produced by thought reform. So the Passantinos confront a dilemma: how can they believe in the creation of false memories (and they clearly do), and yet deny powerful influence techniques, such as thought reform? The Passantinos seem to believe that psychological influence can be so powerful that in a few sessions a therapist can (sometimes unwittingly) convince a client that her parents are really members of a satanic cult that sexually abused her for years. Yet, they deride the notion that a group led by a skillful, psychopathic leader can cause radical behavioral changes in people who may be under the group's influence 24 hours a day for many months or years.

The Passantinos again quote Barker, who says: "Research has shown that, unlike those who have been deprogrammed (and thereby taught that they had been brainwashed), those who leave voluntarily are extremely unlikely to believe that they were ever the victims of mind-control" (p. 39, citing Barker, 1989, emphasis in original). Yet, this is precisely what we would expect. If someone has no knowledge of what happened to him, how could he conclude he was a victim of mind-control? One must be exposed to the information. Barker's conclusion is that this belief in mind-control is inculcated into hapless victims, that they have been deceived again into believing that they were under mind-control. Another alternative, however, is that these people are sufficiently responsible individuals that when presented with information about the techniques of mind-control and examples of it they are able to compare their own experience with that information and reach their own conclusion that "that's exactly what happened to me."¹¹ Moreover, Barker faces the same quandary the Passantinos confront regarding false memory: in three days an exit counselor can completely change a person’s outlook, but a group over a period of years allegedly cannot.

Perhaps the Passantinos' rejection of the "victim" label for cult members stems from their partially correct criticism of today's pop psychology in which

everyone is a victim. One doesn't need to be saved from one's own sins as much as from the sins of others. Psychology and sociology have replaced Scripture for understanding human behavior and developing emotionally and spiritually healthy persons. Yet nowhere in Scripture do we find support for the complaint first voiced by Eve that 'the devil — or the cult leader — made me do it.' One cannot remove human responsibility without also destroying human morality (p. 40).

Once again, these remarks are based on a distorted view of mind-control and an either/or approach to understanding human behavior: either psychology and sociology, or the Bible. However, we do not see the necessity of such a dichotomy, though we recognize that some psychosociological and theological theories and approaches leave much to be desired. The Passantinos seem to disallow any reference to prior abuse as even a partial explanation for the current problems many people experience. We believe this is both unfair and detrimental to the individual's healing.

The Passantinos seem to advocate an improper use of the Bible that is disturbingly common in some evangelical and fundamentalist circles. The Bible is implicitly viewed as the only textbook necessary for psychology, not just for doctrine and morality. But the Bible does not make such a claim for itself. Are we to view it as the only textbook necessary for geology, geography, or architecture? Shall we make all engineering students study only the Old Testament because it contains instructions on how to build the tabernacle or the temple and thus all construction must be based on those models? Or shall we base medicine only on what is in the Bible?

Why, all of a sudden, are human sciences suddenly limited to what is in the Bible? Who drew this arbitrary line and said, "We can study astronomy, geology, medicine, whatever, but the Bible must be the only textbook for the human sciences"? That is absurd. The facts refute this. Does the Bible talk about manic depressive illness? Does the Bible talk about psychotic depression? Does the Bible talk about panic disorders or agoraphobia—what causes them, how are they cured? Does the Bible distinguish between organic and functional psychoses? Does the Bible explain what learning disabilities are, what hyperactivity is? Does the Bible explain what a personality disorder is, how a dependent personality can be distinguished from a borderline personality?

Objection: Theological Inconsistencies

From a theological standpoint, the Passantinos appear to undervalue the role of deceit in the introduction of sin into the world of humans. They write:

If the cult recruiter's skill at manipulation is considered so coercive that members are not responsible for their own beliefs, actions, or even the decision to join/stay in the cult, then many biblical affirmations about personal responsibility and decision-making are jeopardized. To a secular mind-control model advocate, this may seem a trivial objection. But several advocates are Christian evangelicals and must come to terms with the theological inconsistencies introduced when the cult mind-control model is adopted.

For example, in the Garden, Satan personally appeared to orchestrate the temptation of Eve—and who could be more persuasive? Our first parents succumbed to the temptation and were cast out of the Garden, and all of humanity thereafter has been penalized by this primal sin. If our first parents could be held morally responsible when confronted by the ultimate tempter, how is it that we seek to excuse ourselves or our offspring when confronted by human tempters of far less power, skill, and charisma? (p. 40).

The simple answer to their question is that the analogy between the serpent's beguilement of Eve in the Garden of Eden and what happens in cult recruitment is like comparing apples with chimpanzees. God had explicitly told Adam and Eve in advance, "Don't eat of this tree." The tree was identified, the tree was located. They knew what it was, they knew where it was, they knew all about it. God had given them complete and adequate information. Most people we know who have joined cults did not have anyone (and certainly not anyone with the authoritative voice of God) saying, "Don't join this group, it is evil, and here is the evidence." But that is basically what God did with Adam and Eve. The comparison of the Garden with the cult situation would be more appropriate if God put Adam and Eve into the Garden with no forewarning. They see the fruit on the tree. It looks so good. The serpent is dangling from a branch and says, "This is good fruit, eat it." They eat it and then God comes along and says, "Hey, you two! You just sinned!" They say, "What? We sinned? How did we sin?" "You should have known better than to eat that fruit." "Why should have we known better?" "You were spiritually deceived." "Well, you never told us not to eat that fruit!" "But if you were more spiritual you would have known."

If cult joining is simply a problem of spiritual deception, then the sword cuts both ways. If cult members are responsible because they lack discernment, why is not the Church also responsible for lack of discernment? Why hasn't the church been able to recognize the wolves and warn the flock? Where was the church speaking before Jonestown? Where was the church when Hitler came along? Where was the church when Mao Tse-tung came along? Where was the church when David Koresh came along? Where was the church when Jeffrey Lundgren came along? Who was warning the people who followed these leaders?

There was great silence in the church. There is still great silence in the church. So, if it is only a deception issue, then we're all wrong, we're all deceived. To say that one group is more deceived than the other when the church has consistently sat on its hands in the face of this cult problem and has provided virtually no resources for cult victims is to engage in self-righteous blame-shifting.

Hardly anything is taught about cults in seminaries and Bible schools.¹²Pastors know very little about cults, apart from some of the major doctrinal aberrations of the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Currently, there is only one cult rehabilitation center in the world, and that is Wellspring, and it receives very little support from the church. If we are going to talk about discernment, then we had better talk about the church’s discernment and its obligation to heed the prophetic voice that warns about cults and spiritually abusive churches. The church has not often done these things; it usually speaks out only after the fact. The responsibility for the appalling silence and even complicity of the church in Nazi Germany rests on the heads of evangelicals as fully as it does on those of liberals and Catholics. The appalling silence of the evangelical church with the rise of Red China rests on our heads, too. We could just go down the list. The discernment issue applies equally to other abuses besides those relating to cults. As we write this, the church is experiencing more persecution worldwide than at any time in history. To be sure, some Christians are sounding the alarm, but too few know of the problems. Again, discernment is an issue for those in leadership, not just for the victims.

Mind-control (or thought reform, coercive persuasion, or whatever one might call it) is not merely a secular concept. It is also a biblical concept related to the problem of evil and how all men and women are affected by evil. No group of Christians or non-Christians is any less immune to thought reform than any other. What produces discernment? Is it obedience? Is it more Bible reading? Is it going to seminary? Is it education? Are the discerning more holy or righteous?

The Passantinos appear to be answering this last question in the affirmative. If so, their argument runs counter to the Reformation concepts of the grace of God, the corruption of sin, and justification by faith alone—all beliefs that the Passantinos hold. Their argument appears to imply that humans are capable of unassisted evaluation of data concerning God, and of making unassisted free choices in relation to spiritual matters. Thus, they castigate cult members for being "undiscerning." But according to the Bible in the Reformed tradition, revelation and grace are paramount. Humans may examine the universe and their own nature to learn its complexities, but they may only know about God as he has revealed himself. Furthermore, they may make free choices for or against that revelation only by the grace of God. Without grace, they are only capable of rejecting whatever revelation they might receive. Any other view denies the utter sinfulness of the human condition and subverts the unmerited grace of God. Humans, then, are only responsible for thoughtfully and purposely rejecting revelation and resisting grace, not for making "flawed choices from bad data."

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that somehow there is a spiritual hierarchy in which some individuals are less susceptible to cults than others, on what basis are they less susceptible? If their susceptibility is based on works (acquiring information and critical-thinking skills), then, according to the Reformation tradition, their behavior has no spiritual value.¹³ But if cult-avoiding discernment is based on faith, then all Christians have that and should be able to avoid cults. Thus, the Passantinos have a grave problem, because the empirical evidence unequivocally shows that numerous Christians have joined a variety of cults. Where, then, does discernment come from? Is it always a sin issue in the Scripture, or is it an issue of education, knowledge, and awareness?

