First day of school for aspiring Vatican exorcists

hairyheretic

Possibly not quite the right forum for this story, but I figured it might be of interest:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2005-10-13T125717Z_01_SPI346675_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-POPE-EXORCISM.XML

ROME (Reuters) - It was the first day of school, so some students were understandably nervous. But then again, they were not taking just any course, but one run by a Vatican university to teach aspiring demonologists and exorcists.

"There is no doubt that the devil is intervening more in the life of man these days," Father Paolo Scarafoni told the students, most of them priests who want to learn how to tackle the demon if they should ever encounter him.

"Not all of you will become exorcists but it is indispensable that every priest knows how to discern between demonic possession and psychological problems," he said.

The four-month course, called "Exorcism and the Prayer of Liberation," is being offered for the second year by Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University on Rome's outskirts.

The about 120 students from around the world will hear lectures on topics such as the pastoral, spiritual, theological, liturgical, medical, legal and criminological aspects of Satanism and demonic possession.

One planned lecture is called: "Problems related to exorcism and correlated issues."

One priest, who asked not to be identified, said he decided to take the course after a "very unsettling experience" while hearing the confession of one young member of his parish.

"Her voice changed, her face was transformed and she started speaking in a language that she did not know," he said. "I've met people who are suffering from this problem and it is not as rare as we might imagine."

So, will he be ready to wrestle with demons of the kind who may have possessed his parishioner in the confessional box?

"If, after this course, my superiors decide that it will be useful for me to become an exorcist, I will do it," he said.

REAL-LIFE EXORCISTS

Interest in the devil and the occult has been boosted by films such as this year's "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," and last year's "Exorcist: The Beginning," which was the sequel to the original "The Exorcist" in 1973.

But forget the films. The students will have several real-life and well known exorcists to teach them.

One is Father Gabriele Nanni, who attended Thursday's opening class and spoke to Reuters during a break.

"First thing is the priest has to know if the devil is at work in a person or if the problem is somewhere else," he said.

Nanni said there are four sure signs that pointed to demonic possession rather than psychological problems.

He listed them as:

"When someone speaks or understands languages they normally do not; when their physical strength is disproportionate to their body size or age; when they are suddenly knowledgeable about occult practices; when they have a physical aversion to sacred things, such as the communion host or prayers".

According to some estimates, as many as 5,000 people are thought to be members of Satanic cults in Italy with 17-to 25-year-olds making up three quarters of them.

In 1999, the Vatican updated its ritual for exorcism.

It starts with prayers, a blessing and sprinkling of holy water, the laying on of hands on the possessed, and the making of the sign of the cross.

The formula begins: "I order you, Satan..." It goes on to denounce Satan as "prince of this world" and "enemy of human salvation". It ends: "Go back, Satan."

robindch

> "it is indispensable that every priest knows how to discern
> between demonic possession and psychological problems,"

It's scary that people still believe in demonic possession in the 21st century, and it's especially frightening in an institution that purports to provide infalliable 'moral leadership'. But scary and all as that is, the alternative seems to be the kind of home-grown exorcism that leads to murder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm

BTW, Teresa of Calcutta had an exorcism performed upon her too, when she had trouble sleeping some months before her death (see this news report). Perhaps they should have called a second doctor for a second medical diagnosis, rather than a priest for a metaphysical one?

Comments?

Excelsior

I believe in demonic possession. People I trust have experienced events that I agree are demonic. I don't think "in this day and age" is a very convincing or rigorous argument.

However, I doubt that it is a common occurance.

robindch

> I don't think "in this day and age" is a very convincing
> or rigorous argument.

Quite right!

However, these days, humanity has an understanding of the mechanisms of the brain and its diseases, which was completely lacking in earlier times and so we don't have to resort to the inexplicable to explain the unknown -- there are perfectly rational explanations for what's going on in terms of brain chemistry.

It's rather like the ancient, discredited, notion that the gods used to control the weather, and the floods, passing meteors and the rest of the natural world. With study, it turned out that these followed perfectly ordinary and comprehensible physical rules, and nowadays, there aren't that many people who believe that a storm, or a lunar eclipse, is a significant event (although there are a few -- see some of the fundamentalist christian responses to the disaster in New Orleans at http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp)!

Could you document the experience that you believe is demonic, and why it is that you believe it's demonic?

