MAY 9, 2013
Aneel Aranha, HolySpiritInteractive: New Age
1. [HOMOEOPATHY] Dr. Leela Francisco
Dr. Leela Francisco (10)
[…] An alternative form of treatment, especially when conventional medicine has no answer, like homeopathy or ayurveda.
Here one needs to see good practitioners of these systems of healing who follow the correct principles of practice. […]
I encourage you to write in with any questions you have with regard to all aspects of development mentioned above and in subsequent articles, so that they can be furthur [sic] discussed and elaborated for the benefit of all. 1.
WHO IS LEELA FRANCISCO?
Dr. Leela D’Souza-Francisco
BHMS*, HMD**, PO BOX 16925, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai – 400054
*Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery, Smt. CMP Homeopathic Medical College, University of Mumbai
**Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine, The British Institute of Homeopathy, London
Leela D’Souza-Francisco MD (Hom.),
1-B Wellingdon Colony, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai – 400054, 91-022-6492007
Leela Francisco is a homeopath [I refuse to call homeopaths doctors].
In 1991-1992, she was House Physician at the Mumbadevi Homeopathic Hospital,
She served as Homeopathic Medical Officer in the Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, from 1998-1999. From 1993 to 1997 and from 1999 till date, she runs a private practice in Classical Homeopathy. More from page 3 ff.
The Family That Prays Together Stays Together
2. [NEW AGE MEDITATIONS] Fr. Peter deSousa, August 3, 2012
[As on date, Fr. Peter deSousa, CSsR, firstname.lastname@example.org, Mumbai, has 79 articles at the HSI site,
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.org/library/listing?by=Author&id=15, http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/peterdesousa/, http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/bios/peterdesousa.asp]
“Ravi Shankar with his Art of Living is drawing thousands of people to seek inner peace or how to deal with stress. Yoga, Vipassana and various strategies to handle one’s emotions are popular today among those with resources of time and money.”
Despite reading the above lines several times within the context of the entire article, I could not figure out whether Fr. Peter deSousa was speaking positively or negatively about the Art of Living, yoga and vipassana, all of which are New Age and are addressed in various articles and reports at my web site. In my opinion, a casual reader of the article on the HSI site would decide that since a Catholic priest had not categorically condemned them, but had mentioned their “benefits”, they surely must be good for Catholics to practise.
I called Fr. Peter deSousa at 5:00 pm this evening on 9969463421 to ask him what he meant by the above cited lines on yoga and vipassana meditations. He said that he knows many priests and seminarians in Mumbai who have done or do yoga and vipassana and who find them useful for dealing with stress etc. I posed differently worded questions to Fr. Peter deSousa to get a better picture. What finally emerged is that Fr. Peter deSousa has no moral judgements on the two Hindu and Buddhist spiritual disciplines. In other words, it means that he would never advise or caution any Catholic NOT to have anything to do with them.
I view this as a promotion — even if inadvertent — of New Age on HSI.
ANEEL ARANHA MISSIONARY JOURNAL
3. [ENNEAGRAMS] Lalith Pereira [sic] and the 4 step retreat
Posted by Aneel Aranha, December 5, 2009
Over the past five years we have been blessed to have some very anointed people ministering to our communities and joining their number this week was internationally acclaimed preacher Lalith Pereira
[sic] who came down to the UAE to conduct his popular—and powerful—4 Step Retreat.
As I listened to him, I found myself fascinated, not for the first time, at how God uses different people to deliver his messages in different ways and in different styles. There were over 250 people in attendance in St. Francis of Assisi Church to listen to him and be blessed by what he had to share.
Notes on the “4 Steps” will be found in my blog Christianity and the Art of Mountain Climbing shortly. 2.
Mr. Aneel Aranha has teamed up with Sri Lankan businessman and enneagram-practitioner Lalith Perera whose other profession is leading one of the island nation’s largest Catholic charismatic groups. Lalith Perera is in great demand for giving enneagram workshops to corporates and large numbers of Catholic charismatics have been exposed to the occult through these programmes. Lalith Perera is also popular with other international Catholic ministries because he carries a lot of Sri Lankan support with him [ministries in India like the Divine Retreat Centre, Muringoor, simply love to report on how many Catholics from this or that country attend their Asian- or international-level programmes] and is a potential source of preaching invitations to Sri Lanka [a sort of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ arrangement]. See
ENNEAGRAMS-SUMMARY http://ephesians-511.net/docs/ENNEAGRAMS-SUMMARY.doc, and
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE ERRORS-01
1 ctd. [HOMOEOPATHY] LEELA D’SOUZA/LEELA FRANCISCO [continued from page 2]
AN EXTRACT FROM MY REPORT DANCING AND BHARATANATYAM IN THE MASS
JANUARY/MARCH/JUNE 2011 http://ephesians-511.net/docs/DANCING_AND_BHARATANATYAM_IN_THE_MASS.doc,
INCLUDED HERE TO BRING OUT THE DIEHARD HOMEOPATH IN AND PROTESTANT INFLUENCE ON LEELA D’SOUZA-FRANCISCO AS WELL AS THE ANEEL ARANHA/HOLYSPIRITINTERACTIVE CONNECTION. THIS EXTRACT ENDS AT THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 11. FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO READ THE ENTIRE REPORT.
The article below is the example that I was talking about earlier, which records that Fr. Rufus Pereira himself uses Homoeopathy. It is this article that made me take the painful decision that this was the time to critique Fr. Rufus Pereira, a good priest whom I greatly respect, for what I perceive as his silence and compromise on the issues of deliverance testimonies, etc.
If Leela D’Souza can use the name of Fr. Rufus Pereira on the Internet to defend her practice and use of Homoeopathy, and record his disagreement on Homoeopathy with Erika Gibello‘s position which is also
the mind of a number of expert and informed Catholics including priests with whom Fr. Rufus ministers, I am obliged to do the same to defend the Truth.
Homeopathy and Soul – IIIB – Jesus, the Spiritual Similimum
By Dr. Leela D’Souza December 15, 2005
Fr. Rufus Pereira** is from Mumbai. He is the President of the “International Association for Exorcists” and is the Vice President of the “International Association for Deliverance“. He is one of the most respected Catholic Priests in the Ministry of Healing in the Catholic Church worldwide. Yet he is a simple and humble priest who has served millions of people from all over the world through his prayers for their healing and deliverance.
Here is an insight from him on Spiritual Healing in the Catholic Church quoted from his article “Prayer for Healing**“.
I had attended between the years 1993-1995, two “Inner Healing Retreats” conducted by Fr. Rufus and his team. One was for Christian doctors and nurses of the Holy Family Hospital, Mumbai; the second was along with my husband. An interesting anecdote occurred during the second retreat, when I met a Christian woman from Europe***. She was one of the speakers at the retreat. With a background in Pharmacology, she denounced homeopathy in no uncertain terms due to the “evil” effect it had on a friend of hers. She likened the effect on her friend, who was taking repeated doses of a homeopathic remedy for a few months, to a demonic possession of sorts! She said angrily, that he had become a completely changed person with no control over his emotions and all his physical symptoms were worse – “…can any reliable system of healing change a person so deeply from within? It is not to be trusted! I suggest you seriously consider whether you should be a homeopath or not.”
I tried to explain to her the “Doctrine of Drug-Proving“, but she refused to be convinced. I discussed her opinion with Fr. Rufus Pereira. But he said that they had a difference of opinion here and he couldn’t see why she was so antagonistic to homeopathy. Whenever he had taken a homeopathic remedy, he was relieved instantly, with no evil effects! I called him on the phone in Mumbai a week prior to writing this article and he confirmed that his difference of opinion with her on homeopathy remains. He sees nothing evil in it.
Spiritual Healing Case 1 (Healing of Demonic Possession)
Here is one of Fr. Rufus‘ Healing Cases that appeared in the “Charisindia” magazine: Vol. V, Issue 1, January 2006.
Fr. Rufus Pereira is Editor of this wonderful Christian Magazine.