Discernment may be lost because one willfully chooses to sin, but discernment may also be lacking because one has not been educated or warned. Is one group (cult victims) culpable, but the other (the church or society that fails to warn about cults) not? Is evil the underlying process and factor with both kinds of discernment deficits? In other words, is our ability to be deceived part of the human condition, part of our fallen nature? If so, and we believe it is, then the cult victim and the silent church and society alike suffer from Adam's fallen nature. But in saying this we are not saying that cult joining is a sin problem that must be dealt with evangelistically. Rather, we are saying that the cult problem for the church and the cult victim alike is akin to the problem of physical disease. Illness, as well as death, is a direct result of the Fall. But the cure for disease is not evangelization leading to spiritual redemption. The cure for disease consists of medicine and education. Through much of history, the church has been largely responsible for the advancement of medical science in the world. Likewise, the church needs to see the problem of cults fundamentally as a problem of evil whose solution is, to be sure, bathed in the prayers of believers, but realized via science and education as well as theology.

The Passantinos' conclusion is a call for evangelization of cult members. But their vision in this regard is a truncated view of Judeo-Christian ethics and theology. Christians and others have traditionally had an interest in opposing sinful systems as well as providing spiritual comfort for those caught in them. The desire for the salvation of the souls of those bound in the literal chains of slavery was admirable, but without the courage of Christian statesmen such as William Wilberforce, strongly supported by John Wesley and other Christian leaders, we might still have slavery in Britain and America. Evangelizing those "who have very real spiritual, emotional, and social needs" and who "are looking for fulfillment and significance for their lives" (p. 40) without working against the oppression that enslaves them is hypocrisy. We believe God loves cult members and wants us to work for their freedom, whether or not they choose to follow him.

Notes

In a letter to the editor of Cornerstone Magazine Douglas Groothuis demonstrates some of the same errors as found in the original article to which he was responding. Groothuis focuses on two points: first, "the mind-control theory is antithetical to biblical anthropology." We contend that only in its extreme form, as set up as a straw man by Bob and Gretchen Passantino, could mind-control be regarded as antithetical to biblical anthropology. We agree that men and women are "responsible moral agents," but we also argue that humans can occasionally and under the right (or wrong?) circumstances be led into unwise, bad, or downright evil decisions for which God will hold us, if not totally guiltless, at least minimally culpable. We briefly refer to a few such instances in this article: mitigation of guilt by reason of diminished capacity due to youthfulness (Dt. 1:39), demonization, or other factors (one of those other factors would be lack of full knowledge, see Mt. 11:20-24). Indeed, in some such cases God still holds the individual guilty, but our point is that he holds him less so.
Groothuis' second point is what he calls a "crucial philosophical distinction. People who join cults on the basis of propaganda and psychological deception do so through their decision-making, although their decisions are ill conceived." He says, "This is not equivalent to people losing their ability to decide because they have become passive victims of irresistible cult indoctrination. A poor decision is still a decision; to call it a nondecision because it is unwise is even more unwise." We are afraid that Groothuis has bought into the Passantinos’ counterfeit mind-control model.
We believe the Passantinos have failed to distinguish the question of guilt regarding sin/crime from the additional matter of whether the cult member should be held fully responsible for joining the cult, staying in the cult, accepting and obeying the teachings of the cult leader, and ending up on the one hand confused, depressed, anxious, or delusional, or on the other hand hostile to non-cult members, exclusivistic, judgmental, or even heretical. Consider the following scriptures:
Matthew 18:6 — "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:7 — "Woe to the world because of its stumbling-blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling-blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling-block comes!"
Our understanding of these verses is that the one who leads someone else astray from the truth, or otherwise misleads a person, will be judged far more severely than the one misled. And these verses are not referring to leading another into criminal activity or sin, in general, unless one includes believing a lie in the category of sin. In their article, the Passantinos did allow for some element of deception to exist in some cults—but that was all, and they still seemed to hold the cult member responsible for allowing himself to be deceived. A bit disingenuous, we believe.
Case No. 90CR 012, Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio. It is worth quoting from the statement of the presiding judge at the sentencing of Danny Kraft:
I hope this tragedy and resulting sentence serves as a warning to all parents and families on the destructive nature of religious cults. That we, as a society, are mindful of the ease with which it can destroy, just as we recognize the destructive capacity of alcohol and drugs.
Lundgren, a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, split off from the RLDS Church believing that he was a true prophet of God.
The fact that neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul told the formerly demonized individuals in these accounts to repent of their behavior while under the influence of demons certainly implies that they did not regard them as fully responsible for the behavior.
To take an obviously extreme example of such a cult, consider the Brethren, or the "Garbage Eaters," as they are more commonly known, led by Jim Roberts, a.k.a. Brother Evangelist. They believe they are more "spiritual" than others because (for one thing) they seek not to depend on the "sinful" world to meet their needs¾ hence their "dumpster diving," that is, scavenging for edible food in dumpsters behind restaurants and grocery stores. Can anyone conceive of someone in his or her right mind "choosing" to live this way? If these people, most of whom were not only relatively normal but also high achievers before joining, are not under the leader’s control, what else can account for their behavior? They are certainly not making rational, informed decisions. They have been led to believe that this kind of lifestyle is truly righteous and holy. After all, they are not being conformed to the world and its systems. It seems to us that "simple deception" is inadequate to explain such behavior.
Dr. Daniel Langer (former military intelligence officer in Vietnam) in personal conversation with Ron Burks.
Although there are general allusions to the failed methods to resist brainwashing in a number of our references, Dr. Louis J. West, who helped devise procedures and experiments for resisting brainwashing, told the senior author of the difficulties in teaching people to resist brainwashing. Dr. West also spoke on this subject at a plenary session, "Towards a Better Understanding of Mind-control," given at the National Cult Awareness Network Conference at the Lincolnshire Marriott in Deerfield, Illinois, November 3, 1990.
We are aware that authorities later determined that as many as several hundred of the cult members actually died of gunshot wounds, including Jones himself. The question still remains: if there is no such thing as mind-control, what was it that drove the 600 or 700 others to drink the poison and administer it to their children? What induced them to stay in the group through dozens of suicide drills at which no guns were present?
In a footnote (n. 57), the Passantinos refer to work by Anthony and Robbins as further support of their contention that most mind-control advocates discount human susceptibilities as a factor in cult recruitment. However, this is a matter for empirical study, not mere opining. Unfortunately, almost no research has been done on susceptibility to cultic environments.
Ex-cult members are not likely to say, "I've been under mind-control" unless they know what mind-control is. A person who feels physically sick often does not know the cause until he hears a doctor's diagnosis.
Denver Seminary in Colorado, and Southern Evangelical Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina, are two rare exceptions we know of that offer more than a cursory glance at cults.
Works, or human endeavor, in this sense has no spiritual value in relation to one's standing with God. Or the Passantinos may argue that works are simply a religious requirement of moral obedience. But moral obedience implies that one knows what is moral or correct. But the problem is that the uniform testimony of former cultists is that there was absolutely nothing they saw that was immoral, illegal, or suggestive of disobedience to God. Consequently, the Passantinos must answer the following questions: (1) What moral or doctrinal mandates have the cultists disobeyed? (2) Are these moral and/or spiritual mandates sufficiently clear that any reasonable person would still act knowingly in a reckless and negligent manner to join a cult in spite of hearing and understanding the mandates? (3) Who is responsible to present these moral or doctrinal mandates to the potential cultist?

