Exorcism and the Law (Updated)
There’s a two-day conference on how to do it. Leaving aside all the historical and theological and sociological questions, my first question is legal: how do you get someone possessed by a demon to give informed consent to the acts necessary to remove it? I don’t think the secular laws against battery and false imprisonment have a “demonic possession” exception. Will the bishops’ lawyers be expanding into a new realm of First Amendment law?
You may ask, what do we do when we force treatment upon mentally ill people? Well, we have a legal hearing –sometimes an emergency hearing–in which a mentally ill person is declared legally incompetent and his or her medical decision-making is put in the hands of someone else, usually under supervision of a court. When I practiced law in Massachusetts, extreme treatment plans such as ECT or psychotropic drugs needed a special court sign-off, because they were both traumatic and had the potential for long-term deleterious effects. It seems that exorcism would be an extreme treatment–but it is not a form of medical treatment, nor one that I think courts would be comfortable authorizing for incompetent patients.
Can you be exorcised against your will? There are also analogies to deprogramming, which is legally controversial. In that case, at least, the “cult” is visible, and presents a tangible influence upon the kidnapped child. Cases of exorcism will be far more murky, to say the least.
This should be interesting. It’s too bad there wasn’t a lawyer at this conference.
But then they probably would have tried to exorcise the lawyer!
Update: The Texas Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment confers some protection upon the practice of exorcism. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case. Texas’s interpretation of the First Amendment is not binding upon other states, however, and the U.S. SCt.’s denial of certioriai does not mean that it agreed with the result. What do you think of this decision?
Remember, the legal framework around exorcism will not be tailored to Catholics–other faiths perform them as well.
Excellent points!!!
The issue of informed consent is a huge one – not only legally but ethically and morally.
Also what about issues related to liability? The movie “Te Excorcism of emily Rose” was an interesting movie in that regard (also with respect to patient choice in treatment).
Suppose a person consents to an exorcism and the Bishop approves it and the person dies as a result of the procedure (due to convulsion, or stroke or anything like that). Is the Church liable for the death particularly since even if the person consents, what are the risks?
Additionally what about the long term psychiatric or psychological effects? Has there been any research on people who have underwent excorcism? Is there more incidents of depression, etc.
Of course there has been research on ECT and the loss of short term memory. Yet patients continue to consent to it. Although even here, the ethical considerations are significant.
And will insurance companies be required to pay for demon-related injuries?
I don’t think legal issues concern Gary Thomas.
“The loquacious, 55-year-old Silicon Valley priest” wants to “get a meeting with the pontiff.
‘If Nancy Pelosi can see him, why the hell can’t I?’”
Thomas’s bishop, “the Most Rev. Patrick McGrath of San Jose, sent him to Rome to be trained as an exorcist. At Regina Apostolorum, a Vatican-sanctioned school run by the conservative Legionaries of Christ religious order, Thomas learned how to discern spirits, how demons fit into Catholic theology, and how the devil gains power.
(Legion vs. Legion?)
He also apprenticed with a veteran Italian exorcist, sitting in on 80 exorcisms. In Italy, getting an exorcism is more like going to the dentist than starring in a horror film, Baglio reports, and more than half a million Italians see an exorcist annually.
http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnstext/american_exorcist_plies_his_lonely_trade3/
I wondered what the stipend would be, but Thomas says “exorcists are not allowed to take money for their services”.
One third of the homeless are mentally ill. Here is how the Franciscans and laity nurture them without exorcism. Done with volunteers and two paid monitors to handle the rare disturbances. They Handle about a hundred a day for six hours.. watch the silent few minute video..
http://thegubbioproject.org/video.html
Thanks, Prof. Kaveny….excellent points and ed gleason – excellent video about true gospel work.
Just posted on Pray,Tell blog about this. Given the tremendous issues that we face currently as a nation and as a church, why focus on this topic? What we need is to refocus on the pastoral on the economy (roughly 25 years old) and the consistent ethic of life (not solely abortion)….this would be true exorcisms.
Does the present-day secular legal world recognize such an entity as “someone possessed by a demon”? Or “demon”? Accepting a Church-defined diagnosis interpretable only through a particular religious faith sounds, to a layman, unlikely. Is there any related thought related to Christian Science?
Did Jesus secure the informed consent of those He exorcised? And should He have gained permission before raising someone from the dead?
Jesus may have anticipated some of these questions when, in an underappreciated passage, He exclaimed: “Woe to the lawyers…” (Luke 11, 46).
Another legal question: if a person sells his soul to the devil, would the courts uphold the contract? (My favorite devil movie, the original Bedazzled, 1967, Dudley Moore.)
——
By sending men to Regina Apostolorum to be trained, the bishops may be helping to revive the drooping spirits of the Legion of Christ.
It’s not only an American problem. “. . . more and more Poles struggle with Satanic possession.”
“An indication of possession is that a person is unable to go into a church, or, if they do, they can feel faint or breathless”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8129201/Polish-exorcists-gather-in-Warsaw.html
This is the most Metal topic I’ve ever read on this blog.
And, even if we grant all the stuff we have to grant to get to the consent question, well, hey, if you talk to a possessed person, generally it’s the demon talking back. Why on earth (or, to be precise, I suppose,)why in Hell would a demon consent to its own exorcism? And unless the law recognizes the possibility of demonic possession, then a reasonably, um, reasonable demon would see to it that possessed acts in ways consistent with run-of-the-mill sanity, so no proxy could step in for the good of the person, the way one can for an insane person who is a threat to him/herself or others.
In sum–the only demons that would act so stupidly as to be identifiable under the law are the really dumb ones. SMART demons look normal. Just, well, different. Smart demons aren’t content just to destroy one person by wrecking their lives. Smart demons have higher ambitions. Or does it seem different when we’re not near an election? :-)
Though I know any number of doctoral students who, when they hear that one sign of possession is sudden ability to be able to speak foreign languages unknown to the host, well, they’re tempted. And another opening for clever demons. “Learn Coptic in minutes!” “Speak Enochian like a native!”
Smart and dumb demons?? I posted this on America.
Here is my take on ‘real’ diabolical possession. One third of the homeless are mentally ill. First, it is not the mentally ill who are possessed.
We have modern examples of how sane mediocre men with no early talent were able to suddenly empower themselves over more talented people. Hitler, Manson. David Karesh are some. Hitler after 4 years of WWI combat rose to the rank of corporal; yet later was able to intimidate tough aristocratic generals. From whence came his power? I posit that these men sought out the evil one and were given power by the evil one. Throw in Marciel as he made fools out many in high places too. None would have ever sought exorcism; so what can the People of God do.?? forget exorcism
Hitler and David Koresh making pacts with Satan? This thread just got better.
People worried about demons should make use of sacramentals, including the Jubilee Medal of St. Benedict:
“Around the margin of the back of the medal, the letters V R S N S M V – S M Q L I V B are the initial letters, as mentioned above, of a Latin prayer of exorcism against Satan: Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas! (Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)”
http://www.osb.org/gen/medal.html
Scroll down to order medals, tee shirts, etc.
Holy water and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel are effective deterrents, also.
From an interview on Busted Halo with Father Gary Thomas, the exorcist written about in the book The Rite, which is also about to be released as a movie, it sounds very much like candidates for exorcism request it themselves. It also sounds like one of the main functions of an exorcist is to tell most people who seek an exorcism that they don’t need one. I am kind of extrapolating from what Father Thomas said, but it sounds like “full possession,” in which a person is totally taken over, is extraordinarily rare.
I would like to think the phenomenon of possession does not involve demons and is explicable in basically naturalistic terms, but I am not really sure. I do find that identifying the serpent as Satan in the story of Adam and Eve is entirely unsupportable. I am no great expert, but Satan in the Old Testament doesn’t seem to be anything like the Christian conception of Satan or the Devil. The “Lucifer” of Isaiah 14:12 is certainly not Satan, and there doesn’t seem to be much to support the idea of fallen angels. But who knows what exists that we don’t understand?