These are excerpts quoted from the article:
A young lady looking more like a girl accompanied by her mother in law, carrying her baby, had come for the healing service…..Since there was a big crowd and a long queue of people waiting, I simply began to pray for her without asking any details. But no sooner I had touched her head ever so lightly, that she was hurled to the ground with a great force. The three strapping young men on the team and myself had to pin her down and hold her firmly as the “evil one?” manifested itself with unexpected ferocity and with incredible hatred in the eyes. […not understandable…]
She was invited to an “Inner Healing Retreat” where she could receive spiritual guidance in an atmosphere of contemplative prayer. At the beginning of the retreat, during the initial prayer and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament itself, as she knelt in adoration in the presence of the love and power of Jesus, she felt something or some “entity” deep within her leaving her, almost jumping out of her. This was obviously the “evil spirit” leaving. Later when I laid my hands on her for prayer, she felt something entering into her – obviously the Holy Spirit. Right at the beginning of the retreat itself this young lady was delivered!….(When I laid hands over her at this point, there was no violent manifestation as there was the first time, and then she explained to me what had happened).
And then as I prayed for her … “it” began to disclose unwittingly, without being specifically asked … a much needed information. “It” told me that the young woman while a student used to come to see “him” everyday during the lunch break in search of “peace” and “he” had entered her…. When the lady did come back into consciousness, she was totally unaware of what happened to her. I asked her a few pertinent questions which corroborated the braggings of the ‘evil one’. Her mother had died when she was 12 and she felt very lonely. Instead of being with friends in school, she used to visit a so-called ‘holy person’ and sit in his presence, look worshipfully at him right through the ‘darshan’, and he would give her something to eat or drink after talking to her, it was then that some “evil force” entered her….
We were thus able to ascertain the external cause (an evil influence) and the internal opening (the psychological trauma) of what seemed to be at first only a physical sickness –her recurrent headaches.
The rest of the retreat was to help her understand how she could avoid something like this happening again in her life, by helping her to discover the root cause of her emotional crisis and consequent demonic incursion. That root cause was the grief due to the death of her mother. One’s greatest psychological disturbance is often the loss of someone who has loved us very much and whom we have loved very much too. But it is often the circumstances surrounding the tragedy that make it more painful and agonizing that the even itself. First, her mother died in her teens, when a girl needs her mother the most. Secondly, she did not die in a natural way. She was murdered violently. Thirdly, she was murdered by her own alcoholic father in a drunken rage. Fourthly, she was murdered right in front of the young girl’s eyes! Fifthly, he was now in jail and she was without even a father. Is that all? Not yet. Sixthly, she loved both her parents very much and needed them both, but the most painful thing was that she was forced to choose between them – a heart rending decision for a child to make – leading her into emotional chaos.
During the retreat, she was not only able discover all this, but she was able to deal with it by accepting these wounds with praise to God. She was able to forgive her parent and others for the hurts they caused her and then she renounced her opening herself to the evil one instead of to the Holy One. She left the retreat with a cheerful smile on her face reflecting the exuberant joy in her heart from the salvation and peace of the Lord. It is only then, can one say that her healing and deliverance was complete and total with the new and abundant life that was now hers in Jesus’ Name.” END OF Homeopathy and Soul – IIIB – Jesus, the Spiritual Similimum EXTRACT
**The two links Fr. Rufus Pereira and Prayer for Healing
are to the HolySpiritInteractive site.
***This “Christian woman from Europe” speaking at the retreat alongside Fr. Rufus Pereira is Erika Gibello.
Several things struck me about this portion of Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s article on Homoeopathy.
Dr. Leela was obviously trying to justify her being a practising homoeopathic “doctor”.
She does not reveal the name of the speaker — Erika Gibello — who co-preached the retreat.
Erika must have said much, much more than what Dr. Leela D’Souza has quoted her as saying.
Dr. Leela D’Souza carefully avoids including any information about that.
Fr. Rufus Pereira
is projected as an expert on the spiritual problems in the use of Homoeopathy.
Erika Gibello IS an expert on pharmacology, New Age, NRMs AND is also in Catholic ministry.
Fr. Rufus Pereira does not give one reason, good or otherwise as to why he sees “nothing evil” in Homoeopathy except that “he was relieved instantly, with no evil effects“.
That’s not good enough, Fr. Rufus. Erika explained the “placebo effect”. Other than that, there are several reasons why you might have been “relieved instantly“, but this is not the place for me to go into details. It will be helpful to you if you look up my web site and spend some time going through the voluminous information that has been collated from various CATHOLIC sources.
And, while you are at it, you might want to reflect on why Homoeopathy was included by Rome in a DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE which is a SPIRITUAL THREAT to Christians!!!!! If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be there, would it, along with other New Age stuff from acupuncture to yoga?
It is apparent that Dr. Leela D’Souza was selective, hearing only what she so badly wanted to hear — that Homoeopathy is safe — and so assuage her conscience.
In Dr. Leela D’Souza’s article,
“Spiritual Healing Case 2 (Healing of Physical Disease)“
she quotes a case from the ministry files of Andrew Wommack whom she describes to us as “is an evangelical/ Pentecostal – but VERY down to earth! I find his understanding of Biblical Spiritual healing truly inspired.“
In doing this, Dr. Leela D’Souza has erred. She has shown that she has little knowledge about either the Word of God or of Catholic apologetics.
Almost any “evangelical/ Pentecostal” teaching or Scripture interpretation is never the same as that of the Catholic Church WHICH ALONE gives the correct interpretation of the Bible. I sincerely hope that Leela is attending the series of Catholic apologist Steve Ray‘s talks and seminars currently on at different locations in her city, Mumbai.
Andrew Wommack is a preacher of the Word-Faith Theology kind. Wommack, like Kenneth Hagin and others emphasise a prosperity gospel* over all other things and teach that it is God’s will for all to be healed and to be wealthy. They preach faith in faith as opposed to Faith in God and a complete surrender to His Holy Will. So if something is wrong with one and one is not healed or is lacking in prosperity, it is NOT because God willed it or allowed it to be that way but because one did not pray correctly or with the ‘right’ attitude.
History shows that such preaching has benefited the Pentecostal ministers and their “churches” more than their subjects, if you get what I mean.
*PROSPERITY GOSPEL AND THE CATHOLIC-ERROL FERNANDES
MIRACLENET TV AND THE CATHOLIC-ERROL FERNANDES
BRO. JOHNSON SEQUEIRA’S ‘WORD-FAITH’ THEOLOGY AND ‘PROSPERITY’ GOSPEL
On TBN & “Miracle Channel” by Fr. Fio Mascarenhas SJ
“Healing Your Faith vs. Faith Healing” by Mother Angelica, EWTN
Such interpretation of Scripture has destroyed the lives of many Christians who could not live up to these false expectations. If Dr. Leela D’Souza is using Wommack‘s teaching to “help further my understanding of spiritual healing“, Catholics had better watch out.
One can see that she uses Andrew Wommack and Fr. Rufus Pereira to her own advantage.
Here’s what Andrew Wommack teaches according to Dr. Leela D’Souza: AN EXTRACT
Failure (by the Church – Leela) to present this truth properly has caused many people to disbelieve it’s always God’s will to heal because according to their thinking, the sick person would have to be bad or evil in some way; yet they know there are many godly people who are sick and die.
Not all sickness is caused by something we do. Regardless of the reason, however, there is always something we can do about it. We can believe God, and He will heal ALL our diseases (Ex. 15:26, Ps. 103:3).5:15). Prayer doesn’t save the sick; the prayer of faith saves the sick….. …I went over to pray for Niki the following afternoon. I didn’t know how bad she was. I just knew she had been in pain for over four years and was really hurting. Niki’s faith and the faith of her parents had been redirected, and they were ready to believe for a healing NOW!
If it is God’s will to heal all our diseases, why isn’t everyone healed? That’s a simple question with a complex answer.
The bottom line is faith. The prayer of faith saves the sick (James
HERE, THE SENTENCE ENDS ABRUPTLY- Michael
The above extract bears me out. Our “believing” faith is superimposed on God’s will, and thus every “believer” can attain healing and prosperity. This is HERESY!