References

Barker, E. (1989) New religious movements: A practical introduction. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Bauer, W., Arndt, W. F., & Gingrich, F. W. (eds.). (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bromley, D. G., & Shupe, A. D. (1981), Strange Gods: The great American cult scare. Boston: Beacon Press.
Chambers, W., Langone, M., Dole, A., & Grice. W. (1994). The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A Measure of the Varieties of Cultic Abuse. Cultic Studies Journal, 11(1), (88- 117).
Chen, T. E. H. (1960). Thought reform of the Chinese intellectuals. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Collins, G. (1969). Search for reality (p. 148). Santa Ana, CA: Vision House. (cited in Passantino & Passantino, 1994, p.42).
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropedia (Vol. 9, p. 138, date unknown). New York: Author (cited in Passantino & Passantino, 1994, p.40).
Enroth, R. (1977). Cult/Countercult. Eternity, Nov., 1977, (pp. 19-34).
Enroth, R. (1977). Youth brainwashing and the extremist cults. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.
Enroth, R. (1992). Churches that abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Galanter, M. (1989). Cults, faith healing and coercion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haferd, L., & Outlaw, W. (1993, February 21). Out of the wilderness. Beacon Magazine, The Beacon Journal. (p. 5).
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1957). Symposium no. 4: Methods of forceful indoctrination: Observations and interviews. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Hassan, S. (1988, 1990). Combatting cult mind-control. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Langone, M. D. (Ed.). (1993). Recovery from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: Norton.
Lifton, R. J. (1961, 1989). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
MacDonald, J. P. (1988). "Reject the wicked man"¾ Coercive persuasion and deviance production: A study of conflict management. Cultic Studies Journal, 5(1), 59- 121.
Martin, P. R. (1993). Cult-proofing your kids. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Martin, P. R., Langone, M. D., Dole, A. A., & Wiltrout, J. (1992). Post-cult symptoms as measured by the MCMI before and after treatment. Cultic Studies Journal, 9(2), 219- 250.
Moore, D. (1980, January 3). The Moore report: "Thy will be done." Minneapolis, MN., WCCO-TV.
Passantino, R., & Passantino, G. (1991). Witch-hunt. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Passantino, B., & Passantino, G. (1994). Overcoming the bondage of victimization: A critical evaluation of cult mind-control theories. Cornerstone, 31- 42.
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate. (1956). Communist interrogation, indoctrination and exploitation of American military and civilian prisoners. Washington, DC: Author.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Schein, E., Schneir, I., & Barker, C. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion. New York: Norton.
Segal, J. (1957). Correlates of collaboration and resistance behavior among U. S. Army POW's in Korea. Journal of Social Issues, 13(3), 89.
Singer, M. T., & Addis, M. E. (1992). Cults, coercion, and contumely. In A. Kales, C.M. Pierce & M. Greenblatt (Eds.), The mosaic of contemporary psychiatry in perspective, (pp. 130-142). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Singer, M. T., with Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our midst: The hidden menace in our everyday lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thayer, J. H. (1972). Thayer's Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Tobias, M., & Lalich, J. (1994). Captive hearts, captive minds: Freedom and recovery from cults and abusive relationships. Alameda, CA: Hunter House.
Wellspring's approach to cult rehab. (1993, November/December). Wellspring Messenger, p. 1.
West, L. J. (1958, October). Psychiatric aspects of training for honorable survival as a prisoner of war. American Journal of Psychiatry, 115(4), Oct., 1958, (pp. 329-336).
West, L. J. (1963). Brainwashing. In A. Deutsch (Ed.), The encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. 1). New York: Franklin Watts.
West, L. J. (1989). Persuasive techniques in religious cults. In Marc Galanter (Ed.), Cults and new religious movements (pp. 165- 192). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press.
White, M. (n.d.). Deceived II (film). Muskegon, MI: Gospel Films.
Winocur, N., Whitney, J., Sorenson, C., Vaughn, P., & Foy, D. (1997). The Individual Cult Experience Index: The assessment of cult involvement and its relationship to postcult distress. Cultic Studies Journal, 14(2), 290- 306.
Yeakley, F. R. (1988). The discipling dilemma. Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate.
Zablocki, B. (1997). The blacklisting of a concept: The strange history of the brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion. Nova Religio, 1(1), 96- 121.

Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. is the founder and director of Wellspring Retreat & Resource Center, located in Albany, Ohio. He received his doctorate in counseling from the University of Pittsburgh and is a licensed psychologist and board-certified counselor.

Lawrence A. Pile is a research specialist and workshop leader at Wellspring Retreat & Resource Center. He received his bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois and has 5 ½ years’ experience with an aberrational Christian movement. He has been studying the cult phenomenon for more than 30 years.

Ron Burks, M. Div., M.A. is a psychology assistant at Wellspring Retreat & Resource Center. He received the M.Div. (1992) and MA in counseling (1994) from Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky after spending 18 years in a well-known shepherding movement.

Stephen D. Martin, M.Div. is preventive cult education instructor and occasional workshop leader at Wellspring Retreat & Resource Center. He received the M.Div. from Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri in 1983, and also had some experience in an aberrational Christian group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul R. Martin, Ph.D., Lawrence A. Pile,
Ron Burks, M.A. & Stephen D. Martin, M.Div.
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center

From Basilio Roncaccia's Divine Mission to Luigia Paparelli (Conference 2001)

2008-11-16T22:25:00.005+01:00

From Basilio Roncaccia's Divine Mission to Luigia Paparelli

By Raffaella Di Marzio

Paper presented at The 2001 International Conference "The Spiritual Supermarket. Religious Pluralism and Globalization in the 21st Century: the Expanding European Union and Beyond". London School of Economics, 19 - 22 April 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prophetic tradition of Basilio Roncaccia (1876-1959) has inspired several "fringe Catholic" movements in Italy. Italian scholars usually define "fringe Catholic" movements as groups originally born within the Roman Catholic Church, but which developed and now exist outside institutional Catholicism, for either doctrinal or practical reasons. Most of these groups are quite small. They almost all invariably originate from a supernatural revelation the founders claim to have received from God, the Virgin Mary, or a Catholic saint. In the Roncaccia tradition, other elements play a significant role, including the leaders’ healing powers, the importance of the Holy Trinity, and the Cross as the most important healing symbol.

One such group, known as the Divine Mission, was founded in Rome in 1936 by Basilio Roncaccia, who claimed to receive supernatural visions and revelations, and to have received the "divine mission" of sharing with his followers his unique celestial gifts, particularly his newly-found healing power. Roncaccia admonished, however, that healing was possible only if the sick person was prepared to practice penitence, fasting and prayer. In this case, those healed by the "apostle" Roncaccia would in turn be granted the same healing powers. Roncaccia, who was mostly active in the Trastevere borough of Rome, claimed to be "the new Peter" entrusted by God with the task of restoring the Catholic Church, which had been corrupted by its relationship with political and economic powers, to its original pristine purity.

Roncaccia claimed in particular to have received the "mission" of re-establishing the Apostolic College and from 1946 onwards he sent his followers, known as "Apostles of Faith", two by two, into several Italian cities. Their success in some cases did not escape the attention of the ever-watchful Catholic hierarchy, however, and on September 22-23, 1952, the Osservatore Romano (the Vatican’s daily newspaper) published a front page announcement stating that the so-called "Apostles of Faith" were in their "principles and practices" contrary to official Church doctrine. The notice went on to warn "faithful Catholics not to join this movement", and encouraged actual members to leave it.

After Roncaccia’s death, on December 7, 1959, the movement split into several separate branches. In Northern Italy, the main groups were led by Rino Celin in Torre di Padova and by Saverio Casarin in Scorzè (province of Venice). Several small groups survived in the area around Rome, some holding beliefs and rituals which would have been quite alien to Roncaccia, including forms of magic and divination. There is no real inter-connection between the groups following the Roncaccia tradition, with each group interpreting the founder’s teachings differently according to the different views of the individual leaders. It is difficult to estimate the combined global membership of these movements. It is probable that the total membership numbers some13,000, spread throughout Italy (particularly in the regions of Lazio, Tuscany, Umbria, Venice, Lombardia, Marche, and Sicily), and in several other countries such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, and the U.S.A.

A large and well established movement developed around the figure of Luigia Paparelli (1908-1984), who was born in Scranton (Pennsylvania) on December 7, 1908, into a poor family which had emigrated from the Italian region of Umbria to the United States. Paparelli later returned to Italy where she married Salvatore Becchetti (1905-1963) in 1924. In the 1940s, she met Basilio Roncaccia in Rome. Roncaccia and Paparelli shared a devotion to the Holy Trinity, and the idea of helping those who suffered, but their practices were different, and they separated quite soon. A charismatic figure, Paparelli gathered a significant number of followers around her.

The first "sign" of her future mission dates back, in fact, to 1937 when, afflicted by a somewhat mysterious illness, the Lord, she claimed, had visited and miraculously healed her. Seven years of penance followed, and on October 13, 1944, Paparelli had a new mystical experience. She described herself as having been "conquered by a mysterious and violent force", feeling "an energy going from heart to fingers, such as the beneficial flux of a new life". She was persuaded that this was a miracle, and interpreted it as the Sacred Heart of Jesus giving her the mission to "heal bodies in order to save souls". The first cure ascribed to Paparelli’s miraculous powers took place at Via Ottaviano 43, Rome, in October 1944.