Hello All,
I thought it might be of group interest for me to note that I have colleagues in philosophy departments elsewhere who have independently learned of the NTY article Cathy linked us to in her post and that they are this weekend mocking the Roman Catholic Church on the Internet as a result.
Gadzooks! Philosophers pwning the Church on the interwebs!
Hello David (and All),
I have found it somewhat difficult to learn just what the Church teaches regarding Satan, at least from sources I consider reliable. I think most Christians think of Satan as a sort of “super demon/fallen angel” who’s in charge of a whole lot of lesser demon/fallen angels. But I’m not certain that the Church explicitly teaches that Satan is any particular kind of being or even that Satan is a single person. (Theologians here please correct me if the following is wrong.) From my reading of Scripture, I think one can understand Satan as a name for any force or forces that tempt us in a serious way to depart from what God wills for us. And if that’s right then I think it’s open to properly name Satan motivations coming from within ourselves and each other. Why did Jesus refer to Peter as Satan almost immediately after telling Peter he would be the rock upon which Jesus would build His church? Some people think that Peter was momentarily possessed by “Satan the super demon/fallen angel” because this demon didn’t want the Roman Catholic Church to happen and tried to possess Peter as soon as Jesus announced Peter would be the first pope, then Jesus ordered the demon to vacate Peter and the demon obeyed. I’m inclined to think Jesus was telling Peter that Peter was way off base when he tried to tell Jesus he was wrong about predicting his own passion and to just stop tempting Him. If my reading is right, it was Peter’s own idea to contradict what Jesus had just told him and Jesus was telling him sharply to stop acting that way.
I have to add that I simply don’t know how to understand the stories in Scripture of Jesus and others casting out evil spirits. I think it’s just not that clear from what Scripture says just what was afflicting the people Jesus helped. Similarly I don’t know how to understand exorcism but it must be the case that the Church has determined that some people can benefit from the process.
It seems to me that unless and until there is some way to determine whether or not possession is actually an instance of dissociative identity disorder (multiple personalities, alter egos) that there is no way to make sensible laws concerning it.
If an instance of “possession” is actually a case of dissociative identity disorder (having multiple personalities, “alter egos”) then it would seem that the criteria for treatment should be medical/psychiatric ones. People are regularly treated against their will for illness (e.g., children, senile people, people with infectious diseases like TB).
On the other hand, if there really is such a thing as the taking over of someone’s mind by a demon/evil spirit, then it would seem that exorcism might or even should be treated by the law as a form of rescuing the possessed from something analogous to kidnapping.
But does the law allow someone to be rescued against his/her will? One intriguing aspect of this interpretatioon of possession is that the possessed has been deprived of the ordinary exercise of his/her will. Are there analogous situations treated by the law? There are negative ones, of course — criminals being kept in prison against their will. This is one hell of a problem. (Sorry.)
I’m not sure whether or not possessions really involve demons. Certainly the idea of a pure spirit is not self-contradictory, and it would be surprising if they did not have wills and be able to choose evil. The theory of fallen angels certainly makes Auschwitz more comprehensible.
One lesson philosophers teach is the importance of defining your terms. That might help in the ongoing discussion: e.g., demon, devil, possession, signs of possession,…. Ann O immediately above is moving in the right direction.
Not sure what the joke is supposed to be here. Demons are fallen angels, right? So they’re like angels, only they’re unhelpful instead of helpful. Right?
Catholics use Satan as a proper name, but in the Old Testament isn’t it a common noun? I seem to recall it was a legal term (sorry Cathy) for an adversary in a court proceeding. Thus it’s the satan who argues against God about Job, etc. Any Hebrew scholars out there?
Latin to make the Mass seem more mysterious by virtue of being incomprehensible, as if one could not see any mystery otherwise.
Exorcism to make priests seem more powerful thanks to their magical incantations.
Reiki.
Visions and apparitions to people of dubious character.
Religious orders based on blind obedience and led by Maciel.
Superstition and crimes conspiring to hide the beauty and truth of our religion.
How can I hope to get my daughter back in church? This nonsense can only reinforce her suspicion that our religion may be a sham. How can we hope to get rational people on board? How can this fit in with the dialogue between faith and reason?
Embarrassing.
I don’t get why exorcism or the idea of the devil is any more irrational than the belief that some bread and hooch can be changed into the substance of the blood and body of Christ, or, for that matter, the belief that some dude died and then lived again (or, further, that you or I or anybody else will be resurrected). I mean, why is all that jazz supposed to be so much more palatable to “rational people” than the idea of demonic activity? Is it just that some things are easier to filter through poetry and Neoplatonism than others? What are the criteria by which people are supposed to determine which of the beliefs/practices of the church are palatable and which are too freaky-deaky (that’s a techinal term) for people to talk about without getting all red in the face?
Certainly, demonic activity happens. We see how people’s evil choices can combine to produce consequences that are much worse than the sum of their individual sins, for example. But as Lisa Fullam mentioned, Satan is surely smarter than to make possessed people behave insanely.
Certainly, demonic activity happens
No doubt. But usually it takes the form of a nudge here, a whisper in the ear there. No need for full-scale possession when the purpose can be gained without going to all that trouble. And usually that nudge and whisper are far from obviously demonic — the “wickedness and snares of the devil” more often seem to be all too reasonable, all too rational. The Father of Lies knows that the best lie contains 99 percent truth, and the lie merely twists the truth, uses good and reason as a weapon against themselves.
And what is that purpose, even in the case of possession, even granting that Satan is smarter than to make possessed people behave “insanely”?
Well, as an aside, it bears noting that full possession, by its nature, deprives a person of their own volition and will — which is the very essence of “insanity.” But the purpose is not so much as to adversely affect the possessed person, but to adversely affect the people around him or her. To lead those others to despair, to lead them to doubt, to lead them away from God, to make what is decent and good into something that is twisted and ugly — as well as to lead them to laugh at the Church and mock the reality of such things as demonic activity and exorcism.
As I said, there is no need for full-scale possession when that purpose of “seeking the ruin of souls” can be gained without going to all that trouble. And it appears that that purpose has been accomplished here — people led away from the Faith with false ideas and mockery, and all that done by a nudge here, a whisper in the ear there, which seems so reasonable, so smart and sophisticated.
Exorcism is nonsense and very pernicious nonsense. Considering all the harm that this kind of superstition has done in the past, and taking into account people’s extreme credulity in nonsensical figments of imagination, the part of the Church that professes to believe in Reason has a moral obligation to discourage this sort of thing.
Have you ever read the Gospel of Mark? It’s basically one long exorcism with a crucifixion as an epilogue.
“No one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.”
Bender,
Your response was predictable, except for the fact that you left out the Baudelaire quote, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”
On the one hand, it seems to me the existence of Satan, devils, and demonic possession is no more difficult to believe than the Incarnation, the Real Presence, or any one of hundreds of Christian doctrines. (I hope everyone has read the Philip Roth short story The Conversion of the Jews.) On the other hand, there is a lot to be skeptical about, and it doesn’t help to tell people they don’t believe in the devil because they have been tricked by the devil into not believing.
There are two major questions (in my mind) about the alleged activity of demons in the world. First, how do they affect earthly events, and second, why would God permit them to? Can a demon literally whisper in a person’s ear? And if so, wouldn’t it make a person suspicious to hear a voice coming from nowhere? Can a demon read a human mind? Can a demon plant a thought in a human mind? It would seem to me that to whatever extent a supernatural being is deceiving or manipulating a human, to that extent the human is less culpable for his or her actions. Does God really allow a demon to whisper in a person’s ear, or nudge a person, without counterbalancing things by a benevolent whisper or nudge toward virtue? Aren’t human beings at enough of a disadvantage without having fallen angels using supernatural powers on them?
It does seem to me that a clear-cut case of possession and then a successful exorcism would be one of the most powerful “empirical” demonstrations that Catholicism is credible.
So I certainly am not snickering at anyone who takes exorcism seriously. I don’t dismiss anything that scares the wits out of me. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot of questions. And I do think blaming something like the abuse crisis or Internet pornography on Satan doesn’t make it easier for people to believe in the existence of the demonic.