Dr. Leela D’Souza quotes Wommack as saying that the Church has failed to present the truth about healing [and prosperity]. The words in brackets “(by the Church – Leela)” are hers and not Andrew Wommack‘s. Does she infer that Fr. Rufus Pereira does not preach the truth properly? She has made it clear that she has decided that anyway about Erika Gibello. Though Dr. Leela D’Souza went to great lengths to establish the credentials of Fr. Rufus Pereira, she
carefully avoided adding that the “Christian woman from Europe“, is Erika Gibello, who is secretary of the very same organizations.
Despite her eagerness to provide endorsements for the complementability of Homeopathy with the Christian faith, Dr. Leela D’Souza has messed up her careless Scripture references, [highlighted by me], showing that her Christian knowledge is superficial or minimal or both.
By the way, the words that the reader sees in bold black in the above extract are emphases existing in the matter on Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s site. To summarise from there, according to Dr. Leela D’Souza,
whatever the case or condition may be, if one has faith, if one believes, God has no alternative but to heal! If one is NOT healed, one is lacking in faith.
In Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s three cited cases of “Spiritual Healing” she gives NO instance of anyone who has been healed immediately by Homoeopathic
remedies in support of Fr. Rufus‘ claim.
Leela D’Souza is a Bombay-based homeopathic professional whose experience includes intensive medical training in one of India’s leading homeopathic medical institutions. Her private practice in homeopathic healing spans a decade and a half.
The reason that I am constrained to include the Fr. Rufus Pereira link-up in Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s article in this report — which is basically on Liturgical Dancing and Bharatanatyam — is because we had started to examine how silence and compromise were affecting Catholics by not giving them information and warning about New Age and the dangerous spiritual effects of Catholics’ dabbling in the spirituality of religions like Hinduism, especially since I am writing in the context of India.
Silence and compromise are already enough of a bane in the many independent charismatic ministries as well as ecclesiastical circles of the Indian church. But when eminent preachers like Fr. Rufus Pereira
go public in
holding to error and influencing others to follow suit, I must intervene.
Below is a comment from a reader of Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s article and Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s response.
Dear Leela, I’ve just read your article: Jesus, the Spiritual Similimum. I am so grateful to have found your perspective.
I have been under the care of a homeopath for a number of months and am so intrigued that I’ve considered studying to become a homeopath. But, as a Christian, I’ve been concerned that this energetic medicine might cross into the realm of spirit and studying it would lead me into tinkering with forces by means other than God’s Word and power. I was relieved to hear of your relationship with The Holy Spirit and that you believe spiritual healing is superior but complementary to homeopathy. Your article was posted 5 years ago.
Do you still recommend the study of homeopathy? Thank-you, Patricia Boutan, October 19, 2010
I would certainly recommend that you study homeopathy. Since I wrote this article, I have completed my MD for hospital practice in homeopathy, and an M. Sc. for research in Homeopathy as well. So I haven’t lost any trust in the capacity of homeopathy to heal and complement spiritual healing.
I would caution however, that you focus on studying Homeopathy as outlined in the ORGANON OF MEDICINE, further developed by masters such as Boenninghausen, Boger, Kent, Clarke. These are authentic and time-tested methods of homeopathic practice. Exploring newer ideas that have become more fashionable to day (!) requires a good and solid foundation or one can get sidetracked from true homeopathic healing.
All the best! Leela October 19, 2010
Dear Fr. Rufus Pereira, Patricia Boutan is at least ONE soul that has taken up Homoeopathy because of the sanction that you gave for it to Dr. Leela D’Souza.
What was Patricia afraid of? The very same occult, New Age “tinkering with forces” and “energetic medicine” or “vital force” that Fr. Clemens Pilar COp and Erika Gibello and dozens of other Catholic experts describe as being the pre-suppositions for Homoeopathic “healing” and also which the Vatican Document on the
New Age warns about.
Patricia Boutan is wrong when she concludes that Dr. Leela D’Souza is convincing that “spiritual healing is superior but complementary to homeopathy“. Dr. Leela D’Souza might “believe” that or have tried to establish it as fact, but has nowhere done so.
When Dr. Leela D’Souza says, “Exploring newer ideas that have become more fashionable to day requires a good and solid foundation or one can get sidetracked from true homeopathic healing“, she is warning Boutan that much of modern
Homoeopathy is New Age [as if traditional
Homoeopathy is not!].
WHO IS DR. LEELA D’SOUZA?
In the above write-up, Dr. Leela D’Souza gives links to six of her articles.
I am confident that if I check them out, I will find New Age, but since that is not the purpose of this article, I move on.
But I am not finished.
I suspected that Dr. Leela D’Souza
is the same person who writes as Dr. Leela Francisco. She is. Check out http://www.homeopathy2health.com/.
She is Leela D’Souza-Francisco MD (Hom). Why is that relevant?
Shortly after my 38-page study of
was made public through its distribution at
Fr. Rufus Pereira‘s
seminar in Kaloor, February 2004, see page 117, a full page article titled “How can anyone condemn Homeopathy” appeared in The New Leader of June 1-15, 2004.
Authored by one
Dr. Leela Francisco, a leading homoeopath, it was a defense of Homoeopathy
making direct point by point rebuttals to issues that had been raised by me in my article, although she made no mention of addressing my article. Since my article was based on the inclusion of Homoeopathy in the list in the Vatican Document on the
New Age, Dr. Leela Francisco‘s article was a rebuttal not only of my article but also of the Vatican Document on the
Strange that a Catholic magazine like
The New Leader permitted itself to be used as a forum for the defense of an alternative medicine like Homoeopathy.
My detailed correspondence with the editor of The New Leader, Fr. M. A. Joe Antony SJ on this issue, the article written by Dr. Leela Francisco as well as my own rejoinder — which was not accepted for publication by the editor — to her defense of Homoeopathy are available at my web site. The related — as well as other Homoeopathy — links are:
1. HOMOEOPATHY-AN UNSCIENTIFIC NEW AGE FRAUD
2. HOMOEOPATHY-BBC-THE TEST
4. HOMOEOPATHY-WHAT’S THE HARM IN IT?
5. HOMOEOPATHY-FR CLEMENS PILAR 10
6. HOMOEOPATHY INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE INDIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
7. HOMOEOPATHY CONTROVERSY AND FR RUFUS PEREIRA
From the information that I copied from some pages of Dr. Leela D’Souza‘s site, one can see that she does indeed subscribe to
Samuel Hahnemann‘s New Age
doctrine of the “Vital Force“.
Her partner in Hpathy, their “World’s No. 1 Homoeopathy e-magazine” also writes about it:
Dec 15, 2005 EXTRACT:
2. In Search of the Vital Force – David Little, In Search of the Vital Force
1. Homeopathy and Soul – Dr. Leela D’Souza
To read a view that addresses this aspect from a general background, I request readers to refer to David Little’s article “In Search of the Vital Force“…Let’s see how Hahnemann sought to explain this phenomenon. To explain his concepts and observations, Hahnemann had to coin a number of new terms. One of the main terms he coined was “Vital Force” or “Life Principle“. In Aphorism 9 of the Organon, he describes this energy prevalent in every living being, as the “spiritual vital force” that animated the living organism…
Homeopathy and Soul – I – In the Beginning
By Dr. Leela D’Souza December 15, 2005
Last April ’04, a Catholic friend who’d been taking homeopathy for over 15 years and whom I’d helped with homeopathic remedies, came over and ‘dumped’ her stock of remedies on me. “Use them as best you can!” said she, after being informed by some religious person that homeopathic medicines contained ‘occult forces’. She explained, “I don’t want to take anything that’s wrong by standards of Christian morality, and I don’t intend continuing with a system of healing that dabbles in the occult!” This shocked me. Obviously, I too did not want to subject anyone whom I loved to anything that could jeopardize his or her faith and relationship with God.
This episode happened at a particularly traumatic time and made me question whether I was to practise homeopathy at all! Thus began an investigation into why my Catholic friend came to such a drastic conclusion and how I could help her and others like her. The ensuing soul-searching quest has led to a life-giving experience of understanding more clearly my own faith vis-à-vis homeopathy, and especially how the spiritual understanding of healing in the Bible (that I experienced, internalized and lived since childhood) blended so beautifully with what I learned as a homeopath. Let me trace out the trajectory of my soul-searching exercise.