In that year, she established a group called the Luigia Paparelli Mission (Missione Luigia Paparelli) and started calling her followers the "Brothers of the Mission" ("Brothers" actually including both male and female disciples). Members of the Mission confirmed their membership by wearing a ring engraved with the symbol of the Holy Trinity. Paparelli became, for her followers, "the Master", divinely invested with powers to heal and exorcise. She "signed" the sick with a cross on the forehead, lips, heart, and the afflicted part of their bodies, in the name of the Holy Trinity, and recited a short prayer: "Lord, send the evil spirits away". The "sign", Paparelli contended, was not enough, in itself, to achieve both physical and spiritual healing, however; for this, the co-operation of the patients themselves, who should fast, pray, and practice penance was essential. Paparelli also instructed those "signed" by her to visit a Catholic Church in order to confess and receive Holy Communion.

In 1970, she had become famous enough to attract the attention of the local Roman Catholic authorities in Rome. The Office of the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, in a letter dated February 27, 1970, stated that Paparelli’s phenomena and "signs" were "superstitious" and could in fact "promote a form of superstition detrimental to religion". In such phenomena, the declaration went on to say, there was "nothing supernatural". The Mission continued to grow, however, and assumed the name "La Missione – Luigia Paparelli" (slightly different from the original) following Paparelli’s death, surrounded by the Brothers of the Mission, on August 28, 1984 in Valmontone (Rome). The stated aim of the Mission is the promotion of the "Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion". Its main centres are located around Rome, in Umbria (Central Italy), and Tuscany, although other centres do exist all over Italy and in several other countries too. "Temples" of the Mission, with statues of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Trinity, and Luigia Paparelli herself, have been built in Gambassi and San Venanzo, both in Central Italy, and are regarded as sacred places where both special yearly festivals and traditional Catholic feasts are celebrated.

After Paparelli’s death, problems of succession generated several divisions. According to some witnesses the Master, before her death, "called" Rina Menichetti Frizza (born in 1928) from Orvieto (Central Italy) to whom Paparelli addressed her last words. Those Brothers of the Mission who were called "Apostolini" ("Little Apostles") recognized Menichetti as Paparelli’s spiritual heir. There are, however, other Brothers of the Mission who assign no particular role to Menichetti. It is important to note, on the other hand, that whilst leadership divisions are important for the hierarchy as such, at the grassroots level those members who do acknowledge Paparelli’s prophetic role still believe themselves to be part of a single movement. Brothers of the Mission, and "Little Apostles" in particular, do not proselytize. The Mission’s message is normally spread by somebody who has been healed and who, in turn, propagates its powers of healing. The Brothers of the Mission in Italy (Lazio, Tuscany, Umbria, Marche, and Sicily) and abroad (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, the U.S.A.) total approximately 10,000.

Luigia Paparelli stated emphatically that she did not regard herself as the founder of a new religion; her faith, she said, was "the one and only religion of Jesus Christ, based on the Ten Commandments". She also said that she did not, strictly speaking, perform the miracles herself, but "received" them as gifts from the Lord. The Mission has no real "doctrine", or theology. Rather, Paparelli’s teachings and her supernatural phenomena created a large community of believers who still regard themselves as Roman Catholics, but whose individual perception of their Catholicism differs from person to person and from place to place. Popular religion, Italian traditions surrounding the Holy Trinity, folk religion, and occasionally "superstition", may all combine to play different roles.

Members of the Mission generally prefer the Roman Catholic liturgy in its "traditional" (pre-Vatican II) form, and would not normally receive Communion on the hand (as most Catholics do after Vatican II) or whilst standing (they would rather kneel), and maintain the fast from midnight to the morning on which they receive Communion, even if this is no longer encouraged or regarded as mandatory by the Roman Catholic Church. The Brothers of the Mission regard material prosperity, health, and a good moral life as both God’s blessing and as key features of their Mission membership. They also attend in large numbers the Mission’s feasts (often concluded with spectacular fireworks), held in the movement’s sacred places.

The relationship with the Roman Catholic hierarchy remains difficult. During her lifetime, Paparelli explicitly saw herself as a possible guide for those who regarded themselves as part of the Roman Catholic Church "spiritually", but were not prepared to follow the hierarchy in more mundane matters. When, in 1948, during the period of the Cold War, Pius XII (1876-1958), reiterated that Roman Catholics could not be members or followers of the Communist Party and remain at the same time members of the Church in good standing, he generated serious problems in Central Italy (Umbria, Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna, Lazio), an area in which the Italian Communist Party enjoyed widespread support by hundreds of thousands of members. Some of them joined the Mission, in fact, and were welcomed by Paparelli with no preclusion on the grounds of personal political preferences. In some cases, local Catholic parish priests reacted by refusing to administer the sacraments to her followers, whom she then encouraged to meet in prayer centres other than Catholic churches, and to receive "spiritual" non-priestly confession and Communion.

In the period following Paparelli’s death, most Brothers still regard her mission as unique, although Rina Menichetti Frizza is believed to have inherited, in some way, Paparelli’s mantle. Menichetti continues to welcome followers to her Orvieto house, where she also enjoys spiritual visions of the Master (i.e. Paparelli), whose messages she immediately writes down for the Brothers. The messages are typed and circulated on sheets indicating the place (Orvieto) and date (day 8 of each month) on which they were received, accompanied by a symbol: the letter "L" in a triangle until June 1987, when it was replaced by a star. Menichetti tells of her encounters with the Master who "takes her on her coach" to "her Kingdom" together with God the Father and the Virgin Mary. In Paparelli’s "Kingdom", i.e. Paradise, Menichetti describes a "Castle" full of light, and a peculiar experience whereby each member of the Mission receives a "score". In Paradise, God periodically opens a book and checks the Brothers’ "notes" or "scores". God may eventually "cancel" those unfaithful to the Mission, but the Master and the Virgin Mary intercede and ask the Father not to "cancel" anybody. In Menichetti’s visions, Paparelli claims that she is the Son (not "the Daughter") of the Father, and that the Brothers should anticipate her return: "My return will be your liberation". At the end of each "conversation", Menichetti receives a blessing from the "Holy Trinity": "In the name of the Father, Luigia the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary". Paparelli also asks Menichetti to write down everything that has happened.

The Brothers of the Mission claim to be Roman Catholics, although their individual attitudes may vary. Some would simply claim that their feeling toward Paparelli is one of deep gratitude, whilst others believe she is "the same as saint Rita of Cascia" (a very popular saint among Italian Catholics). For other Brothers, however, Paparelli is nothing less than divine. For them, she is not only a teacher, a uniquely gifted healer, or even a figure mediating between God and her followers, but a "Divine Master" whose name is "Luigia the Son", the "reincarnation" in fact of the Son of God, or the "Woman clothed with the Sun" mentioned in the Book of Revelation. It is unclear, and hotly debated, whether Paparelli even called herself "the Son of God", or whether the title was actually conferred on her posthumously by some enthusiastic followers, some of whom also have an exclusive faith in her healing powers, to the exclusion of all mainstream medicine. These fringes of the larger movement live their lives quite separately from society as a whole, and often break ties with their own families in consequence. Within the movement, some Brothers make a vow of perpetual chastity (even if they are married), or opt for a celibate lifestyle totally focused on the Master and the Mission.

The relationship between the Mission and the Roman Catholic hierarchy is different in terms of the different attitudes held by Paparelli’s followers, and those of local parish priests and Bishops. In some Roman Catholic dioceses and parishes the conflict is strong, and Catholic priests refuse administer the sacraments to the Brothers of the Mission. Elsewhere, the relationship is fairly peaceful. In some cases, Mission members have gradually abandoned the beliefs more foreign to Roman Catholicism, whilst other have managed to successfully combine their active membership of the Mission with their uninterrupted and equally active membership of the Catholic Church.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael D. Langone’s Interview

2008-11-16T17:41:00.006+01:00

Michael D. Langone’s Interview on law against "cults"

Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., a counseling psychologist, is ICSA’s Executive Director. He was the founder editor of Cultic Studies Journal (CSJ), the editor of CSJ’s successor, Cultic Studies Review, and editor of Recovery From Cults. He is co-author of Cults: What Parents Should Know and Satanism and Occult-Related Violence: What You Should Know. Dr. Langone has spoken and written widely about cults. In 1995, he received the Leo J. Ryan Award from the "original" Cult Awareness network and was honored as the Albert V. Danielsen visiting Scholar at Boston University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His contributions are at this URL :

http://www.culticstudiesreview.org/csr_profiles/indiv/langone_michael.htm

Interview by Raffaella Di Marzio

Di Marzio: What is your experience of the cult awareness scene in Italy?

