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

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 90
power. This happens whenever a category or a definition is abused. Equal over-use has
been made of the term ―deprogramming.‖ Nobody denies that in the past, some made use
of violent techniques and kidnapped people in order to make them leave a ―religious‖ group.
Those who used such methods merely put another kind of ―brainwashing‖ into practice,
equally unacceptable and injurious to personal freedom. But, without going so far, there are
also people who --while entirely disapproving of deprogramming --believe that certain
―religious‖ organisations apply a high degree of conditioning on their followers. One could
also ask those who refuse to believe in the reality of ―brainwashing‖ to consider what
deprogrammers do to people. How can one accuse deprogrammers of using coercive
techniques similar to ―brainwashing‖ when these techniques are not supposed to exist?
What kind of scientific theory is this, which claims a phenomenon exists only when applied
by a certain category of people (deprogrammers in this case)? If ―brainwashing‖ exists, it
exists, whether it is applied by charismatic leaders or by deprogrammers if it does not
exist, then we can accuse nobody of practicing it.
Someone might object that, whereas deprogrammers kidnap their ―prey,‖ people who join a
religious movement do so freely. We believe this method of affiliation, which Zablocki
considers to be unimportant in terms of defining ―brainwashing,‖ deserves some comments.
If it were true that joining a group always took place with full respect for the freedom of
the individual, we would certainly agree with this approach. But things are actually quite
different. Let us consider a few concrete examples:
1. A person looking for a job lands up in an employment agency, where he is put
through ―capacity‖ tests, in order to investigate his capacities for a future job. If he
then found himself, without realising it, a member of a psycho-religious group, he
could walk away, but what if he has already been conditioned, and has already been
subjected to pressure from the group, which has become his emotional point of
reference? Can we still say the individual has joined the group freely? And what if
part of the doctrine were kept hidden from the person, to be revealed only when he
is held to be ―ready‖ by the leaders? In this case, could we still say that the person
was fully aware of what lay ahead of him at the moment he made his choice?
2. A student with problems studying a foreign language receives an attractive invitation
with cartoons to a church where he will receive language lessons from mother-
tongue teachers. He goes there, and after a while, he is presented with ―strange‖
texts in the foreign language, which tell the life of the founder of a religion, and how
he was granted the ―great revelation,‖ and the teachers begin to praise the virtues of
this figure, saying they are his followers. If this were followed up by kind invitations
to take part in religious services, chant special prayers, would it not be right to say
that the person approached the group for entirely different reasons, and was then
gently (i.e., without kidnapping) led elsewhere?
3. A Christian is approached by a friendly ―missionary‖ who offers him a free home
study of the Bible. This Christian could well accept in order to try to take a deeper
look at his own faith. But suppose the ―bible‖ studied at home were not the Bible
after all, and the homeowner too uninformed to realize it? If the alterations in the
text led him to abandon his previous religion to embrace the one offered by his
―teacher,‖ in such a case could we still say that the person freely and with awareness
chose a religion, or would it be better to say he had simply been tricked?
Countless examples of this sort could be made. They lead us to think that ―kidnapping‖ may
take many forms. Current laws rightly punish some kinds of kidnapping, others
(unfortunately, in our opinion) do not. However, they take place every day, right under our
eyes.