First, I clarified why my friend decided to do what she did. She handed me some pamphlets denouncing ‘homeopathy’ and Hahnemann (including his religious views) in strong terms. The pamphlets’ denouncement was apparently based on views of “The Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue” (Vatican, Rome), which had issued a document on the ‘New Age Movement’ entitled “Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life“.
I procured and read through this Vatican Document in detail. Moreover, I also asked a priest friend to scrutinize it carefully for me. We concluded that this Document only alluded to homeopathy as being “potentially dangerous” (not occult).
I fully endorsed this view since homeopathy can be potentially dangerous if the basic principles of practice enunciated in the Organon and The Chronic Diseases are not faithfully followed. (Note that I will be elaborating this aspect further in subsequent articles from the perspective of Christian philosophy that has developed clear perspectives of dialogue between different religions, faiths, and the sciences ever since the time of the Vatican Council II in the mid-1960s).
Someone dumping their stock of Homeopathic remedies on Dr. Leela D’Souza in April 2004
was the direct result of my February 2004 38-page article exposing Homeopathy, mentioned above.
[Is the “priest friend” who scrutinized the Document Fr. Rufus or Fr. Joe Antony?]
It was only after that that she wrote her piece in defense of Homeopathy in The New Leader. Through The New Leader as well as Hpathy e-magazine, Fr. Rufus Pereira‘s wrong guidance has apparently influenced many more Catholics to continue with or take up Homeopathy which is known to be New Age.
ENTER HOLYSPIRITINTERACTIVE!!!!! [KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 2011]
There seems to be some confusion on whether Dr. Leela D’Souza-Francisco is the same person as Dr. Leela Francisco. I say that because whereas the former is from Mumbai according to her site and articles, there is this mention in Holy Spirit Interactive [HSI] of the latter as living in Chennai:
“Monday, December 11, 2006 Discipleship Program, San Thome, Chennai
Some of the people who were instrumental in putting the Discipleship Program together were Leela Francisco, who not only opened her heart to this servant of God, but also her home.“
Fr. Rufus Pereira whom the former Leela consulted lives in Mumbai while The New Leader in which the latter Leela wrote is a Chennai-based publication.
Still both, the former as well as the latter are homeopaths, both consult a priest and both have big problems with the Christian denouncement of Homoeopathy as New Age! Strange!!
Since the HSI information came in late, I attempted to verify the matter.
I used the Reply
link to send the following letter from my wife to the Mumbai Leela Francisco:
Sent: January 15, 2011, 9:10 pm/January 16, 2011, 6:36 am from a second email id. EDITED
I read this* with great interest. I met Fr. Rufus in Delhi around 25 years ago.
*her consultation of Fr. Rufus Pereira
I did not know that he too uses homeopathy. I used to use those remedies for my asthma and eczema. I too came to know that it is a spiritual healing. A few years ago I saw an explanation on homeopathy by another Dr. Leela in a Catholic magazine, the New Leader which comes from Chennai in T.N.
If you are the same Dr. Leela, could you please post a copy of that information if you have it with you? Would you want me to give you my postal address? Thanks. [Two email addresses were provided by me for direct correspondence.]
Meanwhile, I did a Google search for “leela francisco chennai” and this is what I came up with:
Dr. Leela Francisco
36, S2, Krishna Kuthir, 5th Avenue, Chennai TN, 600090 Tel: 4463191
36, S2 Krishna Kuthir, 5th Avenue Chennai TN 600090 IN email@example.com**
24 Nov 2010 … Authored by one Dr. Leela Francisco, a leading Chennai homoeopath, it appears to
be a defense of homoeopathy in direct reference to points. … [When opened, the file does not give any further info. About Leela]
It is confirmed that Dr. Leela Francisco has a Chennai address. She is one and the same as Dr. Leela D’Souza-Francisco.
the founder and leader of a supposedly-Catholic discipleship ministry***, web site, blog and e-newsletter, Holy Spirit Interactive, stays at her home in Chennai and has published several of her articles on his site, and even roots – like she does – for Homoeopathy:
HTS writes: I would be so pleased if you could tell me if all forms of Homeopathy are of the occult. What about the medication “Glucosamine sulphate” taken for sore joints.
From what we understand about the subject, homeopathic treatment for the most part is a legitimate, if unorthodox, form of treatment. We invite readers to comment. [Aneel Aranha]
So, both Fr. Rufus Pereira**** and Dr. Leela D’Souza-Francisco are associated with Holy Spirit Interactive whose founder-owner Aneel Aranha, like them, advocates the use of Homoeopathy.
***One may find Pentecostal and Protestant-supplied information in Aneel Aranha‘s blogs and e-newsletters
****Fr. Rufus Pereira is a regular contributor to Holy Spirit Interactive.
**I also sent this letter from my wife Angela to Neil Francisco:
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:40 AM Subject: Dr. Leela
Dear Neil, I suppose that you are Leela’s husband. I just found your address on the net. Yesterday I had written to Leela. I don’t know if she checks her site regularly. So I am copying to you my letter to her. Angey
My enquiries reveal that Dr. Leela D’Souza-Francisco was living in Chennai at the time when she wrote a rebuttal in The New Leader to my article on Homeopathy and she had played host to Aneel Aranha* of Holy Spirit Interactive, Dubai who had been invited to minister in San Thome, Chennai on her recommendation of him to Fr. Lawrence Raj, the Parish Priest who had taken our group for an Egyptian “belly-dance” on the river Nile during our sacred pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 2007. It is no surprise that Aneel Aranha says that “homeopathic treatment for the most part is … legitimate“. I would like to know from Aneel Aranha as to which part of
homeopathic treatment is legitimate.
Leela Francisco responds to my letter of January 15, 2011
From: Leela D’Souza firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:17:22 +0530 To:
Hi Angey, I’m the same Dr. Leela D’Souza Francisco. I’m not sure what you’d like to know. Best, Dr. leela
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:07 PM Subject: Fr Rufus EDITED
Dear Leela, I did not open my mail for [over] a month now due to domestic engagements, but I was glad to see your letter today. I had meanwhile sought information from Fr Rufus about what I had read on your site but he strongly disagrees with the statements that you have made. First of all, he says that he has never recommended homoeopathy to anyone.
The referred visit with you was at the time when he was principal of St Andrews, before his involvement in charismatic renewal. The situation arose when he attended a dinner at which next to every principal of the area a doctor was seated. Next to Fr Rufus was a Hindu doctor. At that time Fr Rufus suffered sinusitis for quite some time, in a conversation he mentioned this to that doctor. The doctor started to ask him personal questions, which surprised Fr Rufus. Then he gave Fr Rufus a small bottle with nameless pills, which he was to take four times a day. After this, his sinus and stomach trouble never returned. Now this could have been an ayurvedic medicine, he says. Then the same doctor recommended him to see you, he says. He visited you. You were very friendly, which impressed him, and some medicine was given ONCE, which he took, and his sinus was ok. Fr Rufus says that he requested you not to mention his name or use his name. I really do not know who or what to believe. Angey
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:28:46 +0530 Subject: RE: Fr Rufus To:
Hi Angey, all this was a LONG time back… it would be hard for Fr. Rufus to remember accurately something that is not so relevant to him as much as it was relevant to me. I’d say it was sometime in 1994. The discussions with him occurred during a Healing retreat at Vinayalaya, Andheri in 1994 … so you see, your information is not entirely accurate.
I phoned him from CHENNAI in 2004 when I was writing and publishing these articles, with reference to the above retreat discussions held in 1994. A LARGE time gap. I specifically requested permission to quote parts of his editorials in the Charisindia and also to confirm his opinion about homeopathy and occult practice. He has NEVER considered homeopathy occult practice neither did he stop anyone from using it. I think that is more important … I don’t think I have suggested in the article that he “recommended” it!
It may be best that you make your own choices about homeopathy on your conscience, pray about it and be happy with it. We are all human beings and need not be relied upon 100% for your personal decisions.