As to the decision in Texas: I think a person who goes to a church where people thrash on the floor deserves whatever rug burns s/he gets. Very dangerous for courts to consider religious beliefs and practices when applying the law.
Article in the NYT this morning about a Democratic state representative re-elected in Oklahoma in spite of having voted “against putting a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would forbid state judges from considering international or Islamic law in deciding cases”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/us/15oklahoma.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=oklahoma&st=cse
———–
As to the notion that demonic activity “usually it takes the form of a nudge here, a whisper in the ear there”?
That’s not what the (Catholic) bible says. In the Book of Tobias, e.g., (translated by Jerome in one night), Sara’s first seven husbands were KILLED by a demon.
And in the Book of Job, Job’s livestock and herdsmen, sheep and shepherds, camels and tenders, and his seven sons and three daughters are KILLED by Satan after his bet with God.
Prof.Kaveny’s opening question about “informed consent” involves two separable questions. One, on consent, appears similar to the question in the case of recognized mental illness or young children: Does the individual as viewed by the court have the present capacity to understand the immediate situation and the potential consequences of proposed action or inaction? This may be a difficult decision in practice but is hardly novel.
More challenging is deciding what “informed” means in someone who is declared – by somebody – to be “possessed by a demon”. If possession is accepted as a real possibility, then who or what is the informed entity listening and speaking before the court or elsewhere? One hopes the newly briefed Bishops will clarify this matter.
The Revs. Cotton and Increase Mather offered views about a somewhat similar issue on “spectral evidence” in connection with court proceedings in Salem in 1692-93. Do colonial precedents help?
Felapton –
I don’t think it’s the Church that has taken an irrational position on possession. It’s science that is generally irrational on this point.
The fact is that there are extraordinary actions by people which need explanation. If you reduce all reality to matter, as scientists typically do these days, then you have to look for a material explanation. But if you admit even the *possibilitiy* of spirit, then another explanation becomes a possible one.
Most philosophers these days don’t argue about the reality of soul/spirit. But even among some materialists the reality of the will/acts of choice are still admitted by some as a philosophical problem to be explained. In other words, they admit the existence of will acts.
Many philosopher see will acts as spiritual, that is acts which are not reducible to matter. The reason is that the phenomenon of choice cannot be described in material terms — it is a non-sensory reality with neither length, breadth nor width, etc. So it seems to me that the onus is on the skeptical scientists to explain away their own observations of these acts of will as spiritual realities. (Once again: if the will acts are there, but they have non characteristics of matter, then they are non-material, i.e., spiritual.)
Just as the experience of a patch of blue *shows* that it is a color, so the phenomenon of a will acts *shows* that it is not describable in material terms. They are totally non-sensory realities). Given that fact, the reality of spirit (will acts) must be admitted
Once you admit that spirit is a possibility (and the actuality of will-acts obviously attest their possibility), you have added an alternative *possible* cause of the effects (the behavior of the so-called “possessed”). Because scientific method is essentially the systematic elimination of all possible causes of an event except one, and given that spirit is a possible cause of possession, before scientists can say that a\the phenomenon is cause by something material, their own scientific method requires that that they eliminate spirit as a possible cause. Until the scientists eliminate possible spirit, the demonic hypothesis remains a rational, scientific possibility.
The problem is that the scientists these days are narrow=minded reductionists. In the matter of possession they argue that because spirit is impossible, spirit cannot cause possession. Too simple. Will acts are evidence that spirit is not only possible but actual.
Until the scientists eliminate possible spirit, the demonic hypothesis remains a rational, scientific possibility.
Ann,
Scientists work with the natural, not the supernatural. That is what science is all about. The hypothesis that a demon is causing a human being to exhibit some kind of abnormal behavior is the very last thing that a scientist should consider possible, if it should be considered possible at all.
I have read the interview that is summarized in the following paragraph, but I don’t have access to it now. It is not a great summary, but I will reproduce it anyway:
I do not explicitly deny the theoretical possibility of demonic possession (although it certainly has the ring of nonsense.) I merely say that the reality of demonic possession is not required to explain all hitherto known proposed cases. In each, Occam’s Razor points directly to much more plausible explanations: primarily plain old human stupidity, malice and credulity; also desire for publicity, financial motives, immature people desperate for attention, etc.
Of course there is a not-inconsiderable subset of the clergy who can’t wait to raid the archdiocesan frippery closet, haul out all the glitzy old exorcism gear, go prance and posture in front of the gullible (for a small fee, of course) and wave their hands around and utter sepulchral incantations like that arrant jackass Gandalf.
Any high-ranking Vatican official who tells the world he’s a proponent of “Reason” should put the kibosh on this idiocy right now.
“Scientists work with the natural, not the supernatural. That is what science is all about. The hypothesis that a demon is causing a human being to exhibit some kind of abnormal behavior is the very last thing that a scientist should consider possible, if it should be considered possible at all.”
Felapton –
Scientists try to have it both ways. First they say that scientific method considers all *possible* causes of a phenomenon but one. Then they say that science considers only what is material/spatial/measurable/sensory. That contradicts their position about scientific method. YOU CAN’T have it both ways and still call it science in the same sense. If you switch the senses of “science” then you’ve committed a fallacy, which also breaks the rules of science,
The philosophers of science recognize clearly that considering all possible causes but one is not practical, so they now say that the findings of science must always be tentative. And they’re right. But don’t come back to me and say that therefore there is no evidence for demons. (OK, not you, but the IRRATIONALLY skeptical scientists. And there ARE many. Sorry for yelling, but some scientists are really insufferable.)
I don’t think it’s the Church that has taken an irrational position on possession. It’s science that is generally irrational on this point.
The fact is that there are extraordinary actions by people which need explanation. If you reduce all reality to matter, as scientists typically do these days, then you have to look for a material explanation. But if you admit even the *possibilitiy* of spirit, then another explanation becomes a possible one.
Most philosophers these days don’t argue about the reality of soul/spirit. But even among some materialists the reality of the will/acts of choice are still admitted by some as a philosophical problem to be explained. In other words, they admit the existence of will acts.
Many philosopher see will acts as spiritual, that is acts which are not reducible to matter. The reason is that the phenomenon of choice cannot be described in material terms — it is a non-sensory reality with neither length, breadth nor width, etc. So it seems to me that the onus is on the skeptical scientists to explain away their own observations of these acts of will as spiritual realities. (Once again: if the will acts are there, but they have non characteristics of matter, then they are non-material, i.e., spiritual.)
Just as the experience of a patch of blue *shows* that it is a color, so the phenomenon of a will acts *shows* that it is not describable in material terms. They are totally non-sensory realities). Given that fact, the reality of spirit (will acts) must be admitted
Once you admit that spirit is a possibility (and the actuality of will-acts obviously attest their possibility), you have added an alternative *possible* cause of the effects (the behavior of the so-called “possessed”). Because scientific method is essentially the systematic elimination of all possible causes of an event except one, and given that spirit is a possible cause of possession, before scientists can say that a\the phenomenon is cause by something material, their own scientific method requires that that they eliminate spirit as a possible cause. Until the scientists eliminate possible spirit, the demonic hypothesis remains a rational, scientific possibility.
The problem is that the scientists these days are narrow=minded reductionists. In the matter of possession they argue that because spirit is impossible, spirit cannot cause possession. Too simple. Will acts are evidence that spirit is not only possible but actual.
“I do not explicitly deny the theoretical possibility of demonic possession (although it certainly has the ring of nonsense.)”
Felapton — The “ring of nonsense”? I call that poetry.
David N. tells us: “I do not explicitly deny the theoretical possibility of demonic possession (although it certainly has the ring of nonsense.)”
David — the skeptical scientists are not consistent. If scientific method claims to eliminate all possible causes but one (and that is *exactly* what they say) then the must admit ALL possible causes, including the possibility of non-material ones, unless of course, they can show that spirit is impossible, which they don’t even try to do. They just deny the possibility. Sheesh. They’re the ones with hermetically sealed minds.
The existence of evil is not in doubt. The traditional positing of an agency of evil separable from the human subject is not the subject of this thread, but I believe it has a usefulness and plausibility that goes far beyond the question of demonic possession.