Langone: I do not have direct experience of cult-related matters in Italy. My awareness comes from what I have read and from conversations with Italian colleagues in this field. My impression is that the cult scene in Italy is similar to that in other countries. Some groups are international; others are limited to one country or geographical area. The network of people providing education or assistance related to cultic groups seems to be surprisingly large in Italy, perhaps because the resources of the Catholic Church supplement those coming from a secular or mental health perspective. The journal Sette e Religioni has published many interesting articles. There have been many conferences in Italy. Unfortunately, because translation resources in this field are very limited, few people outside of Italy appreciate how much Italians are contributing to this field.

Di Marzio: In Italy some are proposing a special law against "cults" and "mind control". In your experience, are these laws useful?

Langone: First of all, I want to make clear that my opinion on this subject is a personal one and does not reflect any position of ICSA. Our organization encourages diverse opinions on such topics. Secondly, I approach this subject from the standpoint of a citizen of the United States. I recognize that European legal traditions are different and, therefore, do not present my opinions as “advice” to Europeans. My reflections are not advocacy; they are merely reflections.

I recognize that the desire to pass laws to protect people against cult-related harm is based on motivations of compassion and moral outrage. However, in evaluating a given legislative proposal I believe that it is vital to hold our emotions in check and evaluate each proposal dispassionately with our intellects. Moreover, it is necessary to look at the unintended as well as the intended consequences of a given proposal. A law that helps in area A may harm in area B. The unintended effects, then, must be weighed against the intended effects. For example, when I first entered this field in the late 1970s some parents' groups in the United States advocated for "conservatorship laws." These were proposals to make it easier for parents to force adult children in "cults" to be subjected against their will to a period of psychiatric observation. I opposed these proposals, none of which became law, because I feared that they gave too much power to mental health professionals and judges and could easily have been misused. These proposals are no longer made in the United States.

A few people in the United States are now looking with favor at legislative proposals or existing laws (such as exist in France) that focus on psychological manipulation in groups, proposals that could be construed as variants of the old "plagio" law in Italy. In principle I am open to the possibility that a law could be so carefully constructed and the methodology of enforcing that law could be so easily monitored that the unintended consequences and other limitations to basic liberties would be small compared to the benefits. However, I am very skeptical that this goal could be easily achieved. When I talk to parents about laws aimed at criminalizing manipulative recruiting, I often ask the question: "Which mother's child goes to jail?" In a high-demand, manipulative group, the leader's followers, many of whose mothers and fathers are concerned about their child's involvement in a cult, do the recruiting. They believe that what they do is noble, not unethical, because they have been indoctrinated into the manipulative system.

Research indicates that most will eventually leave their group, although we can't predict who will leave when and how much each person will be damaged by the experience. A law against manipulative recruitment will in effect target current victims of the manipulative system in order to gain a measure of retribution for former victims of the system, who themselves had been simultaneously victims and victimizers when they were current members. I realize that advocates of these goals really want to get the group leaders; however, I suspect that this objective will prove to be as difficult as arresting a drug kingpin or Mafia chieftan. The collateral damage of going after the leaders could be many tearful parents visiting their cult member children in jail.

The skepticism I hold toward such proposals, which I have very briefly described above, revolves around their capacity to achieve the intended consequences of the legislative proposal. One also has to look at deleterious unintended consequences. For example, the Southern Baptist denomination is the second largest Christian denomination in the United States, second only to the Catholic Church. Many Southern Baptists take the Great Commission very seriously and devote their lives to evangelization. Most are ethical in their methods of evangelization, although some can slide into cultic methods. (In 1985 I edited a special issue of Cultic Studies Journal in which evangelicals and others discussed the ethics of influence in proselytizing; a number of Southern Baptists participated.)

However, in some European countries Southern Baptists are unknown and evangelization is unknown. As a result ethical evangelists may be lumped together with the worst cult recruiters simply because the former are engaged in evangelization. If not very very carefully enforced, a law against manipulative proselytizing could easily be used to restrict the freedom of people who are culturally different but not unethical.

Di Marzio: I know you attended the last CESNUR conference in London. What is your impression?

Langone: The London conference was the first time I've been able to attend a CESNUR conference, so I do not have experience with prior conferences to which I could compare the London one, which was run jointly with the British organization, INFORM. I was pleased that a variety of points of view were present at CESNUR, including an interesting session with a panel of former SGAs (second generation adults, i.e., ex- members who were born into or raised in cultic groups). During the past 10 years a number of us have engaged in dialogue aimed at reducing the polarization of "pro-cultists" and "anti-cultists" that arose in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Different people and different organizations have different areas of focus in this field. Some, like International Cultic Studies Association (which I serve as Executive Director), focus on the harm caused by some groups. Other organizations and individuals have a more theoretical interest and look at sociological processes or historical lineages of groups. So long as there is a shared recognition that harm occurs, dialogue among these different kinds of organizations and individuals can be fruitful, and we can learn from each other, rather than pigeon-hole and shun each other as "pro-cultists" or "anti-cultists." I think the CESNUR conference recognized that there is harm and contributed positively to constructive dialogue.

Di Marzio: Is a dialogue between the cult awareness community and academics once labelled "cult apologists" productive?

Langone: As implied above, I definitely believe that such dialogue is productive, so long as those who do not focus on harm acknowledge its existence, and so long as those who do focus on harm do not insist that everybody share their focus.

Decree - Diocese of Toledo: Policy on Sexual Abuse of Minors

2008-11-16T17:28:00.003+01:00

Decree - Diocese of Toledo: Policy on Sexual Abuse of Minors

DOWNLOAD THE DECREE

Blind, or Just Don't Want to See?

2008-11-16T17:16:00.003+01:00

Blind, or Just Don't Want to See?
Brainwashing, Mystification, and Suspicion

By Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio

Published in:
- Cults & Society: An Internet Journal, Vol 1, No.1, 2001
- Cultic Studies Journal: Psychological Manipulation and Society, AFF, Vol 17, 2000, p.122-142.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

This paper examines slected points of dispute among scholars and professionals interested in /new religious movements: the degree to which the reports of former group members should be accorded credibility; the meaning and existence of the concept of brainwashing; the proper interpretation of certain actions taken by European governmental committees; and the degree to which ideology and/or money provided by new religious movements has or may in the future corrupt scholarly research in this area. The paper concludes by embracing a pastoral letter on this subject by the Italian Bishops' Conference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a letter written by a mother:

I am a desperate mother. Ten years ago, I lost my daughter to a ferocious "cult"…. The unfortunate people whom we meet are completely taken over… they tell them that their mothers are devils who give out negative energy, thus hindering their perfect introduction into cult life… I hardly ever hear from my daughter now. She doesn't take part in our family meetings and calls me only when she needs money. You can well imagine the tragedy of this poor mother... Please do something to help these poor people who are in danger and want to live the life that Our Lord Jesus gave us… I am afraid she will commit suicide like the others… do something, I repeat, we cannot leave these kids at the mercy of gaolers, of murderers of the worst kind… I pray the Lord will help you in your work to help all these kids who are prisoners of murderous cults.

Says a former member:

I then started to write a farewell letter to my spiritual guide. This cost me a lot: every word was like a dagger blow, and every now and then I had to stop since the tears would block my vision. I wasn't able to do it all in one stroke, but every now and then I went back to what was a small calvary for me, a deserved one however, unlike that of the Lord. My mind went back to the Good Thief and I hoped Jesus would answer me the same way. When I got to the end of the letter, I had a feeling of liberation… It had been a long trail, lasting over 20 years, but this was what had happened... What I thought was heaven was actually a pink-coloured hell, painted over with falsehood... I got hold of my ancestors and my roots again. For years, everything which makes a person free and conscious of what he is doing had been stolen from me. I was picking up my pieces one by one, slowly but surely. However, many wounds would never close again. It was still hard for me to free myself from what I had thought was reality but actually was conditioning: the notion of being one of the elect, somebody different, one of the Eternal's chosen… The feeling I had deep inside is hard to describe: like being a flower which slowly raises its petals again after having spent a long time without any water and having risked death… When we realised that what we had been through was a true cult, we understood we could no longer go on this way, pretending nothing had happened, as other former members had done before… All my fears went away one by one and were replaced by a single, increasingly clear awareness: that diabolical thing, that tremendous octopus, must stop, or at least we had to make others know it existed… you can defend yourself from an enemy only when you know you have one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ THE ARTICLE IN SRS WEBSITE

"Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the APA

2008-11-12T22:36:00.004+01:00

Article by Alberto Amitrani & Raffaella Di Marzio

Published in Cults & Society : An Internet Journal, Vol 1, No.1, 2001 and in Cultic Studies Journal: Psychological Manipulation and Society, AFF,Volume 17, 2000, p.101-121

During the past 10 years some scholars have claimed that the American Psychological Association (APA) formally rejected the notion of brainwashing as unscientific because APA rejected the report of a committee headed by noted cult critic, Dr. Margaret Singer.

