Editor’s Note

Recently, we published several critiques on this website responding to the heterodox and superstitious views of the celebrity exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger. We also ran an essay by theologian Fr. Peter Joseph on several popular but theologically problematic notions including generational sin, curses, and spirits, as well as the idea of “healing the family tree.”

More recently another celebrity exorcist, Fr. Carlos Martins of the Companions of the Cross, has been in the news for committing an alleged boundary violation at a Church in Joliet, Illinois. The full details of what Fr. Martins is alleged to have done have not been made public (the police investigation is still ongoing), but that has not stopped numerous celebrities and public figures, including Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel, from making public statements of support and declaring him innocent.

Both Martins and Ripperger, despite numerous differences in style and message, promote belief in various forms of generational curses (although Fr. Martins tends to speak more frequently about “generational sin” and Fr. Ripperger focuses more on the seemingly more superstitious idea of “generational spirits”).  

Due to the popularity and devoted followings of both of these priests, it is very timely that the Bishops of Spain recently published a doctrinal note addressing the erroneous ideas these celebrity priests promote. Below is an unofficial English translation of that note.

Additional resources:

Zenit has provided an English summary of the note. Click here for an article from Catholic News Agency on the note, and click here for their article on the response to the note by the Catholic Charismatic Movement in Spain. —ML

---

“His mercy extends from generation to generation” (Luke 1:50)

Doctrinal Statement on the Practice of “Intergenerational Healing”

Introduction and Justification for this Statement

In recent years, the practice of “intergenerational healing” has been observed within certain Spanish dioceses, particularly during prayers and retreats organized by new charismatic religious movements. Priests associated with these movements have introduced this practice. The Bishops of the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, concerned by reports of such activities, undertook a thorough examination of the issue. They consulted experts in dogmatic theology, spiritual theology, and psychology.

Based on the expert evaluations received, during the CCLXI meeting on March 7, 2024, the bishops of the Commission—exercising their teaching ministry and their duty to safeguard the good of God’s people—determined that it was necessary to issue a concise note on “intergenerational healing.” This note provides an overview of the practice, offers a doctrinal evaluation, and highlights the theological and spiritual risks involved. The note also addresses the theological framework underpinning the practice, which diverges from the tradition and faith of the Catholic Church. The text was approved for publication during the CCXLVIII meeting of the Standing Commission of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, held on September 26–27, 2024.

1. Origin, Definition, and Risks of Intergenerational Healing

The theoretical foundation and practice of “intergenerational healing,” also referred to as “healing the family tree,” stem from the controversial works of several authors who merge elements of psychology, therapeutic medicine, and spirituality. A prominent figure in this movement is Kenneth McAll, an Anglican medical therapist and missionary, whose book Healing the Family Tree (1982) draws on the psychology of Carl Gustav Jung, a disciple of Freud, to establish a connection between certain illnesses and malevolent forces. McAll’s ideas have been further developed by figures like Claretian priest John Hampsch (Healing Your Family Tree, 1986) and Catholic priest Robert DeGrandis of the Society of St. Joseph (Intergenerational Healing: A Journey to the Depth of Forgiveness, 1992), who popularized the practice within the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement.[1]

These authors propose the intergenerational transmission of sin and, consequently, the possibility of intergenerational healing. According to their perspective, sins committed by one’s ancestors—unforgiven during their lifetimes—are thought to be the root cause of physical and psychological illnesses in their descendants. The proposed method of healing involves identifying the sins within one’s genealogical “family tree.” Through intercessory prayer, exorcisms, and particularly the celebration of the Eucharist, prayers are offered to Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit to sever the connection of sin between the individual and their ancestors, allegedly resulting in healing that is often immediate and complete.

Although this practice, widespread among both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, is carried out with the best intentions and the desire to alleviate people’s suffering, by blending elements of Catholic faith with others that are foreign to it,[2] it results in a syncretism that appears Catholic but includes aspects that explicitly or implicitly pertain to issues of eschatology—particularly the doctrine of purgatory and retribution; ecclesiology, concerning the communion of saints, both living and deceased, within the body of Christ; anthropology, as it eliminates personal responsibility for sin and the freedom of the human being, thereby affecting their relationship with God; and sacramental theology, especially the understanding of the Eucharist and baptism.

2. Magisterial Interventions

The following magisterial interventions have warned against the risks associated with the theory and practice of intergenerational healing, highlighting various problematic aspects of this practice:

The French Episcopal Conference, through a note from its Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith titled On the Healing of Family Lineage Through the Eucharist (January 19, 2007), cautioned against the simplistic reductionism of understanding psychological causality. Specifically, it criticized the notion that physical and psychological illnesses present in ancestors can be transmitted to subsequent generations.[3] This approach, the note argues, undermines personal freedom and responsibility, as it exonerates individuals from owning their own guilt. The document also highlights theological distortions in the promotion of intergenerational healing, particularly regarding the offering of Masses for the deceased and the denial of the sacramental grace of baptism, which fully liberates the individual receiving it.