In the Rite of Baptism for Children and the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, there are exorcism prayers. These do not suggest demonic possession. Rather, they pray for deliverance from evil in what I think is a manner applicable to anybody, drawing attention to the struggle between good and evil that is foundational to the Christian worldview. I have an article coming out in January in Catechumenate magazine (Chicago-LTP), entitled “Scrutiny, Exorcism, and the Construction of the Christian Self” which explores some of this territory.
I am troubled whenever I see an inflated interest in the arcane and bizarre as emblematic of Catholic faith, to the neglect of more ordinary manifestations of the struggle against evil.
But this is a digression from the legal issues, the topic of this thread.
“I merely say that the reality of demonic possession is not required to explain all hitherto known proposed cases. In each, Occam’s Razor points directly to much more plausible explanations: primarily plain old human stupidity, malice and credulity; also desire for publicity, financial motives, immature people desperate for attention, etc.”
Felapton –
So there are cases — yes, a majority of them at least — that are explainable most simply as the result of mental illness, even by the non-functioning brain. But there are also instances where there have been people of monumental cruelty who do not show the most basic characteristic of insanity — irrational thinking. Joseph Stalin was intellectually as connected to the world as people come. He was not irrational in his thinking. He was not out of touch with reality. So how is it “rational” to put him in the same category as the poor crazy schizophrenics? They do NOT have the same characteristics, and psychiatry has not explained the like of Stalin. That leaves the spiritual explanation an equally credible one.
Of course you can *call* Stalin’s choices crazy, but you have changed the psychiatrists meaning of “crazy”, and your argument fails.
To Cathleen: is it possible that the new emphasis on demons is meant to provide a defense against lawsuits by victims of pedophiles and a rationale for abuse by clerics and religious?
The devil becomes an object of interest in the American epic, Moby Dick (Chapter 73). Stubb, the 2nd Mate on the Pequod, discusses the mysterious character Fedallah, how to identify him as the devil, and a way to disarm him.
____________________
I take that Fedallah to be the devil in disguise. Do you believe that cock and bull story about his having been stowed away on board ship? He’s the devil, I say. The reason why you don’t see his tail, is because he tucks it up out of sight; he carries it coiled away in his pocket, I guess.
…….
“Do you suppose Fedallah wants to kidnap Captain Ahab?”
“Do I suppose it? You’ll know it before long, Flask. But I am going now to keep a sharp look-out on him; and if I see anything very suspicious going on, I’ll just take him by the nape of his neck, and say- Look here, Beelzebub, you don’t do it; and if he makes any fuss, by the Lord I’ll make a grab into his pocket for his tail, take it to the capstan, and give him such a wrenching and heaving, that his tail will come short off at the stump- do you see; and then, I rather guess when he finds himself docked in that queer fashion, he’ll sneak off without the poor satisfaction of feeling his tail between his legs.”
“And what will you do with the tail, Stubb?”
“Do with it? Sell it for an ox whip when we get home;- what else?”
____________________
It later becomes clear that Fedallah’s prophetic dreams anticipate the doom awaiting the Pequod.
Ann,
Please note that you have mixed me up several times with Felapton and attributed to me quotes that are Felapton’s. For example, I did not say, ““I do not explicitly deny the theoretical possibility of demonic possession (although it certainly has the ring of nonsense.)”
However, I did write the message about science and demonic possession. As I said, science is about the natural world. How do you investigate supernatural phenomena using the scientific method? Also, suppose my hypothesis is that there is no such phenomena as demonic possession, because what is really happening is space aliens are controlling the thoughts of the allegedly possessed person. I am quite convinced of the possibility of intelligent life in the universe, but if I were a medical scientist investigating alleged possession, I would leave no stone unturned in looking for a rational, natural explanation for what appears to be possession. Science does not make progress by saying, “I give up, the supernatural must be at work here.”
Now, if the movie The Exorcist had been a documentary with actual footage of Linda Blair’s head turning 360 degrees and so on, it would be understandable for a scientist to say, “There is undoubtedly something supernatural going on here.” But I wouldn’t call that a scientific finding. And I would have to say that so far, it just never seems to be the case that something definitive happens that can actually be documented (filmed, for example) in such a way that we don’t have to take somebody’s word for what happened. In M. Scott Peck’s book Glimpses of the Devil, there are two exorcisms that are filmed, and Peck observes that watching the films afterwards the dramatic, spooky things he saw don’t show up on the film. He takes this to indicate that film can’t record dramatic, spooky things adequately, but the obvious conclusion is that he was in an emotional state during the exorcisms and he imagine things that did not happen.
What would have happened in medical science if for the past hundred years or so, they had been open to supernatural explanations for schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive-disorder or any number of disturbing mental phenomena? It is simply not science to accept a supernatural explanation for something that is (or is probably) a natural phenomenon. Once that happens, it’s not science any more. The same is true of history. Once you start accepting the supernatural in history, you can never prove definitively that, say, Napoleon was not defeated at Waterloo because God intervened. And of course once you accept the supernatural, whose version of the supernatural do you accept? Do you accept Catholic demonology, or do you you go hunting through other cultures to try and figure out if their supernatural beliefs fit the phenomena better?
Gerelyn -
The answer to your question is definitely yes. Bishop Paprocki, prominent in current exorcism initiatives, addressed precisely the connection in his Red Mass homily of October 2007. See
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/11_12/2007_10_15_Paprocki_CarryingThe.htm
2007 links to the diocesan website for redmasshomily.pdf (from Google) do not respond.
In May 2010, Paprocki confirmed and clarified his view in his own statement in the Springfield State Journal-Register.
http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1560843949/Thomas-Paprocki-Remarks-in-2007-homily-clarified
His list of symptoms of possession in the Nov 12 NYT article by Laurie Goodstein notably did not include litigiousness.
They do NOT have the same characteristics, and psychiatry has not explained the like of Stalin. That leaves the spiritual explanation an equally credible one.
Ann,
Are you implying that Stalin was being controlled by a demon? If so, you will have to give an explanation of why God would permit a demon to take over a human being and kill 17 million people. You have to explain how Christ’s defeat of Satan is consistent with demons controlling world events.
It sounds rather feeble when applied to Stalin, but I am reasonably sure the diagnosis would be Antisocial Personality Disorder — people with this diagnosis are often called sociopaths.
Thanks, Jack. Depressing stuff.
It sounds rather feeble when applied to Stalin, but I am reasonably sure the diagnosis would be Antisocial Personality Disorder — people with this diagnosis are often called sociopaths.
Demons and psychiatry aside, Stalin is an example of the human capacity for evil, which we are all capable of without any prodding or assistance from the devil. Recalling the infamous Milgram experiments, Stalin or Hitler could not have inflicted the suffering they did without a lot of help.
“Remember, the legal framework around exorcism will not be tailored to Catholics–other faiths perform them as well.”
I recall from several years ago, in a discussion about whether or not the priest and people in a Catholic congregation should stop the liturgy if an attendee faints or has a heart attack in the middle of mass: an EMT reported that, at some of the Evangelical churches to which he responds to calls, he has to wait to begin attending to a patient because the minister and other parishioners are exorcising demons from the stricken person. (My experience of Catholic churches is that they tend toward the other end of the spectrum: cardial infarction is an interruption of the holy sacrifice of the mass :-().
At any rate, I’m guessing that these Evangelical churches are assuming more liability than a Catholic exorcist would.
“. How do you investigate supernatural phenomena using the scientific method? ”
David N. –
I apologize for mixing you up with Felapton.
As to using the scientific method to investigate supernatural phenomena, if you define “scientific method” as being limited to experimenting with material phenomena (as scientists do these days, then you must admit that it cannot deal with spiritual causes. But to say that is not to imply that spiritual causes are impossible, as many scientists do. That’s what I fault in them. They think they define away the possibility of spirit by defining scientific method as they do.
“but if I were a medical scientist investigating alleged possession, I would leave no stone unturned in looking for a rational, natural explanation for what appears to be possession.”