In an attempt to investigate the accuracy of these claims the authors embarked upon a long and difficult search for the documents on which this seemingly significant claim is based.

They concluded that a careful reading of the relevant documents indicates that APA has not rejected the notion of brainwashing and that, as Dr. Benjamin Zablocki notes, “like so many others theories in the behavioral sciences, the jury is still out on this one.”

READ THE ARTICLE IN SRS WEBSITE

What Should We Do About Cults? (Conference 2001)

2008-11-11T20:52:00.012+01:00

What Should We Do About Cults?
An Italian Perspective

Dr. Raffaella Di Marzio

Article published in Cultic Studies Journal, Vol.18, 2001

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

This paper is a revised version of a paper prepared in response to a program on this subject organized by AFF (American Family Foundation) at its annual conference in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 14 -16, 1999. The paper examines the cult situation in Italy, explores various approaches on what we should do about the cult problem, and offers suggestions about a possible common research agenda for critics and sympathizers of cultic groups. The essay attempts to provide a balanced response to an international problem that raises a serious human rights question: How do we protect individuals and societies from manipulative and destructive influences in religious and other groups without violating fundamental rights and freedoms that are basic to modern pluralisticsocieties?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper will examine first the cult situation in Italy, including certain official responses, in order to give some context to the discussion. Next, Italian legal issues will be explored, followed by a summary of certain key documents put forth by the Catholic Church in

Italy

. The paper then presents the author's views on what should be done about cults. The paper concludes by offering some suggestions concerning a common research agenda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ THE ARTICLE ON SRS WEBSITE

The Army of Mary is not a Catholic association

2008-11-11T20:47:00.004+01:00

Army of Mary : Doctrinal Note of the Catholic Bishops of Canada

It was fourteen years ago, on 4 May 1987, that Cardinal Louis-Albert Vachon, then Archbishop of Quebec, formally revoked the decree by which his predecessor had established the Army of Mary as a pious association. (1) With this decree revoking the Army of Mary's canonical status in the Church, a decision that was made in full communion with the Holy See on 6 February 1987, the Archbishop of Quebec banned all celebrations organized under the auspices of the Army of Mary and by its various branches in the parish churches and other places of worship in the diocese. As well, the propagation of devotion and prayers to the "Lady of all Peoples" was also banned.

To this day, the leaders of the Army of Mary have not heeded the numerous interventions of the Archbishop of Quebec and have continued their activities, including the unlawful establishment of a chapel and retreat house at Lac Etchemin.(2) They have done so without regard for the legitimate authority of the local Ordinary to safeguard the ecclesial communion which is fundamental to the Catholic Church, and in violation of the norms of the Code of Canon Law.(3)

The Army of Mary's on-going activities and teachings pose dangers for the Catholic Church in Canada and to the faith of its members. In view of this and the continuing threat to the integrity and unity of the Catholic faith, the Bishops of Canada declare, and hereby inform all the Catholic faithful, that the Army of Mary, regardless of its claims to the contrary, is not a Catholic association. Some of the teaching it propagates about redemption, the Virgin Mary and ?reincarnation? are profoundly at variance with the teaching and profession of the faith of the Catholic Church. Because this constitutes for the faithful a danger to the faith, we, the Bishops of Canada, hereby exhort the members and sympathizers of the Army of Mary to take no further part in any activities of this group, whether these involve its publications or participation in prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations, including those notably at its Centre Spiri-Maria, located in Quebec.

For the benefit of the Catholic faithful in Canada, therefore, and especially the well-intentioned sympathizers of the Army of Mary, we reiterate here the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church concerning some of the contentious doctrinal issues at stake.

Catholic Teaching Concerning Private Revelations

Since the belief and spirituality of the Army of Mary stem from, and are largely dictated by, a series of presumed private revelations, we must, in the first instance, address this key issue.

The possibility of private revelation through visions and auditory experiences has always been recognized by the Church. Indeed the tradition and practice of the Church, in many of its devotions and recognized prophetic figures and mystics such as Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila, presuppose the existence of genuine private revelations. God can make himself perceptible to any person not only by his works but also by his free personal word. We recognize that the Holy Spirit can act upon the Church through any of its members.

Nevertheless, while private revelations can and do take place in the history of the Church, these are not to be understood as revealing some new doctrinal truths, as though adding new truths to God's definitive public Revelation. With the death of the last Apostle, the completion of public Revelation indicates the absolute supremacy and permanent normative character of the Christ-event: "no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."(4) God's definitive public Revelation, which alone constitutes the faith of the People of God, is the standard against which the authenticity of any subsequent private revelation must be judged.

The Church has always taught that private revelations indicate how Christians should apply the message of the Gospel in a particular historical situation. They are not disclosures of new doctrines, as the Army of Mary maintains. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states in this respect: "It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.... Christian faith cannot accept revelations that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment." (5) If perchance a private revelation does touch upon some point of doctrine, it has never been to add to the deposit of faith, but rather to draw special attention to some already revealed, but perhaps neglected, aspect of the deposit of faith. The presumed private revelations, upon which members of the Army of Mary stake their claim, do not merely urge Catholics to follow the Gospel more faithfully; they include spurious new doctrines that are without foundation in Scripture or Tradition.

Mary's Role in the History of Salvation

As its name clearly indicates, the Army of Mary centres much of its devotion and spirituality on Mary. Yet its Marian devotion contains many elements that are patently contrary to the teaching of the Church, especially with regards to Mary's place in God's plan of redemption and her non-repeatable, irreplaceable role in salvation history. These and other doctrinal points as taught by the Army of Mary seriously misrepresent the Church's teaching .

By God's design, the Virgin Mary has indeed always occupied a unique, privileged position in the history of salvation and in the communion of saints. Mary stands at the decisive point in the history of salvation as the person who, in faith, agreed to receive into herself the Son of God and Saviour of the world, Jesus Christ. She became the Mother of the eternal Word, the Mother of God, when she consented to receive Christ in her flesh and in her heart. According to the witness of Scripture, Mary's personal assent and co-operation stand at the very heart and centre of salvation history.

Yet her fiat, her personal act of acceptance, was itself a redeeming and sanctifying grace from God. Mary did not merit this grace on her own, independently of the redemptive grace of her Son, Jesus Christ. (6) This singular grace of accepting God's will was given to her by the power of the Most High, as a prevenient gift and fruit of Christ's redemption. Thus it was, at one and the same time, a divinely assisted and a deeply human response. Because of this unique and historically unrepeatable grace, the Church has always seen in Mary the supreme and utterly unique instance of redemption, both for herself and a world in need of redemption. Mary is she who is perfectly redeemed because she is "full of grace".

In this capacity, she and she alone stands as a living model and pattern for the Church and for all of us. To speak of Mary is to speak of the Church. Mary has always been, by reason of her faith and obedience to the Word of God, a model of the Church. In Mary, the Church affirms her own vocation. Thus in the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Church we read: "For in the mystery of the Church, herself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar of both virginity and motherhood."(7)

The Army of Mary, through their misguided interpretation of Catholic teaching, would in effect not only rob Mary of her unique, irreplaceable role in salvation history, but their so-called "reincarnation" of Mary all but renders superfluous Mary's on-going intercession in heavenly glory. The Mary of the Gospel and Catholic tradition is in heaven, not on earth. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary's life is both unique and historical, and as such cannot be repeated, reproduced, or otherwise "reincarnated ". When the course of her earthly life was finished, she was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory. It is from there, beside the Risen Christ and no longer here on earth, that she continues, even now, to be our Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix: "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside her saving role, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation."(8)

The presumed private revelation upon which the Army of Mary bases its claim to legitimacy does in fact introduce new and erroneous doctrines about the Virgin Mary and her role in the economy of salvation history. It significantly adds to Christ's definitive Revelation. It would have its followers believe, for example, that their "Immaculate" is co-eternal with the Triune God, and that although she was once the historical mother of Jesus, she is now "reincarnated" and "dwells" in the very person of the recipient of these presumed private revelations.(9) It was because of such spurious attempts to add to the fundamental deposit of faith, and other such assertions, that the Army of Mary forfeited its claim to be a duly recognized Catholic association.

Role of Ecclesial Authority

The Catholic Bishops of Canada regret the way the leaders of the Army of Mary continue to defy ecclesial authority and refuse to heed the legitimate pastoral admonitions and injunctions of the Archbishop of Quebec. This can only be injurious to the proper teaching and unifying role of episcopal authority, mission and responsibility, and thus to the ecclesial communion.