Excelsior

While we know alot about psychology and neurology, you are over-stating the case if you think there is no grey zone here (my allusions are poetic). There are always rational explanations for how the world works. I am just proposing that in some cases the rational explanation is an external party terrorising individuals for the pursuit of their goal.

If God were to use weather for an intentional purpose, that in no way contradicts the systematic and explicable nature of meteorology. We may understand how the brain works (to some partial extent) and understand how the weather works (to some partial extent) but this in now way blocks God or other agents motivating that reaction.

I won't document the cases I believe are demonic online. When we finally have a Boards.ie Christianity Beers (and sodas for the non-drinkers) night I might talk about it. I do hope you don't perceive this as running away from the argument (something I try never to do, regardless of how intimidating the opposition). It is of neglible importance to your case anyway, since you would be trusting my 2nd hand account. Suffice to say, I have 2nd hand accounts that convince me that demonic "interference" exists.

Talliesin

I have to say, I believe in possession and hauntings, and I believe Christian exorcists are capable of dealing with them, as our exorcists of other faiths.

I don't believe it's particularly common. Nor do I believe that the relationship between possission and psychological trauma is necessarily an Either-Or one.

Asiaprod

Me to, I agree with all Talliesin and Excelsior have said on the matter. I believe each faith has its own effective method of dealing with the problem, after all, it is dealing with its own demons.

The name changes, but the face remains the same

robindch

> [...] in some cases the rational explanation is an external
> party terrorising individuals for the pursuit of their goal.

Inserting an irrational belief into a rational argument does not produce a "rational explanation", I'm afraid

Excelsior

Defining rational as "empirical" doesn't make a rational argument.

OfflerCrocGod

Excelsior wrote:

Defining rational as "empirical" doesn't make a rational argument.

Empirical is covered by Rational. They are not contradictory.

Excelsior

I have never suggested they were contradictory. Empiricism without rationality amounts to a "mountain of facts" to use Stephen Jay Gould's excellent phrase.

But my point is that empiricism is not a synonym for rationality. I think all Robin has done in his argument is correctly categorised the supernatural as non-empirical and then incorrectly defined that as irrational.

There is nothing binding the supernatural to be irrational.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

There is nothing binding the supernatural to be irrational.

How very nicely said indeed. I could have used that sentence to great effect a few months back when trying to convince the Paranormal forum of the existence of spirits.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

There is nothing binding the supernatural to be irrational.

Except in cases where there may be a natural explanation, which is ignored in favour of the supernatural.

robindch

> There is nothing binding the supernatural to be irrational.

An interesting viewpoint -- could you provide an example of a rational supernatural event?

Excelsior

The Atheist: In that case, it wouldn't be supernatural at all and I would endeavour to not mis-represent natural phenomena as supernatural because if its not true, there is no gain in it.

Robindch: The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

OfflerCrocGod

Excelsior wrote:

Robindch: The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

True. In Mythology, that is. Another good one is Saruman's duel with Gandalf. Both of the above examples come from hugely popular works of fiction, but how about historically accurate supernatural events; it's strange how hard it is to come with them








<edit>I think supernatural events are oxymorons if you think about it - if it happened in the real natural world then it has to a simple interaction of matter and atoms which if we are sufficiently advanced we could understand and replicate.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C.
Clarke

Excelsior

Your blind faith in the fictional worth and intent of the New Testament is astonishing and not completely admirable.

robindch

> The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

hmm... what about a supernatural event that we can agree has actually happened?

hairyheretic

Would the mystery of the Marie Celeste, or the various ships / planes disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle count?

Excelsior

Robindch wrote:

what about a supernatural event that we can agree has actually happened?

How fair is it to demand a response to a question that can't be answered?

You don't acknowledge the existence of anything super-natural and so we will not be able to agree on a super-natural event that exists.

robindch

> How fair is it to demand a response to a
> question that can't be answered?

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask somebody to back up an extraordinary claim that they've made with good, solid evidence, particularly when it's a claim upon which many people base life-changing decisions.

> You don't acknowledge the existence of
> anything super-natural

Close, but no cigar -- I simply believe that there's a calm, rational (and frequently interesting, though not always) explanation for many things which people claim are supernatural, divine, evidence for the before- or after-life, and so on and so on. When presented with something I don't understand, experience has shown that it's unwise to assume a magic or supernatural explanation, when there may be others worth considering. Which is not to say that everything can be explained immediately, but simply that history has shown that careful study produces explanations.