I hope I have understood what is troubling you. Warm regards, Dr. Leela
My above letter to Dr. Leela was based on information given by Fr. Rufus to Ms. Erika Gibello, his secretary, to be passed on to me in response to my enquiry on this issue. Dr. Leela‘s version contradicts that of Fr. Rufus. Fr. Rufus‘s version makes her out to be a liar.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH ERIKA GIBELLO REGARDING THE FR. RUFUS/DR. LEELA ISSUE
Subject: FR. RUFUS AND HOMOEOPATHY
When researching for my article on Bharatanatyam dancing in the Holy Mass by Catholic priests, and questions of exorcism and deliverance of evil related to the Hindu gods in such things, I was shocked when I came across a site in which an Indian homoeopathic doctor has given a testimony that Fr Rufus not only uses Homoeopathy himself but also recommended it to her as NOT NEW AGE and not occult and that it is effective. Evidently she knows him well. She is using Fr Rufus name to justify that the Vatican New Age Document is wrong in including it [when she wrote in the New Leader in 2005 refuting my position but without mentioning my name.]
This, in 2005, is only one year after Fr Rufus and you gave that Healing and Deliverance Seminar in Kaloor, Ernakulam with Fr Larry Hogan, chief exorcist of the Archdiocese of Vienna. I was very upset and angry at his apparent double standards. It has made others to use Homoeopathy because the great Fr Rufus has said it is OK and EFFECTIVE.
As per my policy on impartiality and non-compromise and especially since Fr Rufus has never answered any of my letters to him for almost six years or more, I am obliged to reproduce all this in my article on Bharatanatyam, along with my strong comments, especially because I also found a LOT of information where Fr Rufus names the Hindu gods ONLY in talks overseas and not in India — and of course never in his articles in CHARISINDIA.
I am absolutely not able to accept ANY excuse about timidity or prudence in these matters, because unlike you who are a foreigner, Fr Rufus is Indian, and also an exorcist-priest. His silence on all these things is allowing souls to be lost.
I have prepared my article prayerfully and discerningly and I am sure that it is God’s will that I include this information.
I am therefore unable to change my decision on whatever I have already included in the article.
The homoeopathic doctor is Leela D’Souza-Francisco. She has referred to you as “a Christian woman from Europe“.
I have included the following in my article, along with extensive explanatory notes on Fr Rufus’ quotes in several articles and YouTube videos where I found him speaking on the internet:
“I met a Christian woman from Europe. She was one of the speakers at the retreat. With a background in Pharmacology, she denounced homeopathy in no uncertain terms due to the ‘evil’ effect it had on a friend of hers. She likened the effect on her friend, who was taking repeated doses of a homeopathic remedy for a few months, to a demonic possession of sorts! She said angrily, that he had become a completely changed person with no control over his emotions and all his physical symptoms were worse – ‘…can any reliable system of healing change a person so deeply from within? It is not to be trusted! I suggest you seriously consider whether you should be a homeopath or not’.
I tried to explain to her the ‘Doctrine of Drug-Proving‘, but she refused to be convinced.
I discussed her opinion with Fr. Rufus Pereira. But he said that they had a difference of opinion here and he couldn’t see why she was so antagonistic to homeopathy. Whenever he had taken a homeopathic remedy, he was relieved instantly, with no evil effects!
I called him on the phone in Mumbai a week prior to writing this article and he confirmed that his difference of opinion with her on homeopathy remains. He sees nothing evil in it.”
You may share this email with him. If he wishes to explain or contradict Dr Leela, or if he writes directly to me, I can include his response also in my article. I am anyway now marking a copy of this letter to him too. Love, Michael
Subject: Fw: FR. RUFUS AND HOMOEOPATHY
Sending once again in case you did not receive this mail. Love, Michael
Erika Gibello To:
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: FR. RUFUS AND HOMOEOPATHY
I just read your e-mail ref: Homoeopathy and Fr Rufus. I cleared this with him. This visit to Dr. Lily [sic] D’Souza falls at the time when he was principal of St Andrews, before his charismatic engagement. He does not recommend Homoeopathy.
The situation arose when they had a dinner at which next to every principal of the area a doctor was seated. Next to Fr Rufus was a Hindu doctor. At that time Fr Rufus suffered from sinusitis for quite some time. In a conversation he mentioned this to this doctor who started to ask him personal questions, which astonished Fr Rufus. Then he gave Fr Rufus a small bottle with nameless pills, which he was to take four times a day. After this, his sinus and stomach trouble never returned. Now this could have been an ayurvedic medicine. Then the same doctor recommended him to see Dr. Lily D’Souza. He went there and liked her friendliness, again personal questions (typical of homoeopathy) and some medicine was given ONCE, which he took and his sinus was ok.
He told Dr. D’Souza not to mention his name or use his name. His sinus trouble seems to have started with tension and Homoeopathy acts like a placebo. Dr D’Souza was very friendly which impressed him. I do not know how to reach her, but if you could find me her postal address I will set things straight with her especially that Fr Rufus told her NOT to use his name. He has not recommended anyone to go to her, since he entered the Charismatic. In Christ, Erika
Erika Gibello Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 7:43 AM Subject: Re: FR. RUFUS AND HOMOEOPATHY
Dear Erika, I thank you for your very kind letter.
I am unable to connect the explanation of Fr Rufus to you with the chronology of what Dr. Leela [not Lily] has written. She cannot be so old as to have known Fr Rufus before he joined the charismatic renewal which was around 1970-1972, I think. She is referring to very recent recommendations to her by Fr Rufus, maybe in the time frame of 2003-2005, and/or AFTER the Kaloor, Ernakulam conference where Fr Larry Hogan spoke twice against Homoeopathy with Rufus next to him.
Moreover, Fr Rufus’ own writings in recent CHARISINDIAs show that he allowed himself to be treated by Chinese alternative medicine practitioners while on ministry in S.E. Asia.
Much love, Michael & Angela
THE EXTRACT FROM
DANCING AND BHARATANATYAM IN THE MASS THAT COMMENCED PAGE 3 ENDS HERE.
AN EXTRACT FROM MY JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004, UPDATED JULY 2009 REPORT HOMOEOPATHY-AN UNSCIENTIFIC NEW AGE FRAUD
INCLUDED HERE TO BRING OUT THE DIEHARD HOMEOPATH IN LEELA D’SOUZA-FRANCISCO AS WELL AS THE ANEEL ARANHA/HOLYSPIRITINTERACTIVE CONNECTION. THIS EXTRACT ENDS AT THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 16.
1. HOMOEOPATHY IN THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL AT THE VERY TOP
EXTRACT: In December of 2006, Aneel Aranha of Holy Spirit Interactive ministries, Dubai, visited my city, Chennai, to preach at Catholic churches and prayer groups. His blog reveals that he stayed at the residence of Dr. Leela Francisco*, a leading homoeopath who attacked this ministry’s – as well as rejecting the Vatican Document’s – stand on homoeopathy in an article in The New Leader [see below] which refused to publish my rejoinder despite a lengthy exchange of letters.
Some of the people who were instrumental in putting the Discipleship Program together were Leela Francisco, who not only opened her heart to this servant of God, but also her home.“
2. HOMOEOPATHY PROPAGATED IN THE INDIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE NEW LEADER, A CATHOLIC FORTNIGHTLY FROM CHENNAI
NOTE: After my first Homoeopathy study of 38 pages was made public from February 2004, a full page article titled “How can anyone condemn Homeopathy” appeared in The New Leader of June 1-15, 2004.
Authored by one Dr. Leela Francisco, a leading homoeopath, it appears to be a defense of homoeopathy in direct reference to points that I raised in my report. Strange that a Catholic magazine like The New Leader permitted itself to be used as a forum for the defense of a New Age alternative medicine like homoeopathy.
I am not copying Francisco’s article here, but my response to her will address her arguments.
Dear Fr. Joe Antony
I thank you for publishing my letter on Dharma Bharathi in the New Leader.
I have posted to you a 38-page write-up, prepared by me, on HOMOEOPATHY, in the context of the article by Dr. Leela Francisco in the NL of June 1-15. I believe that she has written it in response, or as a rebuttal, to my referred write-up which has been widely circulated.