On November 2, 2007, Korean Bishop Paul Choi Deog-ki of Suwon published a pastoral letter for All Souls’ Day, clarifying that the belief in the inheritance of ancestral sins is not Catholic doctrine. Sins belong to the individual and cannot be transmitted. Furthermore, baptism liberates a person from all past sins, including original sin.

The Polish Episcopal Conference’s Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a document dated October 5, 2015, addressed theological and pastoral issues concerning intergenerational sin and healing. Titled Generational Sin and Intergenerational Healing: Theological and Pastoral Issues, the document analyzed biblical texts that refer to the transmission of sins from parents to children (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9). It concluded that intergenerational healing finds no justification in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium. Furthermore, the practice contradicts the truths of God’s mercy, His forgiving love, and the efficacy of the sacramental graces of baptism and reconciliation.

3. Reflections in Light of the Church’s Magisterium

A. Sin is always personal and requires a free decision of the will. The same applies to the penalty of sin, which always involves personal responsibility. The apostolic exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (1984) states that “sin, in its true and proper sense, is always an act of an individual person, because it is an act of the freedom of an individual, not an act of a group or community” (n. 16). The issue of “structures of sin,” which lead to sin, is a distinct matter and cannot be compared to the idea of an “intergenerational sin.” The only sin that is transmitted from generation to generation is original sin, as affirmed by the Council of Trent:

If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin harmed him alone and not his descendants, and that the holiness and righteousness received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that, defiled by the sin of disobedience, he transmitted to the entire human race only death and physical punishments but not sin, which is the death of the soul: let him be anathema. For he contradicts the Apostle, who says: “Through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death spread to all men because all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). ^[4]

However, it is important to remember that original sin “does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405), as “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). Its punishment does not pass to the next generation, contrary to what proponents of intergenerational healing erroneously claim.

B. Some biblical texts in the Old Testament state that the sins of the fathers fall upon the children (Ex 20:5; 34:7; Nm 14:18; Dt 5:9), reflecting the idea of retribution, where reward or punishment depends not only on personal responsibility but also on collective responsibility, involving the family, clan, or people (Jos 7:5-12, 24; Gn 3:16-19; 6:18; 7:1). However, this conception of corporate responsibility, which called God’s justice into question—particularly when dealing with the suffering of the just, as addressed in the Book of Job—evolved to make individuals responsible for their own destiny (Jer 31:29-33; Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) and broadened the framework of retribution to that of redemption, especially regarding the suffering of the innocent.

Contemporary exegesis, on the other hand, explains that the “iniquity” or “transgression” of the fathers falling upon the children should not be interpreted as a personal sin committed by the parents for which their children are held responsible. Instead, it refers to a bad example that influences the upbringing and maturation process of their children. In the New Testament, Jesus rejected the notion of a hereditary transmission of sin, breaking with the “guilt-punishment” logic—both personal and collective—in the well-known scene of the healing of the man born blind (Jn 9:2-3).

Jesus Christ, through His own life, resolves the challenges posed by the doctrine of retribution: He is the Just One who takes upon Himself the sin of humanity in solidarity and redeems it. From that point on, salvation no longer depends on human observance and efforts. Instead, in Christ, it is granted freely to humanity, in a judgment of mercy that surpasses all merit.

C. The faith of the Catholic Church affirms the communion of saints (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 946-962), teaching that there is a communion and exchange of spiritual goods among those who belong to the body of Christ (Lumen Gentium, 49). However, this communication of goods is exclusively of positive goods: either from the saints in heaven interceding for the living, or from the living offering suffrages for those in a state of purification (purgatory). This is the proper framework for the practice of prayer for the deceased, especially within the Eucharistic Anaphora.

In no case does this include the transmission of the consequences of the sins of deceased members of one’s family tree to the living. Instead, it allows for the possibility of mutual intercession between the living and the deceased, which is unrelated to the concept of intergenerational sin. Likewise, the idea of a “posthumous forgiveness” for sins of extreme gravity, such as abortion, is foreign to the doctrine of purgatory, as it is the individual, in their personal identity, who undergoes purification for the encounter with God. There is no post-mortal biography that alters one’s personality or adds substantial events to a life story already completed during earthly life.

D. Baptism is the sacrament through which we are sacramentally grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. Through it, we are incorporated into the communion of grace that enlivens the mystical body of Christ, the Church, as the community where the ongoing sacramental regeneration of those who, through baptism, have become members of His body takes place. In baptism, the forgiveness of all sins occurs.

While certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized person—such as suffering, illness, death, or the inherent weaknesses of life, including character flaws and the inclination to evil or concupiscence (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1264)—the Catechism states:

“Baptism forgives all sins: original sin, all personal sins, as well as all punishments for sin. Therefore, nothing remains in those who have been reborn that would prevent their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1263)[5]

Thus, the idea of intergenerational transmission of sin cannot be upheld without contradicting the Catholic doctrine on baptism.