So? Where have I denied that it is not necessary to consider *all* possible explanation? In Fact that is my mantra — *all* the possibilities must be considered. In fact, I’ve also said that I don’t myself know whether to think there is such a thing as possession or not. What I”m saying is that if you are a scientist in the strong sense (i.e., willing to admit to causes that are not material) then you must *also* consider the possibility that demons are the causes of these extraordinary phenomena.
“And I would have to say that so far, it just never seems to be the case that something definitive happens that can actually be documented (filmed, for example) in such a way that we don’t have to take somebody’s word for what happened. ”
People take the word of scientists that something happened all the time. That is not an absolute criterion either, though, yes, it’s generally reliable — until somebody sees something else or some other pattern in the phenomena.
“It is simply not science to accept a supernatural explanation for something that is (or is probably) a natural phenomenon. :
HEre is he crux of the theoretical question, I think. One of the assumptions of scientific method is that the most probable explanation is the most likely explanation. And I certainly grant you that the most likely explanation of most claims of possession are potentially explainable by natural causes. But there are extraordinary cases of evil and, being extraordinary, the ordinary measures of probability don’t hold — in other words, there have been so few monumentally evil people such as Stalin that talk of his probably being an ordinary nut-case doesn’t hold.
I might add that some scientists wouldn’t even deny that the social sciences (including psychiatry) are true “sciences” because the phenomena to be explained include private, non-empirical ones — I mean all those subjective events of other people which we know either through words (but people lie) or by some correlation of claimed mental event and brain event.
So it seems to me that the ordinary criterion of the physical sciences (verification by physical experiment) just don’t hold securely for subjective events. Brain science will probably (another hedge) give us a lot more empirical correlations, but that’s all they’ll ultimately be — correlations, which is all you ultimate have anyway for the physical sciences — when phenomenon A occurs, phenomenon B occurs.
Which brings us back to one of the problems of the topic of this thread — the difficulty of establishing even what is *probably* happening in the psyche of the so-called possessed.
So I agree — we can never be absolutely sure of any of this. Only the a priori and at least some of what we experience within our own consciousness is sure. My plea is not to exaggerate the claims of science. Especially when science itself limits itself to the material (so far as we know it).
P. S. I seem to be one of the three people on earth who haven’t seen The Exorcist. Exorcism isn’t a big issue with me. But the limits of the claims of scientists are.
“Are you implying that Stalin was being controlled by a demon? If so, you will have to give an explanation of why God would permit a demon to take over a human being and kill 17 million people. You have to explain how Christ’s defeat of Satan is consistent with demons controlling world events.”
David N –
I’m not saying that Stalin was controlled by a demon. I’m saying that his actions were so extraordinarily evil that ordinary psychological experience, even *ordinary*craziness, explains him. I’m saying it is rational to consider the *possibility* that he was in fact controlled by a demon.
And, don’t forget, the question of the existence of pure spirits is not the same question as the that of the existence of God. Perhaps there is a higher level of being or even many higher levels but not God. (That’s the scariest possibility of all to me. It’s a wonder the horror movies haven’t exploited that sort of narrative — a man caught between warring demons of different levels of being. Ugh!)
Your second question concerns the problem of evil — why God permits or even causes physical evil. I know of no good explanation of that. I see the argument against His existence as a valid one, but I also see certain arguments for His existence as valid.
No, I don’t have to explain Christ’s defeat of Satan. That’s a theological problem. (But I think philosophy can give them some hints :-)
Oops — “I’m saying that his actions were so extraordinarily evil that ordinary psychological experience, even *ordinary*craziness, explains him. ”
Should be: . . . *ordinary* craziness does NOT explain him.
I agree with Antonio. ‘Stalin or Hitler could not have inflicted the suffering they did without a lot of help.’ As with the others I mentioned above. I say that welcoming the power of evil into their lives is an act of free will. If saints can welcome grace, cannot the the evil one not also be welcomed by those seeking power? The loser examples I mentioned Goresh, Manson, Hltler, Maciel were all early life failures. Some explicitly expressed possession of evil power. Manson and Goresh. Maciel was expelled from 2 seminaries and ordained by an uncle after ‘private studies’. What’s unique is that these losers have great success influencing intelligent and high placed people. Let’s add Jim Jones to the list as he had the political power structure in San Francisco in his back pocket. . all the above projected a powerful personality and attractiveness that belies any previous life experiences or accomplishments.. From whence did itheir power come? Dale Carnegie courses and charm school are not adequate explanations.
“Demons and psychiatry aside, Stalin is an example of the human capacity for evil, which we are all capable of without any prodding or assistance from the devil. Recalling the infamous Milgram experiments, Stalin or Hitler could not have inflicted the suffering they did without a lot of help.”
Antonio –
The people in the Milgram experiments did what they did when ordered by the psychologists to push the button. Stalin wasn’t following orders, he initiated monumental evil.
Thought experiment: Assume you are a chemist in 1730 and you are gathering data by attemptig to combine different chemical substances that have not been combined before. Suppose you are greatly surprised by the extraordinary amount of light and heat that one combination of substance causes. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that perhaps you need a different sort of explanation from the kinds of explanations you already have?
What I’m saying is that truly a extraordinary event should suggest that it *might* (it is possible that) have a truly extraordinary cause. In some rare cases, it is even possible that an old paradigm should be revised or even rejected because of that which is truly extraordinary. How else does science progress? I’m saying that anomalies (including extraordinary events of any sort) can be highly revealing and should be recognized as valuable. The really great scientists granted this. Unfortunately, unfortunately the run of the mill scientists seem to resist revising their principles. In their own fields they’re as narrow-minded as anyone.
I have actually thought a lot about the whole range of these topics (demons to Satan to exorcism) in sundry requests from media sources. The first thing that strikes me is that it is hard to think about these matters seriously because our imaginations are filled with “pictures” drawn from everything from Dante through comic books to trashy movies. However, the issue of evil and our vulnerability to evil is not a frivolous topic and should not be treated as such.
Did any other discussant feel a bit quesy about the flippancy of some of the remarks ( e.g.Abe R. and Felapton) or am I succumbing to late onset pecksniffery?
It’s pecksniffery. My question about how people go about deciding which elements of their faith get to be “okay,” while others are deemed too embarrassing was sincere.
Lawrence Cunningham:
I agree it is a serious topic and some of the posts have been flippant. As I hope I made clear in my response to Bender, I don’t, however, think the proper response to flippancy is to imply that people don’t believe in demons because the demons have tricked them into not believing. Human beings have quite a capacity to believe peculiar and irrational things. Believing in demons and possession isn’t necessarily irrational, but it strikes me it is very near the boarder between knowledge (or faith) and superstition, and I am not sure which side of the border it is on. Ideas about the occult are often very potent, which I do not think is necessarily an indication that they are important or true. I have known people who took astrology very seriously, and I have no hesitation in saying it is utter nonsense. Vampires and zombies are all the rage at the moment in fiction and movies, and I don’t think it is because such creatures exist.
A great deal of what the Church teaches (or I should say a great deal of what I was taught in Catholic school in the 1950s and early 1960s) about such things as angels and devils doesn’t make much sense to me. We had a discussion here not all that long ago about how demons could influence or tempt people, and from my point of view the answer from the believers was “they just can, and we don’t know how, but this is what the Church teaches.”
So while I treat the topic with respect (as I said above, largely because it frightens me so much), anyone who wants to convince me of the reality of devils and possession is going to have to present some excellent evidence to show that demons are actually at work and also make some very persuasive arguments as to why God would permit such a thing.
I do wonder if for some people, flippancy is not something like whistling past the graveyard. I myself will certainly acknowledge that I don’t want there to be Satan, devils, and hell. So I know I am predisposed not to believe. But of course that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong.
I never understood why there would be a herd of swine in Israel.
I agree with Abe, it’s pecksniffery. I suspect it’s chronic, not late-onset, but online diagnoses are not often accurate.
Every time the Church has got mixed up in deciding who is suffering from demonic possession and carrying out rituals to ameliorate the perceived situation, innocent people have ended up dead. Almost always helpless, friendless, powerless, innocent people.
