In regards to Remote Veiwing (as opposed to Remote Sensing), I do not think that it is quite so simple to write off its supposed scientific principle and usage;
that said, from what I have read about the US program, many of the operatives did use forbidden means to attain the necessary “protocols” for their veiwing sessions, such as the Tarot and other occultic systems. As such, unless RV can actually be separated from these elements, then it is hard not to discern that it should be treated as being just another occult system.
OTOH, if one could “scientifically” prove the existence of Demons, then does that rationalization of them grant moral availability to their power? After all, ‘good’ old-fashioned Theurgy was a rationalized, studied, and experimental method (a “science” as the word was originally used) to bind and control spirits; yet it does not escape censure as being sorcery. Just because we updated the terminology used, doesn’t really change the principles behind the effort and goal of such.
The question can only be answered by answering a preliminary question: Is Remote veiwing (or any other “psychic” discipline for that matter, such as Telekinisis) truely different from its occult forebears; and if so, is that distinction one that revolves around the point of contention that forbidds the occult practices. As the “science” surrounding ‘psychic phenomena’ is still too far weak on every level, there is no point to reassess the Ban on the occult “versions” to determine and study out the true theological reasons for the ban to make such a determination.
Such an assessment is necessary, precisely because of the “traditional” interpretation (that all occult practices are Idolaterous) is being side-stepped by modern occult theory. Theurgy (sorcery) that seeks to bind the Powers (weather Angelic, demonic, or elemental) is largely passe in the modern occult, and now everything is being re-imaged as being under a psyhcic/psychological process of the individual, thus no actual demons or angels are involved anymore, thus making the argument that one who practices such things is holding to entities other than God in their practice is much harder case to make. (NOTE: I am not saying it invalidates the argument, but obscures it to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to point out to the practitioner wherein lies the error of their particular way, as they will sincerily point out that they have never invoked any spirit other than God, if that, in the process of their “work”). Thus, as the tactics (definitions) of the occult change, the apologetic for them must also change to remain relevant. And, if there does become a real distinction between the modern expression of an occult principle, and the old superstitious occult practice of it; then such must be correctly identified and most importantly, understood.
For instance, Alchemy is traditionally forbidden as an occult art, yet it is the forbear of Chemistry, which is not banned. So, there is real reason to discern if there is a real difference between Remote Veiwing and its precursor occult science of Clairvoyance, or if its proponents are simply utilizing a pseudo-scientific veneer to give the occult practice a new PR spin to justify themselves (knowlingly or unknowingly is ultimately irrelevent to the point) in their activity.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that anyone of the appropriate “competent authority” within the Church has made the proper investigations into the subject of Remote Veiwing to provide the “Church’s” determination on this particular subject. If I am mistaken, please forward me at least the title of the determinations made by the CDF, as it is of interest to me as well (though more of a curiosity than impact on my life or faith as I am not a RV guy). No, the speculations of some popular theologian are not binding, though they may be of use in consideration.
Just some rambling thoughts…