The conclusions given in the article written by me were upheld by the preachers, both priests, at the Asian Seminar on Healing and Deliverance held in Ernakulam in February.
Yours sincerely, Michael Prabhu
Dear Fr. Joe Antony,
I trust that you received my write-up on HOMOEOPATHY and could find the time in your busy schedule to glance through it. It has been very well received by leaders in the Church privately, as well as publicly on one occasion as mentioned above.
I am attaching herewith a reply to Dr. Leela Francisco’s letter, for favour of publication in The New Leader*.
Thanking you, Michael Prabhu
*MY RESPONSE TO DR. LEELA FRANCISCO‘S LETTER IN THE NEW LEADER OF JUNE 1 – 15, 2004
Dr. Leela Francisco‘s article
“How can anyone condemn Homeopathy“
in The New Leader of June 1-15 interested me greatly because I had recently conducted a detailed research of this ‘medical’ practice and have written a lengthy article which has been widely circulated.
Since my findings led me to conclude that Homoeopathy is certainly a practice rooted in occult origins, a primitive ‘science’, New Age, and could be actually dangerous, [issues refuted by Dr. Leela Francisco], I could not help wondering if the doctor’s article was referring to my analysis.
Whether it does or not, I would like to enlighten your readers with the following information.
The Vatican Document did not “allude to homeopathy as being potentially dangerous” as stated by Dr. Leela.
It said that “advertising connected with New Age covers a wide range of practices as’ acupuncture, iridology, psychic healing, healing by crystals, etc.”
Homoeopathy made that list. Now if homoeopathy were not any of the things that I have claimed it to be, why would it be listed with practices that are?
What other common denominator[s] would one expect for practices included in a Document on the New Age?
One would expect that the Vatican would commit itself in so serious a matter only after a thorough study.
In tracing New age origins in “ancient occult practices and gnosticism” [n 2.4], it says that “the essential matrix of New Age thinking is to be found in the esoteric-theosophical tradition which was fairly widely accepted in European intellectual circles in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was particularly strong in Freemasonry, spiritualism, occultism and Theosophy” [n 2.3.1]. One of the “principal characteristics of the New Age vision is holistic (globalising, because there is one single reality- energy)” [Appendix 7.1], with “a central element… where God is the vital energy within a person”
[n 2.3.2] My documentation shows homoeopathy to fully meet all those requirements.
Hahnemann was a Freemason [on the title page of his Organon, he used the Freemasonry motto ‘Aude Sapere’ or ‘Dare to be wise‘]. His background was steeped in the occult, esotericism and Gnosticism. Rejecting Biblical revelation as ‘miracle- myths’, he wrote derogatorily about Jesus Christ, while simultaneously claiming divine revelation for his theories of ‘vital force’ and ‘like cures like’.
Hahnemann formulated a whole doctrine explaining man as a tripartite being: will and thought (the inward man); vital energy
[spirit substance or immaterial essence]; and, the body, which is material.
Consider this quote from the 6th edition of the Organon: “I find it yet necessary to allude here to animal magnetism… or rather Mesmerism… It is a marvelous, priceless gift of God.” For one who claimed divine revelation from God for his principles of homoeopathy, the occult makes a strange bed-fellow.
What could be the source of this revelation, when he is known to have spoken derogatorily about the Son of God? [2 Corinthians 4:4] A. Fritsche, his biographer, writes “He took offence at the arch-enthusiast Jesus of Nazareth who did not lead the enlightened on the straight way to wisdom… In his struggles as a spiritual seeker, in his plight for enlightenment, he is strongly attracted to the East. Confucius is his ideal.”
Dr. Francisco insists that homoeopathy is “a 200-year old time-tested healing art and science.” My research shows that homoeopaths reveal the results only of those outcomes that ‘favour’ them.
All genuine scientific controlled tests and group studies have determined that the ‘cures’ are due to the placebo effect, the body’s self-healing ability, auto-suggestion, psycho-somatic reasons etc.
Psychic healing has been around for longer than 200 years. Does that make it any less dangerous?
Longevity is not a guarantee of validity. Nor is the popular acceptance of something.
Hahnemann’s ‘medicines’ do not have even the minutest medicinal content. He himself could never satisfactorily explain to the scientific establishment of his day how anything so infinitely diluted could have a curing effect, and was ostracised by them. He borrowed his ‘vital force’ principle from Paracelsus’ belief that there were invisible spirits or ‘forces’ in all living things. In his Organon, he admits that the original substance used is “changed and subtlitised at last into spirit-like medicinal power which does not fall within our senses.” According to him, disease is caused by imbalance in this vital force. The source of his ‘vital force’ is not the Holy Spirit as Dr. Francisco maintains it to be.
My documentation shows that leading homoeopaths have taught that the ‘vital force’ is the monistic energy that supposedly permeates everything, and is everything.
In The Complete Homoeopathy Handbook, Miranda Castro, F.S. Hom. is candid about the fact that Hahnemann’s “process of dilution incurred… derision from [his contemporaries in] the medical establishment, who could not explain, and therefore could not accept, how anything so dilute could have any effect.”
“In Similia Similibus Curentur [Like Cures Like]… we are not dealing with a law of similarity in the form of a generally applicable rule of physics or natural phenomenon on which homoeopathy purports to be based.” [Homoeopathy, Dr. W. Schwabe]. Schwabe are one of the world’s leading manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies.
“When we give a homoeopathic remedy, what are we giving?… Nobody knows. All we know is that it works” [Dr. Bill Gray MD., The Role of Homeopathy in Holistic Health Practice, Yoga Journal, Nov/Dec 1976]. Even his devout German biographer M. Gumpert [Hahnemann, die abenteuerlichen…] who compares him to Goethe, Kant and Martin Luther, is puzzled: “This way of practising homoeopathy is a unique psychic phenomenon.”
For users of homoeopathy there is always the danger that comes from self-prescribing and overdosing but most especially from failing to take timely allopathic medical treatment in favour of homoeopathy in cases that could turn out to be critical.
As a holistic healing system, it offers treatments for everything from Aids to ‘examination funk’ to ‘fear that something might come out of a corner’. Colleges offer 5-year degree courses in homeopathy. Degrees in the ‘science’ of Vedic astrology too will soon be on offer. Does that make it any more credible?
In Occult Shock and Psychic Forces, John Weldon and Clifford Wilson PhD give some examples to show that there is no consensus among leading homoeopaths themselves who express divergent views as to the reasons for the working of homoeopathy. Homeopaths are not interested in these experiments and content themselves with their individual successes. Present -day medicine as taught in the universities speaks very little about homeopathy. Its basic literature as well as scientific periodicals do not mention it.
A short ode to homoeopathy in the 1998 Pioneer annual magazine of Fr. Muller’s Homoeopathic Medical College self-advertises the diverse ‘applications’ of a common homoeopathic remedy:
“When food seems lumpy, Bed seems bumpy, Wife is grumpy, Nerves are jumpy, Give Nux Vomica.” 12.
At the February 2004 Seminar on Healing and Deliverance in Ernakulam, Fr. Larry Hogan, Chief Exorcist of the Archdiocese of Vienna, when answering questions raised concerning homoeopathy [on the basis of my write-up which was being circulated] said, “Homoeopathy is magic. I would not recommend anyone to use it”, adding that in Europe an estimated 80% of homoeopaths use occult methods [like tarot and pendulum dowsing] for selection, preparation and prescription of remedies.
In the United States, the best place to learn about homoeopathy is the New Age bookstore.
There is no Christian book on New Age themes, and I have dozens in my library, that does not include homoeopathy as a New Age alternative healing system.
Fr. Clemens Pilar**, COp., has written a book Esoteric Practices and Christian Faith, An Aid to Discernment [Vienna, 2003]. He enters into detail into the occultic and esoteric roots and philosophies of homoeopathy, and uses it as a baseline for the study of other New Age therapies.