Exorcism is all nonsense. Pernicious nonsense. Any sane, educated person should be ashamed to be seen taking it seriously. I do not feel qualified to state that demonic possession is all nonsense, only that it sure sounds like it, but the Church’s supposed ability to detect and fix it is Fatuous Nonsense.
(Obviously, the reader should make the obvious substitution for “nonsense” in elocution.)
The herd of swine is not in Israel; it’s in the Gentile district (“country of the Gadarenes”) across the river.
Thanks!
(Agree with your previous post.)
“My question about how people go about deciding which elements of their faith get to be “okay,” while others are deemed too embarrassing was sincere.”
Open the lid and smell! If you are embarrassed to talk about it with your non-believing friends, then the smell that you chose to overlook might be indicative of something rotten, whether you like it or not.
“‘Stalin or Hitler could not have inflicted the suffering they did without a lot of help.’ ”
Yep, they had the willing collusion of many people, including church people. Anti-semitism has a lot of adherents. The desire to exercise absolute autocratic power has a lot of adherents.
Every time the Church has got mixed up in deciding who is suffering from demonic possession and carrying out rituals to ameliorate the perceived situation, innocent people have ended up dead. Almost always helpless, friendless, powerless, innocent people.
Felapton,
Every time? What is your evidence of this? I think we would know it if every exorcism performed by a Catholic exorcist ended in death! You have absolutely no way of knowing how many exorcisms there have been in, say, the last then years, how many people have benefited (whether from some form of the “placebo effect” or whatever) and how many have not, and how many have died. I did a quick Google search, and I can’t find any death resulting from the Catholic rite of exorcism. There is a hair-raising case of a Romanian nun dying during an exorcism, but it is not part of the Catholic rite of exorcism to crucify and starve people!
“Exorcism is all nonsense.”
Felapton –
Demonic possession might be, but even some psychiatrists who do NOT believe in it will grant that the ritual and the attention sometimes has a very favorable effect on the patient. It is therefore of substantial interest to psychiatry — how it actually works.
Any sane, educated person should be ashamed to be seen taking it seriously.
Felapton,
It seems to me you have responded to a tentatively phrased suggestion that you have been flippant with a blatant insult aimed not just at Lawrence Cunningham but at the American Bishops and most believing Catholics. It would have been better, imho, to accept the charge of flippancy rather than defend yourself with boorishness.
“Did any other discussant feel a bit quesy about the flippancy of some of the remarks ( e.g.Abe R. and Felapton) or am I succumbing to late onset pecksniffery?”
Lawrence, I felt queasy about several contemptuous comments above. I have been surprised at the dismissive attitude toward the very idea of Satan that seems to have surfaced in several posts. But I felt Abe asked a good, critical question. How can we scoff at the idea of the devil, taking it to be some sort of a crackpot joke, and not also take lightly the other spiritual realities of the Catholic faith? And he brought up Mark’s gospel, which does have a strong emphasis on Jesus casting out demons. (I like Mark’s gospel.) Anyone who deals seriously with the Christian tradition has to grapple with the idea of the devil, evil, the demonic, Satan, etc., in some form, it seems to me. We can argue about what form, but I’m surprised to see that some think we can just dismiss the whole thing as ridiculous.
Apologies for reposting this, but it seems appropriate for this thread:
From Flannery O’Connor’s short story, “The Artificial Nigger”:
“He [Mr. Head] had never thought himself as a great sinner before but he saw now that his true depravity had been hidden from him lest it cause him despair. He realized that he was forgiven for sins from -the beginning of time, when he had conceived in his own heart the sin of Adam, until the present, when he had denied poor Nelson. He saw that no sin was too monstrous for him to claim as his own, and since God loved in proportion as He forgave, he felt ready at that instant to enter Paradise.”
David, if you want to provoke an argument, at least find something better than those flimsy little quibbles for us to argue about.
At multiple distinct times and places in the past two millennia, the Church has become enthusiastic about detecting and “helping” people possessed by demons. This has, (all right, almost) always resulted in unnecessary human suffering. It has never, as far as I know, resulted in any proven benefit to anybody.
Now turn off the computer and take your dog to the dog park.
Assume you are a chemist in 1730 and you are gathering data by attemptig to combine different chemical substances that have not been combined before. Suppose you are greatly surprised by the extraordinary amount of light and heat that one combination of substance causes. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that perhaps you need a different sort of explanation from the kinds of explanations you already have?
But then you create an empirically testable hypotheses, which may or may not lend credence to your theory — similar to the experiment that was done to test the efficacy of intercessional prayer.
It seems to me that theologically, the devil, is necessary to account for evil and suffering in a universe that was created by the all-good and loving God posited by Christianity.
From the link to the NYT story in the opening post, a reason for the bishops’ new focus on demons:
But to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of American Catholic history at the University of Notre Dame, the bishops’ timing makes perfect sense.
“What they’re trying to do in restoring exorcisms,” said Dr. Appleby, a longtime observer of the bishops, “is to strengthen and enhance what seems to be lost in the church, which is the sense that the church is not like any other institution. It is supernatural, and the key players in that are the hierarchy and the priests who can be given the faculties of exorcism.
“It’s a strategy for saying: ‘We are not the Federal Reserve, and we are not the World Council of Churches. We deal with angels and demons.’ ”
[Exorcism is] a strategy for saying: ‘We are not the Federal Reserve, and we are not the World Council of Churches. We deal with angels and demons.’ ”
In Marketing 101 terms, it’s called a ‘product differentiator’.
Odd differentiator. In Literature 101, Dan Brown (2000) “Angels & Demons” – Breathless Vatican adventure. Appleby should try again if this initiative is to be taken seriously.
“But then you create an empirically testable hypotheses, which may or may not lend credence to your theory —”
Antonio —
True, but the point of my little thought experiment is the principle that when something happens that is not accounted for by current theory, it is rational to consider an alternative theory or to revise the present one. In the case of possible possession, it extraordinary evil perhaps needs a different sort of explanation.
As to exorcisms and empirical evidence, it seems to me that if exorcisms work but not by using obviously physical means (the ‘senseless’ rituals), then that would be empirical evidence that there might be a non-material cause.
The first amendment is certainly more gospel like than all these medievalists. Jesus cast out devils. He did it with the authority of his moral person which a church that stresses ex opera operato over the human operation. Of course, the way of Jesus to persuade is too difficult for empire types so let’s just operate without the person’s consent.
[T]he point of my little thought experiment is the principle that when something happens that is not accounted for by current theory, it is rational to consider an alternative theory or to revise the present one. In the case of possible possession, it extraordinary evil perhaps needs a different sort of explanation.
Why not apply Occam’s razor first?
“We deal with angels and demons.”
In Literature 101, Dan Brown (2000) “Angels & Demons” – Breathless Vatican adventure.
Or a promo for “Ghostbusters 4″.
“But then you create an empirically testable hypotheses, which may or may not lend credence to your theory —”
Antonio —
True, but the point of my little thought experiment is the principle that when something happens that is not accounted for by current theory, it is rational to consider an alternative theory or to revise the present one. In the case of possible possession, it extraordinary evil perhaps needs a different sort of explanation.
You also say, why try Ockham’s razor first? Well, you could, but if the results of an experiement differ in degree (the amount of predicted heat and light in 1749) then the old explanation has not been a good one and should be eliminated unless you find some way to rescue it by positing some other physical factor. But in that case you are still making the explanation more complex than the initial one.
Occam’s razor has been an extremely fruitful hermeneutic principle — it directs the scientists towards simple explanations. Richard Feynman, the great physicist, even said that if a theory isn’t simple it must be false. That *assumption* has worked for several hundred years to advance science greatly. It is based on the pure *assumption* that there is one ultimately simple material which will explain everything. This reduces all explanations to one kind of cause, hence its philosophical name, “reductionism”.
But there have been no physical advances in the last 50 years or so to compare with the breakthroughs in the last couple of hundred years (physics doesn’t know which way to turn at the moment). So some scientists themselves are starting to wonder whether or not this *hypothesis* that there is one single explanation for everything ought to be abandoned. Reductionism (Occam, really) is under fire in some quarters. And I see no reason to assume that there is only one possible cause of “demonic possession”.