At its deepest level, ecclesial communion is maintained by the unity of believers in the apostolic faith and by the celebration and profession of this faith in the Eucharist, the sacrament of the Church's unity. Right faith and authentic sacramental celebration are not possible apart from communion with the local bishop. He is the witness and point of reference of the life of faith in the community. He is not only the witness and authentic interpreter of the faith present in "the particular church entrusted to him as the vicar and delegate of Christ,"(10) he is also a witness for his community in that he stands in profound communion of faith with his fellow bishops. The bishop is entrusted with responsibility both for the public worship and for the religious teaching that occurs in his diocese. It is his responsibility to promote and safeguard Catholic teaching concerning faith and morals throughout the diocese. It is his function to ensure that what is being taught is in full accord with the teaching of the Church, that it is theologically acceptable, morally sound, and free of doctrinal error. In accomplishing this function, the bishop thereby protects the right of the People of God to receive the Gospel message in its purity and entirety.

As we noted earlier, the Church has always recognized the presence of mystics and mystical experience in the community of the faithful. Indeed, it can even be said that every Christian is a mystic in virtue of his or her baptismal vocation and life in Christ. The Church is also mindful, however, of the inadequacy of human words, whether theological or mystical, to capture and express fully "the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph. 3:18). Thus it is that both the theologian and the mystic must submit, in all humility, to the limitations of human words to express and communicate the ineffable mystery of being loved by a God of infinite love. Because of this inadequacy of human language, and the ensuing dangers to the true faith, bishops have a divinely appointed overseeing role in the Church to ensure, in their diocese, that the definitive Revelation in Jesus Christ is transmitted faithfully and without distortion.

Contrary to this humble submission, the Army of Mary has publicly defied episcopal authority, and its defiance has not been confined to the local Church. Prior to the decision to revoke the Army of Mary's canonical status, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already examined the extensive written record of the presumed private revelations and had found them, in many instances, to be contrary to Catholic teaching. Contesting the canonical legality of Cardinal Vachon's decree revoking its status, as was its right, the Army of Mary lodged an administrative recourse against his decision. It appealed its case to the supreme tribunal of the Church in Rome, the Apostolic Signatura, which is the highest recourse possible in such judicial matters. After due process and prolonged procedures, this supreme tribunal issued a definitive decision by decree on 20 April 1991.(11) With this decision, the Archbishop was vindicated in his decision to revoke the Army of Mary's canonical status, with the ensuing consequence that Catholics were to refrain from belonging to this particular group. Sadly, many still continue to do so in defiance of ecclesial authority. In the eyes of the Catholic faithful, this can only be divisive and undermine the teaching and unifying role of episcopal authority.

Conclusion

It should be obvious that a group can no longer represent itself as truly Catholic when its leaders teach a doctrine that is contrary to that of the Catholic Church, especially on points as fundamental as those enumerated above. The Bishops of Canada thus invite pastors and faithful alike to a serious spiritual discernment and to preserve intact their Catholic faith. We urge all Catholics to recognize the errors of doctrine inherent in the teachings of the Army of Mary, to be mindful of the harm and divisive consequences its leaders are having in the Church of Canada and elsewhere, and to preserve the purity of their Catholic faith. With pastoral charity, we remind all Catholics in Canada to make the revealed Word of God and the teachings of the Church the basis for their life of faith and the central focus of their Christian spirituality.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Solemnity of St. Peter and St. Paul, apostles

29 June 2001

This Doctrinal Note of the Catholic Bishops of Canada concerning the Army of Mary received the recognitio of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 10 August 2001 (Prot. N. 216/74-13501), and was subsequently published by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary, 15 August 2001.

Endnotes

1. Cf. Pastorale-Québec, vol. 99, no. 10, June 22, 1987, p. 245.

2. Cf. Pastorale-Québec, vol. 112, no. 6, May 15, 2000, pp. 10-15.

3. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1226.

4. Dei Verbum, 4. Cf. also 1 Tim 6.14; Titus 2.13.

5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 67.

6. Lumen gentium, nos. 60, 62.

7. Lumen gentium, no. 63.

8. Lumen gentium, no. 62.

9. For an overview of the creed of the Army of Mary, cf. Le Royaume, no. 143, July 1, 2000, p. 8.

10. Lumen gentium, no. 27.

11. For a French translation of this official Latin decree, cf. Studia Canonica, vol. 25, no. 2, 1991, pp. 409-15

Website of Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Decree against Order of St Charbel of Mr William Kamm

2008-11-11T20:42:00.005+01:00

Wollongong, 16 June 2002

Bishop of Wollongong published a Decree about Mr William Kamm also known as The Little Pebble: " ... Mr William Kamm and his associates, ... renounce all their manifestly false claims to legitimacy within the Catholic Church ..."

Most Rev Peter William Ingham DD, Bishop of Wollongong

Decree

WI:pac/lt/5141

iven at Wollongong

6 June 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr William Kamm also known as The Little Pebble

Whereas on 27 September 1999, following many warnings by himself and his predecessor, Most Rev William Murray over a period of more than 15 years (with particular reference to the pastoral letter by Bishop William Murray dated 2 December 1984 and entitled On True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary), Most Rev Philip Wilson, then Bishop of Wollongong, issued a Decree against Mr William Kamm and his so-called Order of St Charbel requesting him to:

1. Refrain from making public statements that your organisation has been recognised by ecclesiastical authority.

2. Inform the members of your organisation of this fact, and of the invalidity of their vows.

3. Instruct those members who have supposedly taken vows in your institution not to wear any semblance of a religious habit in public or to claim they belong to an approved Catholic institute of consecrated life.

4. Stop this work, to give up all association with Bartholomew Schneider and to close the so-called Order of St Charbel for the good of souls.

and

whereas William Kamm took recourse against this decree to the Bishop of Wollongong on 30 September 1999, to the Archbishop of Sydney on 2 November 1999 and to the Holy Father on 8 December 1999, wrongly claiming that his recourse automatically suspended the execution of Bishop Philip Wilson’s decree; and

whereas on 5 May 2000, Most Rev Philip Wilson, then Bishop of Wollongong, established a Commission, consisting of two theologians and two canon lawyers, to investigate the writings and works of William Kamm; and

whereas acceding to William Kamm’s request to be interviewed, Fr Kevin Matthews, one of the Commissioners, interviewed him on 21 October 2000, during which the matter of recourse was raised as an objection; and

whereas when the acts of the interview were sent to William Kamm to be signed, Mr Kamm produced a document, dated 17 November 2000, in which he gave his own version of the interview with additional material; and

whereas on 12 January 2001 Most Rev Philip Wilson, by then Archbishop-elect of Adelaide and Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, received from the Diocesan Commission its Report of the Wollongong Diocesan Commission Investigating the Writings and Works of William Kamm Known as "The Little Pebble" with the recommendation that:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be approached as the proper recipient of our Response.

and

whereas on 24 January 2001 Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in support of his action taken against William Kamm and the so-called Order of St Charbel and in respect of Mr Kamm’s subsequent recourse, presenting the Diocese’s case subsequent to its investigation and as outlined in the Commission’s report; and

whereas on 3 February 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in a letter to Archbishop-elect Philip Wilson that:

It is quite clear that his so-called Order of St Charbel has never had any legal existence in the Catholic Church. Mr Kamm himself admits that its recognition was done by a schismatic Prelate. Hence your Decree of September 27, 1999, is perfectly valid and binding.

In relation to the diocesan investigation, it is clear that the multiple absurdities contained in the two books published by Mr Kamm and the information collected by the commission offer sufficient grounds for a decision in relation to the clearly non-supernatural origin (the classical equivalent is: constat de non-supernaturalitate) of the "apparitions" and "messages" promoted by Mr Kamm. I suggest your diocesan investigation come to a speedy close and the commission present to you a signed written report of their conclusions on this subject. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would be pleased to receive and support your decision on this issue.

and

whereas on 27 February 2001 Very Rev Bryan Jones, Diocesan Administrator of Wollongong, sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a signed copy of the Commission’s report with its recommendation that the Congregation, as the proper authority, issue a statement against the teachings and actions of Mr Kamm; and

whereas on 19 February 2002 I wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeking a response to the Diocese’s report; and

whereas on 22 March 2002 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the signature of its Secretary, Most Rev Tarcisio Bertone, in its letter to me, stated the following:

The Congregation has followed with apprehension the serious developments taking place and has given full support to both Bishop Murray and Bishop Wilson in their dealings with the man. Both Bishops set up diocesan commissions and investigated the matter but Mr Kamm has refused to accept their results and continues to disregard and disobey the legitimate authority of the Church.