E. The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ Jesus, the source and summit of the life of the Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10; Lumen Gentium, 11). In its celebration, the body of Christ is made present in its sacramental reality. Regarding the so-called “healing or liberation Masses,” which are closely linked to the practice of intergenerational healing, it must be noted that these are not included in the Roman Rite. However, the Roman Rite does provide for the celebration of Masses for various needs, including intentions for the sick, where prayers are offered for spiritual and physical comfort and strength for those who are suffering.

The Church also permits the offering of the Eucharistic celebration as a suffrage for the deceased, but this should not be confused with the healing or liberation of sins committed by one’s ancestors. Therefore, introducing such intentions into the context of the celebration of the Holy Mass gravely distorts and misrepresents the Eucharistic celebration.

F. Regarding prayer gatherings aimed at obtaining healing from God for the sick, the guidelines established in the Instruction on Prayers for Healing from God (Ardens felicitatis), published in 2000 by the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith, should be followed. Any faithful person is free to offer prayers to God requesting healing. However, when it comes to organized prayer gatherings, these must be under the supervision of the local Ordinary (Art. 5 § 1). If they take place in a sacred space, it is recommended that they be led by a priest or deacon (Art. 1).

In the case of liturgical healing celebrations (those included in approved liturgical books), explicit permission from the diocesan bishop is required. The bishop also has the authority to issue norms for these celebrations (Art. 4 § 2 and 3). Such prayers for healing, as well as prayers of exorcism, whether liturgical or non-liturgical, must not be incorporated into the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist, the Sacraments, or the Liturgy of the Hours (Art. 7 § 1; Art. 8 § 1).

Conclusion

With this document, we have sought to briefly analyze the theory and practice of intergenerational healing, offering a series of theological and magisterial reflections to help identify and correct practices that deviate from the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church and can cause significant moral and spiritual harm to the holy people of God.

In response to those who claim the intergenerational transmission of the sins of ancestors, and relying on the Word of God, we affirm that no one can be held accountable for the sins of others, nor should anyone be made responsible for the sins of previous generations. Each individual is responsible for their own life and sins. This principle is already stated in the Old Testament: “The person who sins is the one who will die; a son is not to bear the guilt of the father, nor a father the guilt of the son” (Ez 18:20). Therefore, “They will no longer say: ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, and the children’s teeth were set on edge.’ Rather, each will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes will have their own teeth set on edge” (Jer 31:29-30).

As we have explained, the only sin inherited from generation to generation is original sin, which does not carry the character of personal guilt, nor does its punishment pass to subsequent generations. While it is true that “through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners,” it is equally true—and overwhelmingly so—that “through the obedience of one man, many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19), receiving in abundance “the grace of God and the gift granted through one man, Jesus Christ, which has overflowed to many” (Rom 5:15).

In His infinite goodness, God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Tit 3:5-7). In His love, God has willed to make us heirs of eternal life. His mercy and grace extend from generation to generation, as Mary joyfully proclaims in her song of praise (Lk 1:50).

Madrid, November 1, 2024
Feast of All Saints

Footnotes

[1] More recent works on this topic include those of German theologian, spiritualist, and psychotherapist Bert Hellinger (Farewell: Family Constellations with Victims and Perpetrators, 2003; Family Constellations: A Practical Guide to Uncovering the Origins of Family Conflict, 2003), and psychologists Rebecca Linder Hintze (Healing Your Family History. 5 Steps to Break Free of Destructive Patterns, 2011) and Ancelin Schützenberger, the creator of psychogenealogy, whose numerous essays include The Ancestor Syndrome: Transgenerational Psychotherapy and the Hidden Links in the Family (1998). This book was recently translated into Spanish as Ay, mis ancestros: El legado transgeneracional y los lazos ocultos en el árbol familiar (2024), along with other works like Psicogenealogía: Sanar las heridas familiares y encontrarse con uno mismo (2021). These books are often promoted as self-help therapies.

[2] This practice is associated with the concept of karma from Eastern spiritualities, which have become widely popular in contemporary culture. It also resembles a now-surpassed stage in Jewish religion, where generational sin and punishment were believed to be linked—such as in the notion of children being punished for the sins of their parents, as critiqued in Ezekiel 18 (particularly verse 17) and Jeremiah 31.

[3] While it is difficult to deny the potential physical, psychological, or character-related repercussions for individuals when there is a history of alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, or sexual abuse in the family, the approach of intergenerational healing practices often addresses these issues in an overly simplistic or even magical way. It employs a linear logic suggesting that a causal agent inevitably leads to systematic, proportional, and reversible consequences (i.e., the elimination of the cause will eliminate the effect). Such claims often veer into notions of “punishment” extending to subsequent generations or the lingering influence of an evil person beyond death. However, these transmission mechanisms belong more to the realm of belief and fantasy than to the scientific discipline of psychology.

[4] Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (Denzinger–Hünermann 1512).

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1263