As to exorcisms and empirical evidence, it seems to me that if exorcisms work but not by using obviously physical means (the ‘senseless’ rituals), then that would be empirical evidence that there might be a non-material cause, though I admit that there are physical images, etc. involved in ritual. Still there is sometimes much, much more, and some is spiritual, e.g., prayers..
I think of Jesus casting out demons as a description of his curing mental (and perhaps neurological) illnesses.
Exorcism suggests bizarre images. In general direct relations between the natural and the supernatural (garlic against demons, say, or praying for the next day’s weather to be sunny) leave me largely skeptical. But I am so far removed from the world of demonic possession, witches, spells, exorcisms, etc., that even if I saw it, I would not believe it.
Thanks all–but the question I was hoping to generate a discussion was what we should do about exorcism in a society such as our own? Should parents who kidnap their adult children to have them “exorcised” of the modern world be treated differently than other kidnappers? If a parent of a minor child subjects him or her to exorcism does that count as a form of child abuse whether or not it involves physical mistreatment or restraint? (Telling a kid that they’re possessed by the devil could be seen as a form of emotional abuse if untrue, right? Does the Texas decision suggest that we’re all bound by the framework of the church to which we belong? Can we opt out? Carry a card in our wallets that say, “I am (Catholic) or (Adventist), but no one can exorcise me against my will?” For that matter, why is the host’s religion even relevant? I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Church claims jurisdiction over the demon–not the possessed person, so that the exorcism rite doesn’t require the victim be a Catholic. Should the law a) presume a Catholic victim consents; and b) presume a non-Catholic victim doesn’t?
And all exorcisms and practices of exorcism are not the same in the amount of intrusion or restraint they involve. But the Courts can’t say and shouldn’t say –okay, Catholics, you go ahead, you’re GOOD at this, so we’ll give you a pass. Everyone else, exorcise at your own risk.
Whatever Jesus did or didn’t do, what should be the rules that govern us today, when we can’t agree about how to view exorcism? Is it best viewed as a type of faith healing? Wasn’t anyone bothered by the Texas decision?
It may well be the case that attempted exorcisms in the past did some harm to people but was that harm worse than the modern practices, inter alia, of lobotomies, insulin shck or electro shock therapies, massive doses of thorazine, enforced hospitalization with “hydro bath” cures, straight jackets, and the other assorted therapies to cure “possessed” people in the not too distant past? After all, as the late Rollo May once asked, what is a psychotherapist but a Calvinist in bermuda shorts?
That being said, I only wish the topic brought up by Cathleen Caveny had been treated with the seriousness it deserved.
Do you need someone’s consent to pray for them and sprinkle holy water on them?
Isn’t that all the rite of exorcism entails?
It also involves a not inconsiderable amount of humiliation for the layman. Which, I’m sure, plays no role whatsoever in the new-found clerical enthusiasm for the rite. But, historically, the principle danger comes after the exorcism, when the celebrant decides the demon cannot be exorcised without disposing of the host.
Lobotomies are pernicious nonsense too. I propose the following Universal Law of Nonsense: “Human society generates nonsense spontaeneously.” I believe this principle suffices to account for all previously reported cases of demonic possession. However, I note that lobotomies have not been performed for many years. There is no Conference on Lobotomization proposing to train new lobotomizers to meet some perceived shortage.
As far as the law is concerned, obviously exorcism and demonic possession should be subject to the same rules of evidence as astrology, UFOs, and Piltdown Man. But I am not hopeful. Charles Dickens (Bleak House) proposed the following Universal Law of the Law: “The great purpose of the law is to make business for the law.” No violations of this law have ever been reported.
Telling a kid that they’re possessed by the devil could be seen as a form of emotional abuse if untrue, right?
If untrue? How would that be decided in a court of law?
I only wish the topic brought up by Cathleen Caveny had been treated with the seriousness it deserved.
Sorry if I missed the irony in your comment, but in my opinion it was.
Dickens said “The great business of the law is to make business for the law.” Not purpose.
It may well be the case that attempted exorcisms in the past did some harm to people but was that harm worse than the modern practices, inter alia, of lobotomies, insulin shck or electro shock therapies, massive doses of thorazine, enforced hospitalization with “hydro bath” cures, straight jackets, and the other assorted therapies to cure “possessed” people in the not too distant past?
The difference is that when such treatments are shown not to work scientifically or to inflict harm, they are discarded. Too bad the same isn’t true for religious dogma.
I wonder how the bishops will select the men to send to the Legion of Christ’s exorcism school.
I wonder if their new president, Timothy Dolan, will dampen their enthusiasm for this new tack.
The difference is that when such treatments are shown not to work scientifically or to inflict harm, they are discarded. Too bad the same isn’t true for religious dogma.
——–
Agree. Catholics of my generation will recall the sad case of Sr. Mariella Gable, OSB.
http://www.csbsju.edu/CSB-Archives/CSBHistory/CSBPublications/OtherCSBPublications/LiteratureofSpiritualValuesandCatholicFiction.htm
I did not know that the First Amendment protected religious organizations from civil suits, and I am still not sure I understand why. If a non-religious organization were to do exactly the same thing to a young person — say in the name of toughening her up for a sports competition — would they be liable where a church would not be?
But, historically, the principle danger comes after the exorcism, when the celebrant decides the demon cannot be exorcised without disposing of the host.
Felapton,
Could you cite some evidence of this? I found this tidbit:
If that’s anywhere near true, shouldn’t we be hearing about numerous deaths?
Hi David.
Just wait. The pattern never fails. The latest episode is just beginning.
Don’t be surprised if “dissent” is soon found to be a sign of demonic possession. Your parochial vicar, just back from Exorcism 101, will print a list of those in need of exorcism for “dissent” in the parish bulletin. Don’t be surprised if it turns out that the demons particularly like to tempt people into dissenting on “the four non-negotiables.”
Your dog wants to go to the dog park.
Cathy –
I’m very confused about just what a right guarantees someone. It seems that sometimes our rights are guaranteed, and sometimes not. Is there any general legal principle for distinguishing when our rights and/or the exercise of our rights can be restricted? Clearly, they may at least sometimes be restricted for the common good and when one is guilty of a crime, but exorcism doesn’t seem to fall in either of those categories.
It’s the *exercise* of the right to self determination (pursuit of happiness) that seems to be at issue here. When should one-s self not be allowed to decide what will lead to happiness? Obviously, being a child is such a case.
Maybe an analysis of *why* a child’s right to self-determination is suspended during childhood might tell us why exorcism might or might not be imposed on adults.
In the case of a child, it is assumed that he lacks knowledge of what is best for himself or he cannot control his feelings and this might impair his judgment of what is best for him. Can this principle be applied to, let’s call him, the exorcee? This leads to two basic questions.
1. What IS an exorcee? We have a definition (‘person possessed by a demon’), but we don’t even have any general criteria for *identifying* who is or not possessed by a demon. We don’t even know whether in fact possession by a demon is possible, much less actual.
2. Do all persons *called* exorcees lack the knowledge and/or self-control that is found in children and which would justify suspending the exorcee’s right to exercise self-control? This is the crucial empirical question, I think, and I don’t think there is a good answer for it. We just don’t know whether or not they have lost control to a demon or have lost control because of natural causes, or even, perhaps, whether they have in fact lost control. Does the Church have any criteria for determining this?
Put another way, are the people we call exorcees capable of deciding what is best for themselves? This must depend on what they *actually* are: persons whose control is lost to a demon or person whose loss of control is due to some natural cause. (I’m assuming, of course, that the behavior of an exorcees involves some loss of self-control, and that would be the legal justification for imposing someone else’s will on the poor guy.)
(Similarly to the issue of abortion, the basic questions here are: what is an exorcee? and how do we tell one when we find one?)
Just wait. The pattern never fails. The latest episode is just beginning.
Felapton,
Could you tell us when the last two episodes took place so we can all see the pattern? I am simply unaware of any periods in history when there were waves of exorcisms in the Catholic Church in which those who were allegedly possessed died as a result of exorcisms or were killed afterwards. If this actually happened, you should be able to cite some evidence.