**see pages 103, 112 of the referred original report
Says Fr. Pilar, “It is not correct to say that a rejection of homoeopathy only happens due to a lack of knowledge. Scientifically founded criticism comes from highly competent experts. Prof. Otto Prokop in his book Homoeopathie- Was leistet sie wirklich? quotes a whole list of such scientists. One of the outstanding critics, Prof. Fritz Donner, was even a former homoeopath himself. We can hardly attribute his critical attitude to lack of competence. A professor of pathology, Dr. Werner Dutz said, ‘Homoeopathy is voodoo. That is the only thing doctors can say about it. As far as the philosophical aspect is concerned, it should be assessed by the priests, who should rack their brains about it, but it is not the task of the medical sciences to deal with this.’ ”
Scientific tests are objective. When performed under the same conditions, they follow certain physical laws and produce the same specific results. Homoeopathy is subjective, and does not, as science confirms. Any honest homoeopath will admit to that. If indeed there were such a thing as the ‘vital energy’ then it would certainly be recorded by 21st century scientific instruments. But no such discovery has been documented. Dr. Francisco also will remember that after potencizing and dilution, there is not a molecule left of the original substance selected, and consequently no possibility of using or detecting this non-existent energy.
More importantly, Hahnemann and fellow homoeopaths insist that it is a spiritual energy, not a material one, [a fact that the doctor conveniently ignores], which precludes the possibility of quantification. And, in the Biblical revelation of man as a tripartite being, there is no evidence of any aspect of him — or creation — that is a spiritual energy.
Certainly, man is spirit, soul and body [Genesis 2:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. But that spirit is not the energy that is manipulated for healing in New Age medicine, that was ‘divinely revealed’ to Hahnemann, and that forms the basis for his philosophies of homoeopathy as set forth in the Organon.
In the West, the best place to learn about homoeopathy is the New Age bookstore. There is no Christian book on New Age themes in my library that does not include homoeopathy as a New Age healing system. A study of these books reveals that the protagonists of homoeopathy have, either ignorantly or intentionally, withheld certain aspects of the philosophies and life and of its founder, while highlighting those areas that enhance his image as a crusader for healthy living, or lend support to the tenets of his philosophies and the credibility of his remedies. These concealed aspects are relevant to the believer who has been using homoeopathy, and an awareness of them is critical to the decision that he or she must take.
Dr. Francisco’s defense of homoeopathy is written by her in all sincerity, but since reading my in-depth analysis, several Catholic homoeopaths and users informed me that they have abjured its practice, while one doctor wrote me that she has given up teaching homoeopathy in a reputed Catholic college and closed her practice, because [using Dr. Francisco’s words], all healings are CERTAINLY NOT the handiwork of God, [these include psychic healings, healings by shamans and voodoo doctors, and those of alternative medicines like reiki and pranic healing that too are founded on the ‘vital energy’ life force principle], those that the Document states it finds have “a focus on hidden spiritual powers or forces in nature [which] has been the backbone of much of what is now recognized as New Age theory” [n 1.3].
There are, to be sure, some honourable and conscientious ones seeking to utilize a homeopathy detached from its esoteric practices. The question is, ‘can it?’, rather than ‘can they?’ Of course, those who see some sort of scientific energy at work in water divining, or who believe that water divination is a gift from God, will see no cause of concern in using homoeopathy.
As Christians we need to understand why homoeopathy, and indeed many other seemingly ridiculous New Age alternative therapies, are not discounted or abandoned. The reason is simple. THEY WORK!
Just because something ‘works’, it is not good enough reason for Christian acceptance. Astrology, necromancy and divination WORK. Which is why God forbade their use, warning His people that there existed dark powers which they must distance themselves from. “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” [Colossians 2:8].
Paul is teaching that humanistic thoughts and ideas are not as neutral as we like to imagine. There are spiritual forces at work behind the basic philosophical assumptions upon which man builds his society.
Ignorance, in all cases, is not bliss. As Christians engaged in constant spiritual warfare, we are enjoined by Scripture to increase our knowledge and discern the signs of the times [Hosea 4:6; 1 Chronicles 12:32, 33].
Spiritual inquiry is a commendable thing.
What answer can be given to someone who says he took a remedy and it worked?
The Christian believer is obliged to make a discerning enquiry to find out why they work. Articles like this provide the searcher with information in that direction.
Everyone will have probably heard reports of how a friends or relative was wonderfully cured by a homoeopathic remedy.
But the question is: What was it that actually healed them? The cosmic occult vital force in the remedy? The accompanying measures (no smoking, no alcohol, dieting, taking a holiday)? Or faith in the healer or his remedies?
About a century ago, the first experiments were conducted with placebos, tablets with no active ingredients. The researchers discovered that, more important than the substantial effect of many medications, is the faith [both, of the doctor as well as the patient] in the effect of the remedy. The placebo effect is probably the most important factor in the success of homoeopathic remedies. The least probable factor in a cure is the homoeopathic remedy itself. All genuine clinical trials have determined that the ‘cures’ are due to either the placebo effect, time itself and the body’s self-healing ability, or auto-suggestion.
Again, healing may not be in God’s will for a person in a particular situation. A friend of the writer failed to be relieved of a painful complaint after two visits to a popular retreat centre, but was healed when she submitted herself to pranic healing. Additionally, for the Christian, is the occult factor to be considered.
Where should we draw the proverbial ‘line’ either to take a homoeopathic remedy or not? It would be naïve for one to expect a clear response from those who give homeopathic treatment. Obviously this is a question of conscience everyone will have to answer for himself after reading this report.
Most homoeopathic practitioners want nothing else than soft medicine. The foundations and the effects of these remedies are dubious to say the least. It should not be too difficult to do without homoeopathy. There are many herbal remedies which are, without unnecessary dilution, at least as effective in exerting their natural healing power free of undesired side effects. However, the thinking of many runs so deep in the ruts of homoeopathic reasoning that they are no longer able of critically evaluating these disturbing facts.
Since homoeopathy as a holistic health practice meets all the conditions treated in the referred Vatican Document, it qualifies as a New Age alternative therapy. In fact, it has been called the ‘flagship of holistic health deception among Christians’. When physicians use homoeopathy, they actually offer their patients the philosophy and spirituality of the New Age Movement.
It is the Vatican’s awareness of the subtlety of New Age philosophy and practice that resulted in its issuing such a Document. Hence the two significant words ‘now recognized‘ [n 1.3] in the first paragraph of this write-up.
Homeopathy’s message to Western medicine is, to put it bluntly, ‘Everything you know is wrong!’
Christian and non-Christian alike may be drawn to homeopathy because of its emphasis on the body’s efforts to heal itself and its shunning of drugs and surgery. A few enthusiastic Christians argue that Hahnemann’s system is a gift from God, an answer to the medical establishment which they view as steeped in secular humanism. Despite many claims and alleged parallels to modern medical practices and phenomena, homeopathy is not a legitimate medical practice. Until it has been categorically and scientifically proved that cure is rooted in a measurable physical reaction or change within the body, one must assume that the power behind homeopathy is spiritual and has side effects. Need we say any more?
Only that the Vatican is fully justified in warning Catholics against the New Age dangers of Homoeopathy by including it in the Document. END
Dear Mr. Michael Prabhu,
Instead of publishing your email as a letter, we can publish it as a one-page article (700 words). In addition to the relevant information in your email, we can add your responses to these questions:
1. Is there any other reliable source from the medical field who has doubted or questioned the credibility and effectiveness of homeopathy?
2. What about the doctors, who neither know about nor care for the founder, but have seen through experience that it benefits a lot of people?
3. What about patients who, after having tried allopathy in vain, have turned finally to homeopathy and seen it works for them and been thankful to God for having brought them to something that has cured them? They will never ever bother to know about its founder and New Age means nothing to them?*
As a concerned fellow Christian what will you say to them? With all good wishes & prayers,
Fraternally, M.A. Joe Antony, SJ, Editor, The New Leader
*See below for the answers
Dear Fr. Joe Antony
This is the best that I could do, to answer your three questions as well as address the issues raised in Dr. Leela’s article.
I request you to edit it to the size and content that you would like to use in THE NEW LEADER.
Please forgive me for the burden that I have given you, but I am confident that you will not mind. Thanking you,
Michael Prabhu ATTACHMENT HOM-NL.2 doc*
*The attachment that I made to my above letter to Fr. Joe Antony has since been inadvertently erased. However, a few of the points of that attachment – which anyway never got published in the New Leader in response to Dr. Francisco’s article – are reproduced on the following page**.