In this case, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection consists solely a set of not-always-consistent 2,000 year-old accounts of a series of strange events written by people whom we know almost nothing about. Given the limited standards of accuracy which pervade the writings of the ancient world (ever hear of Julius Caesar's story of German deer?), I think it's worth considering the alternative that the story may have been misreported, or simply made up, as seems to have been the case with other biographies and biographers.

OfflerCrocGod

hairyheretic wrote:

Would the mystery of the Marie Celeste, or the various ships / planes disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle count?

Oh Please!

Dades

I like Robindch's line of thinking here.

Is supernatural not just natural, waiting to be diagnosed?

Since documentation began, how many supernatural phenomenon are now understood as natural phenomenon? But we still insist on reaching out to millenia old science for answers to modern day mysteries. Have we learned nothing from hindsight?

The human mind is hugely uncharted. We've only scratched the surface with modern behavioral psychology. Minds break. People take unconscious stimuli. If demons exist - I feel it's only in people's heads.

franciscovargas

My name is Francisco and I am a student at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. I need to write a paper on the ritual of Roman Catholic exorcism and Neurology. The name of the paper is "The Neurologic aspect of the ritual of Roman Catholic exorcism". I was surfing the internet and came across this forum. I read through the threads and found the conversations to be extremly interesting. I would like to see if any of you have any suggestions as to any books I could read or any articles I could access in order to learn more about this matter.

Thank you very much for all the help you could provide.

Sincerely,

Francisco

robindch

Francisco -- good to have you drop by.

For the current RC understanding of exorcism, I suggest that you contact a local RC priest as he'll be able to give you the RC understanding relevant to Miami, as it may be different from what's current in the Vatican.

With respect to the Vatican's understanding, I seem to remember from somewhere that various criteria were applied to work out whether or not some poor unfortunate was either posessed by "the devil" or suffering from something else. Amongst these criteria were (a) the person was very strong (b) the person became hysterical at the sight of the cross or other religious paraphanalia (c) the person spoke or understood languages they didn't normally and (d) the person was "evil". An Exorcist Tells His Story written by somebody who says he's the Vatican's "top exorcist" and it may or may not have further information (I've not read the book).

As for the neurology of exorcism, that's going to be a bit harder to track down, as I would imagine that somebody seeking a religious explanation for their troubles isn't very likely to seek a neurological one at the same time and subject themselves to brain scans, hormone analysis, and so on. I think you'd do probably do best by looking up the textbooks on neurology and compare and contrast the Vatican's criteria. Frontal lobe epilepsy would be a good place to start looking, as would a quick look around http://www.csicop.org, http://www.randi.org and this article.

Sapien

Holy Hell! That meta-religion.com is an amazing site. How in Hades have I missed it for so long.

franciscovargas

Thank you Robindch for this information. I appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Francisco

Stabshauptmann

True. In Mythology, that is. Another good one is Saruman's duel with Gandalf. Both of the above examples come from hugely popular works of fiction

The irony is that, the only reson you didnt get banned for such an offensive comment is probably Excelsior's christian beliefs.
You were dileberatly, needlessly, insulting. Im not a christian, but Im still surprised by the level of disrespect you've just shown.

but how about historically accurate supernatural events; it's strange how hard it is to come with them

When something can happen naturally and a perfectly rational explanation for the occurance can be found, but the probability of this occuring naturally is so incredibly small, while at the same time the probability of it occuring for supernatural reasons is reasonably high, this is where faith comes in, and it is selfish, ignorance, topped off with incredible arrogance to tell someone that there faith or beliefs are primitive ways of escaping reality.

What one might see as a miricle, some might see as coincidence or luck. In my own life Ive witnessed a pattern to good and bad luck that goes hand in hand with my attitudes and behaviour. Its far too much "conincidental happenings" for me to dismiss personally, and so Ive developed a belief in a sort of karma. This is both empirical, rational, and supernatural. Unfortunatly its not easy independantly verified.

Asiaprod

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

In my own life Ive witnessed a pattern to good and bad luck that goes hand in hand with my attitudes and behaviour. Its far too much "conincidental happenings" for me to dismiss personally, and so Ive developed a belief in a sort of karma. This is both empirical, rational, and supernatural. Unfortunatly its not easy independantly verified.

What you are refering here to is the Buddhist principle of cause and effect, pure and simple. This does not need to be independently verified, you know it works and that is all that matters.