On March 27, 2001 this Dicastery wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio expressing the desire that the new Bishop of Wollongong would issue a decree – in accordance with the Bishops’ Conference – repudiating categorically the activities of Mr Kamm, his absurd pretensions and his association with schismatic elements clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church. This decree should contain a pressing invitation to all the faithful to disassociate themselves for the good of their souls from Mr Kamm and his activities. I am asking Your Excellency to undertake this task in the knowledge that you have the full and clear support of the Holy See.

and

having considered the findings of the legitimate canonical investigation initiated by the Diocese of Wollongong; and

having sought and subsequently received the full and clear support of the Holy See and in obedience to the specific and direct instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and

having received the endorsement of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference; and

in following the consistent and long-standing position of my predecessors, Most Rev William Murray and Most Rev Philip Wilson;

I hereby state the following concerning the alleged visions, teachings and practices of Mr William Kamm and those who have chosen to associate themselves with his activities and organisations:

The Holy See has declared that there is nothing supernatural about the alleged visions of Mr William Kamm.

Mr William Kamm has chosen to spread false teachings, to make false claims to authority, and to establish himself and his activities in clear contradiction to the teachings, discipline and authority of the Catholic Church.

Mr William Kamm’s assertions, teachings and actions are dangerous and harmful to Christ’s faithful.

With the authority granted to me by the Holy See and as the Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I hereby decree that:

Mr William Kamm, through his alleged visions and in his various writings, communications and personal actions, is spreading teachings contrary to the divinely revealed teachings of the Catholic Church, in both faith and morals.

Mr William Kamm, personally and through his associates and activities, is acting in contradiction to the divinely established authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.

I therefore order that:

Mr William Kamm immediately cease all his activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church and disband his various movements and associations;

Fr Malcolm Broussard, a priest who does not possess the faculties of this or any other Catholic Diocese, and who has freely and consciously associated himself with Mr William Kamm over a period of many years, disassociate himself from Mr Kamm and his teachings, and from all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.

The so-called Order of St Charbel, in all its various communities in Australia (including the communities of Gethsemane, Cambewarra, New South Wales; the Sacred Heart, Tyaak, Victoria; the Most Precious Blood, Meredith, Victoria; the Holy Ghost, Ormeau, Queensland; and the Most Pure Heart of St Joseph, Reeves, South Australia) and in all its communities established in other countries, immediately disband and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.

All others associated in any way with Mr William Kamm, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, movements, or the like, disassociate themselves from him and cease all activities that are contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.

This decree will remain in force until such time as Mr William Kamm and his associates, for the sake of their eternal salvation, renounce all their manifestly false claims to legitimacy within the Catholic Church and until Mr Kamm and his associates permanently cease all activities contrary to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church.

For the good of their souls, with deep pastoral concern and as Chief Pastor of the Particular Church of Wollongong, I exhort Mr William Kamm, his associates and all those who have followed him or his various movements and associations to disassociate themselves from all that is contradictory to the teachings, authority and discipline of the Catholic Church, to seek God’s forgiveness, and to re-establish their communion with the Catholic Church.

[ Diocesan Seal ]

[signature ]

Most Rev Peter W Ingham DD

BISHOP OF WOLLONGONG

[ signature ]

DIOCESAN NOTARY

Diocese of Wollongong

PO Box 1239

Wollongong SCMC NSW

2521

Australia

Tel: +61 2 4253 0900

Fax: +61 2 4253 0977

Read the Decree at this URL

Excommunication for Romulo Antonio Braschi

2008-11-11T20:40:00.003+01:00

Decree of Excommunication confirmed for Romulo Antonio Braschi, founder of a schismatic community. Braschi attempted to ordain seven Catholic women to the priesthood

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 29, 2002, Romulo Antonio Braschi, founder of a schismatic community, attempted to ordain the following Catholic women to the priesthood: Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris Müller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Dagmar Braun Celeste, who on that occasion identified herself as Angela White.

Citing the previous interventions of the Bishop of Linz and of the Austrian Episcopal Conference, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a statement on July 10, 2002, warning the above-mentioned persons that they would be punished with excommunication if by July 22, 2002, they had not acknowledged the nullity of their "ordination" and asked forgiveness for the scandal caused to the faithful. As they gave no indication of amendment, this Congregation punished the aforementioned persons with excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See, in the Decree dated August 5, 2002, expressing the hope that they might be moved to conversion. The Decree also confirmed that the "ordaining" bishop was already excommunicated insofar as he is a schismatic.

They subsequently published letters and granted interviews, in which they expressed their conviction regarding the validity of the "ordination" they received, calling for a change of the definitive doctrine according to which ordination to the priesthood is reserved to males, and reaffirming that they celebrate "Mass" and other "sacraments" for small groups. In a letter dated August 14, 2002, they asked that the Decree of Excommunication be revoked, and then, on September 27, 2002, with reference to canons 1732-1739 CIC, they made recourse against the Decree. On October 21, 2002, they were informed that their request would be submitted to the competent authority.

The request for revocation and the recourse were examined by the Sessione Ordinaria of the Congregation on the 4th and 18th of December 2002. The Members of the Congregation who participated - those resident in Rome - were Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Alfonso López Trujillo, Ignace Moussa I. Daoud, Giovanni Battista Re, Francis Arinze, Jozef Tomko, Achille Silvestrini, Jorge Medina Estévez, James Francis Stafford, Zenon Grocholewski, Walter Kasper, Crescenzio Sepe, Mario Francesco Pompedda, and Bishops Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., and Rino Fisichella. In the course of these meetings the Members arrived at the collegial decision to confirm the Decree of Excommunication. In the case under consideration, in fact, hierarchical recourse is not possible, as it concerns a Decree of Excommunication issued by a Dicastery of the Holy See acting in the name of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. can. 360 CIC). So as to remove any doubt in the matter, the Members thought it necessary to underline certain fundamental points.

1. It is necessary above all to state precisely that the case under consideration does not involve a latae sententiae penalty, which is incurred ipso facto when a delict expressly established by the law is committed. It concerns instead a ferendae sententiae penalty, imposed after the guilty party has been duly warned (cf. cann. 1314; 1347 §1 CIC). As provided by can. 1319 §1 CIC, this Congregation has the power to threaten determinate penalties by precept.

2. The particular gravity of the offenses committed is evident, which can be seen from various aspects.

a) There is first of all the issue of schism: the above-mentioned women were "ordained" by a schismatic bishop and - even though not formally adhering to his schism - thereby made themselves accomplices in schism.

b) In addition there is the doctrinal aspect, namely, that they formally and obstinately reject a doctrine which the Church has always taught and lived, and which was definitively proposed by Pope John Paul II, namely, "that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" (Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, n. 4). The denial of this doctrine is rightly considered the denial of a truth that pertains to the Catholic faith and therefore deserves a just penalty (cf. cann. 750 §2; 1372, n. 1 CIC; John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad tuendam fidem, n. 4A).

Moreover, by denying this doctrine, the persons in question maintain that the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff would be binding only if it were based on a decision of the College of Bishops, supported by the sensus fidelium and received by the major theologians. In such a way they are at odds with the doctrine on the Magisterium of the Successor of Peter, put forward by both the First and Second Vatican Councils, and they thereby fail to recognize that the teachings of the Supreme Pontiff on doctrines to be held definitively by all the faithful are irreformable.

3. The refusal to comply with the penal precept established by this Congregation is further aggravated by the fact that some of the above-mentioned women have been gathering round them members of the faithful, in open and devisive disobedience to the Roman Pontiff and diocesan bishops. In view of the gravity of this contumacy (cf. can. 1347 CIC), the penalty imposed is not only just, but also necessary, in order to protect true doctrine, to safeguard the communion and unity of the Church and to guide the consciences of the faithful.

4. The above-mentioned Members of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith therefore confirm the Decree of Excommunication issued on August 5, 2002, specifying once again that the attempted priestly ordination of the aforementioned women is null and invalid (cf. can. 1024 CIC) and therefore all those actions proper to the Order of Priesthood performed by them are also null and invalid (cf. cann. 124; 841 CIC). In consequence of the excommunication, they are forbidden to celebrate sacraments or sacramentals, to receive the sacraments and to exercise any function in an ecclesiastical office, ministry or assignment (cf. can. 1331 §1 CIC).

5. At the same time, it is hoped that, sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, they might discover the path to conversion and so return to the unity of faith and to communion with the Church, a communion broken by their action.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on December 20, 2002, approved this Decree, adopted in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, approving at the same time in forma specifica n. 4, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 21, 2002.

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop-elect of Genoa
Secretary