Dear Fr. Joe Antony
Today I received a copy of the July 16-31 issue of THE NEW LEADER.
Since my attachment of June 29 remains unacknowledged, and my earlier Letter to the Editor on Homoeopathy remains unpublished, do I take it that you do not want to publish my views on the subject, or is due to some other good reason?
Just for your kind information, the Pro Nuncio, the 3 Cardinals and about 30 Archbishops and Bishops, and several priests have written in support of my ministry during the last 6 weeks, and I am reproducing here just one such letter for you: [July 1, 2004 Letter from +Telesphore P. Card. Toppo, Archbishop of Ranchi reproduced]
Dear Mr Michael,
Greetings of peace and joy! I wanted to write and thank you for your efforts to summarise your views. But I have been travelling and busy. So please excuse the delay. We are still trying to forge a one-page article out of your summary and to see that this contains all the important points you have mentioned. As soon as it is ready, we’ll publish it in the NL.
With all good wishes and prayers, Fr M.A. Joe Antony, SJ
Dear Fr. Joe Antony,
I look forward to the publishing of my findings on HOMOEOPATHY especially in view of the particular letter on the subject that was published in the most recent NL issue.
IN THE END, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE JESUIT PRIEST- EDITOR OF THE NEW LEADER
DR. LEELA FRANCISCO, HOMOEOPATHIC ‘DOCTOR’/THE NEW LEADER: MY COMMENTS FOLLOW
**1. A set of arguments, ones that were made by a Catholic homoeopathic doctor, Leela Francisco [recently in a Catholic fortnightly, The New Leader, in response to the Vatican Document and also probably to my write-up on Homoeopathy], who is, to quote her, “alarmed by… remarks” that “homoeopathy has recently been labeled by some as an evil therapy, occult practice, primitive science and so on” , is that “all healings are the handiwork of God”, that “homoeopathy is a 200-year time-tested healing art and science”, that “the origin of the vital force is the Holy Spirit who is God”, and that the vital energy is the energy of “God the Creator… flowing through sun and moon,… animal and human bodies”.
She claims that “each substance, whether animate or inanimate, possesses this energy by virtue of motion of its atomic particles,” that “this energy can easily be recorded by modern instruments” and that “the homoeopathic remedy resonates with this energy”.
Scientific tests are objective. When performed under the same conditions, they follow certain physical [natural] laws and produce the same specific and expected results. Homoeopathy is subjective, and does not follow any laws, as science confirms. Any honest homoeopath will admit to that. In contrast to the prevailing medicine of his day which treated only the disease, Hahnemann sought to treat a person symptomatically and holistically: homoeopaths enquire into the social, emotional and spiritual life of a patient before deciding their course of action.
All healings are certainly NOT the handiwork of God.
These include psychic healings, healings by shamans and voodoo doctors, and those of alternative medicines like acupuncture, reiki and pranic healing that too are founded on the ‘vital energy’ life force principle.
If indeed there were such a thing as the ‘vital energy’ then it would certainly be recorded by 21st century scientific instruments. But no such discovery has been documented.
More importantly, Hahnemann and fellow homoeopaths insist that it is a spiritual energy, not a material one, [a fact that the doctor conveniently ignores], which precludes the possibility of quantification. And, in the Biblical revelation of man as a tripartite being, which contradicts the homoeopathy theory, there is no evidence of any aspect of him — or of creation — that is a spiritual energy. See pages 11, 108 [in the original report]. Certainly, man is spirit, soul and body. But that spirit is not the energy that is manipulated for healing in New Age medicine, which was ‘divinely revealed’ to Hahnemann, and that forms the basis for his philosophies of homoeopathy as set forth in the Organon.
Since homoeopathy as a holistic health practice meets all the conditions treated in the referred Vatican Document, it qualifies as a New Age alternative therapy. In fact, it has been called the ‘flagship of holistic health deception among Christians’. When physicians use homeopathy, they actually offer their patients the philosophy and spirituality of the New Age Movement.
2. Regarding the three questions received from Fr. Joe Antony of The New Leader,
to answer the Reverend Father’s first question, hundreds of doctors have, after research, concluded that homoeopathy is fundamentally unscientific and is not a legitimate medical practice.
“The International WHO Centre for research of undesirable effects of drugs and medicine in Uppsala, Sweden noticed cases of damaged health, some of them very seriously, after treatment with homoeopathy” says Zivy Pramen.
Says Fr. Pilar, “It is not correct to say that a rejection of homoeopathy only happens due to a lack of knowledge. Scientifically founded criticism comes from highly competent experts. Prof. Otto Prokop in his book Homoeopathie- Was leistet sie wirklich? quotes a whole list of such scientists.
One of the outstanding critics, Prof. Fritz Donner, was even a former homoeopath himself. We can hardly attribute his critical attitude to lack of competence. A professor of pathology, Dr. Werner Dutz said, Homoeopathy is voodoo.
That is the only thing doctors can say about it. As far as the philosophical aspect is concerned, it should be assessed by the priests, who should rack their brains about it, but it is not the task of the medical sciences to deal with this.”
Next, just because something ‘works’, it is not good enough reason for Christian acceptance.
Astrology, necromancy and divination WORK. Which is why God forbade their use, warning His people that there existed dark powers from which they must distance themselves.
“See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ“[Colossians 2:8]. Paul is teaching that humanistic thoughts and ideas are not a neutral as we like to imagine. There are spiritual forces at work behind the basic philosophical assumptions upon which man builds his society. Ignorance, in all cases, is not bliss.
As Christians engaged in constant spiritual warfare, we are enjoined by Scripture to increase our knowledge and discern the signs of the times [Hosea 4:6; 1 Chronicles 12:32, 33]. Spiritual inquiry is a commendable thing.
It is the Vatican’s awareness of the subtlety of New Age philosophy and practice that resulted in its producing such a Document. Hence the two significant words
Healing may not be in God’s will for a person in a particular situation. A friend of this writer failed to be relieved of a painful complaint after two visits to a popular retreat centre, but was healed when she submitted herself to pranic healing.
Psychic healing and dowsing have been around for longer than 200 years. Does that make them any less spiritually dangerous? Longevity is not a guarantee of validity. Nor is the popular acceptance of something.
Colleges now offer post-graduate degree courses in homeopathy. Degrees in the ‘science’ of Vedic astrology too will soon be on offer. Does that make it any more credible? By and large doctors don’t like what they see as an absence of science, but it is much worse than that. As a holistic healing system, it offers treatments for everything from Aids to ‘examination funk’ to ‘fear that something might come out of a corner’.
A short ode to homoeopathy in the 1998 Pioneer of Fr. Muller’s Homoeopathic Medical College magazine is its own worst enemy:
“When food seems lumpy, Bed seems bumpy, Wife is grumpy, Nerves are jumpy, Give Nux Vom.”
DIE-HARD ENTHUSUIASTS’ LOYALTY TO HOMOEOPATHY
Says Fr. Pilar*, “There is a historical trail from homoeopathy to the Bach-flowers** (Eduard Bach, the inventor of this therapy began his career as a homoeopath).
Even today, many patients follow the same trail. Once the door to irrationalism has been opened, there is no stopping.” *see pages 103, 109 [of the original report]
Prof. Dr. Raynaud, homoeopath and director of Pharmaceutical Faculty in Lyon, France, said about homoeopathy: “As soon as you start with it, you stay loyal to it. Perhaps that is why so many physicians in France are literally addicted to it.” [Zivy Pramen]
BACH FLOWER REMEDIES
BACH FLOWER THERAPY-FR CLEMENS PILAR 02
THIS IS THE END OF THE EXTRACT FROM MY JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004, UPDATED JULY 2009 REPORT HOMOEOPATHY-AN UNSCIENTIFIC NEW AGE FRAUD,
INCLUDED HERE TO BRING OUT THE DIEHARD HOMEOPATH IN LEELA D’SOUZA-FRANCISCO AS WELL AS THE HOLYSPIRITINTERACTIVE/ ANEEL ARANHA CONNECTION.