Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 88
view, it is highly disputable to consider a cultic organization as a ‗new
religious movement (...).Analyses of this kind, which ignore one side of
reality, end up by justifying to a certain extent harmful cultic organizations.
The result is to give them carte blanche, or at least to allow them to perform
their dangerous activities more easily.‖13
We find another mention of the attitude of the Committee towards CESNUR in an article by
Julien Ries :
The Committee severely reprimanded the first group, CESNUR, for having
published the book, Pour en Finir Avec les Sectes, where 22 authors discredit
the ―Report by the Committee of Inquiry of the French National Assembly,
judged not to be scientific‖ since it provided moral justification for numerous
representatives of cult organizations during the hearings in Brussels, because
of its support for the new religious movements.14
The Belgian parliamentary report was severely criticised for having included some perfectly
―orthodox‖ Catholic groups in its list of 189 movements. Some used this to try to alarm the
public, saying more or less: ―Catholics, beware, if we approve the methods of the Belgian
Parliament Committee (which accepts testimonies by ‗apostates‘), some Catholic groups
could also be labelled as cults!‖
This of course would, quite rightly, cause a chorus of indignation in the Catholic world. As a
result, people of faith would start to embrace the same positions of total distrust towards
―apostates‖ and towards ―anti-cult‖ movements, which are a resource for families trying to
―recover‖ loved ones who belong to various kinds of ―cults.‖ This could lead to a new opinion
crusade, which, however, we believe would be entirely out of place.
We believe no such possibility existed, exists, or will exist. The Belgian parliament report
issued on April 28, 1997, does include some Catholic groups in its list of 189 movements,
but a note on the side makes a very important point:
...this list in no way expresses any judgement or any stand on the part of
the committee further examination of these movements must be made and
the chart must be updated constantly.
Moreover, on page 209, the text says that the commitee was able to make a census of 189
organizations that ―might belong to one of the three categories it laid down within the
framework of a definition,‖ i.e., harmless sects or new religions, a sect or new religion which
is harmful for individuals and societies, and criminal associations. In other words, the
committee de facto admits having mixed all groups together, leaving various people or
bodies free to make further classifications.15
So the 189 movements (which also include some Catholic groups) are not distinguished
within the three categories chosen by the Committee, which obviously did not want to take
the responsibility of putting on paper which groups are dangerous and which are not. Of
course, the fact that Catholic movements were listed together with truly dangerous cults led
to protests from the bishops as well. The parliament finally approved the Report, but
decided not to place the list of movements in its conclusions, but only to consider an
Appendix.16
We believe this is sufficient to prove that it is simply not true that the Belgian
Parliament called Opus Dei or other Catholic groups dangerous cults. It is also a
manipulation of facts to blame the ―anti-cult‖ movements, the ―apostates,‖ or anybody who
believes brainwashing exists in NRM‘s for the fact that Catholic groups too were listed. If
the Committee drew up such a list, it was because of testimonies and evidence which they
found to be credible. And in any case, when a Parliament Committee is established after

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 89
massacres like that of the Solar Temple, the people who have the most right to be heard
are the victims, and States have the duty to investigate the dangerousness of groups. The
fact that the Committee kept to general terms, not fitting the various groups into the three
categories, is certainly a pity, since it seems to confuse them with each other, and this
appears to be a justified criticism. However, it does not allow anybody to pick and falsely
represent facts in order to ―grind his own axe.‖
We think a few comments should be made here. The Catholic Church is certainly not a cult,
since it has none of the features of one, even when the religious experience is lived most
intensely. However, it is impossible to deny that during its long history, there have been
deviations on the edge of the Church, doctrinal deviations and cases of sectarian groups
(today generally called pseudo-Catholic). The Bishops have often taken steps in such cases,
sometimes also against priests, members of religious orders, nuns, or even other Bishops
who have strayed from the authentic doctrine. Who can deny that in such deviant groups,
there may have been cases of small or large ―cults‖ with manipulative methods of
recruitment and indoctrination similar to those of other ―cults‖? The Pastors themselves
have often warned the faithful not to believe blindly in seers, prophets, or ―holy men‖ of
various kinds, who blend the authentic faith the Church has in the existence of supernatural
phenomena with fanaticism and sectarianism. We must acknowledge that the Church is both
saintly and sinful, and we must all take steps so as not to stick our heads in the sand like
ostriches, but to see, warn, and help those who are confused or led astray by deviant
doctrines.
For a believer, this does not mean kidnapping, threatening, imprisoning or blackmailing
that is, forcing those who are making a mistake to go back to the authentic faith. It means
respectfully engaging in dialogue and telling the person the truth clearly, advising him or
her of the possibly serious consequences of the choice he or she is about to make or has
made. Afterwards, the person will freely choose and his brothers in the faith can only pray
and witness the Gospel with greater determination and courage than before. Perhaps
someone will be able to find a denial of religious freedom even in these words. We believe,
however, that it is simply a form of the ―fraternal correction‖ that Jesus speaks of in the
Gospel.
The same blend of charity and truth must be used, albeit in a different form, with all those
whoeven outside the Catholic worldare involved in groups and movements of various
kinds where some elements can be found which can make one suspect so-called
―brainwashing.‖ If this notion is interpreted and used in a balanced form, moderately and
with respect for others, it can help us to understand the inside dynamics of certain NRM‘s
better, and provide help according to the circumstances.
Brainwashing and Deprogramming
So it seems to us neither useful nor honest to want the ―funeral‖ of this notion at all costs
so as to be able to justify the abuse of personal freedom which exists in certain groups.
According to Zablocki, this is what many of his colleagues have done: the notion of
―brainwashing‖ has been treated without respect, declared guilty, and set aside without a
decent scientific trial. This improper treatment has been called ―blacklisting‖ by Zablocki.17
He claims that most scholars have not been able to refute this theory they have simply
swept it under the carpet. Others have used it in a distorted fashion in court, and this
distortion has led to prejudices against those scholars who do want to investigate the
phenomenon and who are accused, for this reason only, of belonging to ―anti-cult‖
movements.
We have personally seen this bad habit of labeling others simplisticly, unfairly, and
disrepectfully. However, because of the loose fashion with which some label people or
associations with derogatory terms such as ―anti-cult,‖ this adjective has lost much of its