Hi David,
Not specifically exorcisms, OK, I concede that point. Accusations of demonic possession or relations with demons or the Devil. Thousands of people have been investigated for those crimes in Catholic countries and many were executed.
I think the larger moral issue is that exorcisms by self-described Christian sects are on-going and doing present harm. (example) The Church should try to be on the good guys’ side. Conferences to remedy a “shortage” of exorcists and all such associated nonsense are only helping the bad guys. And we know Whom bad guys work for. (Hint: not the Son of Man)
David, don’t you think it is a little bit iniquitous of you to persecute me with (what seem to me to be) deliberate misunderstandings? After all, you are a rich, retired, Manahattanite liberal with nothing better to do but sit around and post comments on dotCommonweal. I am an overworked IT house elf, commuting three hours a day and still not able to afford to heat my home in the Boston winter. This is really unfair.
The need to blame/scapegoat others for what we do or fail to do or are incapable of doing goes waaay back. Our gatherer/hunter ancestors had shamans/exorcists to take care of demon issues, and tribes visited by ethnologists today have the same concerns.
The Church’s treatment of those possessed by demons and those who consort with demons (witches) has not been pretty, and the revival of interest in such matters is not pleasant to consider. It’s usually women who are tortured, burned, drowned in these rites.
Three articles, one from Wiki on trial by ordeal, and two from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia on witchcraft and exorcism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm
and the revival of interest in such matters is not pleasant to consider.
Gerelyn,
I don’t think it is so much a revival of interest in exorcisms in the Church as a whole, but rather that there has been very little interest in such things in the United States. As I pointed out above (11/16/2010 – 12:24 pm), there is no shortage of exorcists in Italy, and I have heard no alarming reports of anyone being mistreated there.
David, don’t you think it is a little bit iniquitous of you to persecute me with (what seem to me to be) deliberate misunderstandings? After all, you are a rich, retired, Manahattanite liberal with nothing better to do but sit around and post comments on dotCommonweal.
Felapton,
Yes, I am an iniquitous Manhattan liberal, but I am not rich and not (yet) retired. I actually do have other things to do besides post messages here (and on Vox Nova, Mirror of Justice, America, and ReligiousLeftLaw.com, where I have recently become an official contributor). I live in very small studio apartment crowded with stacks of books. I don’t have a dog or any pets.
It’s funny you say you are an elf, because that is how I have been picturing you all along.
Hi, David. I don’t think the interest in exorcisms in the U.S. has ever declined. E.g., look at the popularity of Tony Hillerman’s mysteries, with the great descriptions of BlessingWay ceremonies, etc. Look at the growth of religions like Assemblies of God (in the Texas case cited by Cathleen Kaveney).
The Holy Order of exorcist, along with acolyte and lector, was (still is?) part of the path to the priesthood. So all Catholics know exorcists. And all of us have been exorcised at Baptism and have repeated our renuncation of Satan and his works and pomps at Easter vigils.
Everyone has seen The Exorcist. (Father Bowdern used to sit in his confessional in the College Church at St. Louis U., waiting for penitents. What a great confessor he was, even for the non-possessed.)
And, sadly, we’ve all heard of the terrible cases of mothers killing children because of demon issues, including poor Andrea Yates. Andrea’s husband, Rusty, was under the influence of Mike Woroniecki (sp?), who sold him the old bus in which Rusty and Andrea and the five children lived, and in which Andrea home-schooled the children, at Mike’s suggestion and Rusty’s insistence. (Mike had made attempts at the priesthood with the Dominicans and the Franciscans.) I think the jury discounted the demon evidence and considered only the testimony of the many psychiatrists who treated her.
As to Italy? That article said going to the exorcist is like going to the dentist, so maybe it will be like that here soon, too. Every six months for a (soul) cleaning.
Over at Chiesa, Sandro Magister reviews Cardinal Biffi’s revised memoirs. Cardinal Biffi quotes Pope Paul VI as saying after Vat. II”
“On June 29, 1972, on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, speaking off the cuff, he went to the point of saying that he had “the sensation that through some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, trouble, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is not trusted . . . It was believed that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. What has come instead is a day of clouds, of darkness, of seeking, of uncertainty . . . We believe that something preternatural (the devil) has come into the world to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and to prevent the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having regained full awareness of itself.” These are painful and severe words that deserve painstaking reflection”
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345582?eng=y
Ok — returning to the matter at hand. Since the decision to conduct an exorcism and the rites that go along with it may be imposed on the ‘subject’ withut his or her consent, what legal protections does the subject have in such cases?
Obviously, anyone accepting a claim of demonic possession may believe that the subject is captive and unable to express his or her will. In that sense, exorcism can’t be viewed as a species of faith healing, since a healer operates with the subject’s consent.
In my opinion, it’s more like an extralegal process of declaring that a person is mentally incompetent.
Because exorcism sometimes works, it might be argued that it is an alternative medical practice. But magic also works at times. See Ellerberger’s The Discovery of the Unconscious, Ch. 1.
It will be interesting to see what the neuroscientists discover about the brain and possession.
It seems to me that there are any number of unsettled factual sub-issues involved in this issue.
Does possession ever involve a demon?
If real, how can it be distinguished from craziness and magic?
If it does not involve a demon, is it caused by mental illness?
Even if caused by mental illness, does it ever cure? If so, how?
Should religious first amendment rights prevail if the above questions cannot be answered clearly?
Should those rights prevail if they *can* be answered clearly?
If a child objects to the proceedure, may the parents’ choice prevail on religious grounds?
If an adult objects to the procedure, how can the subject’s competence be established?
If an adult objects to the procedure, how can the subect’s non-competence be established?
Is weird behavior necessarily a sign of incompetence?
The Devil in one of Dostoievsky’s novels says: “I am the x in an indeterminate equation”. It seems to me there are too many x’s in this whole problem.
Hello all. Ann, as always, you laser in on the issues. Generally, an adult is considered competent, a child incompetent. And you can’t force any treatment upon someone who doesn’t consent if they are competent. So the idea of kidnapping an adult to give any form of medical treatment doesn’t go. Now, to get an adult considered incompetent you have to have a hearing–a judge decides, after hearing from both sides in an adversarial proceeding. The burden of proof is on those who want to take away competency. I just can’t see how the “He’s incompetent because he’s possessed by a demon” line is going to fly in secular courts. The line–”He’s incompetent because he’s mentally ill” does fly–all the time. But then the question becomes what sort of treatment is permissible. Exorcism isn’t a treatment for mental illness. An interested party could petition the court to change guardians if the guardian were ordering an exorcism, particularly if it involved really hinky stuff.
The same sort of issues are involved in parents kidnapping adult kids who are in cults.
Voluntary exorcisms are not a problem, it seems to me. Particularly if they don’t involve battery.
A very close parallel appears to exist between the legal issues raised by Cathleen Keveny and some past incidents involving Christian Science. ( See Wikipedia). The Boston Globe reported on at least two court cases involving the deaths of children whose parents had opted for “spiritual healing” in accordance with their Christian Science faith.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/59676738.html?FMT=ABS&date=Nov%2013,%201988
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/61643723.html?FMT=ABS&date=Jun%2020,%201990
My vague memory from years ago in Boston is that more cases can be found in the news and, presumably, court records which may illuminate present discussions.
Perhaps I should add that as described by Ellenburger the successful use of exorcism and magic as cures occurs in cultures in which people *believe* they will work, and it is the unconscious which is actually doing the changing, the curing of de facto mental (“demonic”) problems. Such cases would not involve lack of consent.
But it seems to me that hypnotism works like such ritualistic treatments (“watch the small object pass back and forth before your eyes, let yourself be formed by its force”) and it is an accepted psychiatric procedure for some sorts of insanity.
Maybe one of the problems is: given a person certified as insane, who should determine which procedure shall be used — the patient’s family (based on religious grounds) or his psychiatrist?
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=10923…
… [Trackback] …
[...] Find More Informations here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=10923…