If there are two or more interpretations of a text, choose that interpretation which is more plausible. Such is the principle of charity in matters of interpretation. Why not say this: they merely cited Kuhn's definition of paradigm because the they think the term is used by the New Age people in that sense? They were not at all saying that Kuhn himself was a New Ager. I do not doubt that the folks who drew up the document have read their Kuhn. Or do you think you are the only one in the Church who has read Kuhn?
And yes, they connected everything under the sun to New Age, because everything under the sun figures into worldviews. That is what a worldview is, an all embracing comprehensive account of reality as a whole. And that is what New Age is, a cultural movement that is seeking to formulate an alternative worldview. Furthemore, by being so comprehensive, the Church is demanding that people critically reflect upon everything in their lives and purge from our lives all that does not come from Christ.
As for herbal therapies, I do not think they are talking about taking herbal cold-medicine or using nutritional supplements, or programs, as relief from chronic pain. They are talking about the ritualistic use of these things for the sake of acquiring enlightenment about one's inner self, as a program for finding the meaning of life. How many Freepers do that? (there are other things to which New Agers put such things to use).
I am surprised that you folks are not happier that they acknowledged a big problem within the Church and are doing something about it. Listen to what they write:
"It must unfortunately be admitted that there are too many cases where Catholic centres of spirituality are actively involved in diffusing New Age religiosity in the Church. This would of course have to be corrected, not only to stop the spread of confusion and error, but also so that they might be effective in promoting true Christian spirituality." section 6.2
As for the remark about resources within the Catholic tradition for attracting these people to Christ, the document says:
"The beginning of the Third Millennium offers a real kairos for evangelisation. People's minds and hearts are already unusually open to reliable information on the Christian understanding of time and salvation history. Emphasising what is lacking in other approaches should not be the main priority. It is more a question of constantly revisiting the sources of our own faith, so that we can offer a good, sound presentation of the Christian message. We can be proud of what we have been given on trust, so we need to resist the pressures of the dominant culture to bury these gifts (cf. Mt 25.24-30). One of the most useful tools available is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is also an immense heritage of ways to holiness in the lives of Christian men and women past and present. Where Christianity's rich symbolism, and its artistic, aesthetical and musical traditions are unknown or have been forgotten, there is much work to be done for Christians themselves, and ultimately also for anyone searching for an experience or a greater awareness of God's presence. Dialogue between Christians and people attracted to the New Age will be more successful if it takes into account the appeal of what touches the emotions and symbolic language." section 6.2
In this last excerpt, there is a direct appeal to draw upon the traditions of the Church precisely as effective forms of personal spiritual development and as means for reaching out.
So we have condemnations of certain novelties and appeals to tradition, and you people are dissapointed with the document?
It seems to me that most of you have not read the document carefully, or not read it charitably. As for me, I am deeply impressed with the document. It rings true to much of what I have experienced with New Agers, acknowledges problems in the Church, gives a good description of the relationship between New Age and Gnosticism, sets the movement within its larger philosophical context, including the damnable portions of modernity, urges us to employ traditional devotions, is setting up to rollback new age retreat centers, and sets a course for dealing with the vast influence of New Age. My only complaint is that it is twenty five years too late. But better late than never. Some people, relying upon this document, will be a part of the solution. Others will just bitch.
I'm sorry, but due to times we live in I am not going to make any automatic assumptions about anything. I am evaluating the article on its merits. It comes up lacking in many ways. Parts of it show a deep lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Add this to the low level of credibility which the Church has fallen to in light of recent scandals and this document is classified as a bomb. Anyone who is pursuing a New Age path will simply laugh at it while those who have an understanding of it will be embarrassed by it. It is evident the authors have not studied the situation first hand but are relying on books which are opinions of their authors. The scholarship here is lacking. I could drive a truck through all the holes.
Yes, they are saying that Kuhn's book is a "New Age Book."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
9 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.1. Some New Age books
William Bloom, The New Age. An Anthology of Essential Writings, London (Rider) 1991.
Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Berkeley (Shambhala) 1975.
Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture, Toronto (Bantam) 1983.
Benjamin Creme, The Reappearance of Christ and the Masters of Wisdom, London (Tara Press) 1979.
Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy. Personal and Social Transformation in Our Time, Los Angeles (Tarcher) 1980.
Chris Griscom, Ecstasy is a New Frequency: Teachings of the Light Institute, New York (Simon & Schuster) 1987.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago (University of Chicago Press) 1970.
....