So the Vatican’s chief exorcist insists that the joint is demon-possessed.
Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as “cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon.”
Well, if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I mean, he’s an exorcist. What else is he going to say—it’s the plumbing? And not just an exorcist—he’s chief exorcist, which is to say head of a group of exorcists. In the Vatican. The one in Rome.
What I’d like to know is, when you say someone is “linked to the Demon,” does this mean that a member of the species homo sapiens has signed a pact, made a blood oath, offered invocations and conjurations, sold his immortal soul to Beelzebub and his minions, received the diabolical mark forever branding the bedeviled as hell-bound, in exchange for health, wealth, and acclaim? Or do the parties in question merely hang out on the odd Saturday night? And if Mephistopheles is a resident of the Vatican, does he get his own apartment, or is it sharesies? (That heating bill must tax the house accountants sorely. I know Rome is warm, but it ain’t that warm.)
Many a thriller has used Vatican hijinks, not to mention deals with the Devil, as its hook. Think of Windswept House by Malachi Martin, himself a novel-worthy character. And of course, the Reformation produced some nice woodcuts in which the Archfiend and the Bishop of Rome are . . . linked. Luther himself was often referred to as a cohort of the Evil One, but only by his father, and then after he’d had a brewski or two. (Luther’s father, not Satan, who prefers Fresca.)
I wonder if diabology is a growing field? One would have thought that the science of Satanism would have gone the way of phrenology, astrology, and sociology as so much folderol. But given the evil that men do, spiritual causes are as likely as psychological, societal, and biochemical ones. Unless you’re a pure naturalist, in which case, it’s all in the wiring. And electricians we will always have with us.
But where does all this talk of demons finally get us? Can’t we simply agree with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and leave it at that?
March 11th, 2010 | 12:09 pm
See Baglio’s “The Rite,” or Amorth’s own book for that matter. And for charity’s sake, I’d counter that Rome’s Chief Exorcist is of a superior species to the standard university-issue sociologist.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:00 pm
I thought First Things was a publication that appreciated Catholic and traditional Christian theology. Part of that theology is that the devil and other fallen angels do, in fact, exist. This isn’t just a joke, and the Vatican’s chief exorcist is neither a fool nor a buffoon. The mockery of our belief in fallen angels in this post is flatly offensive. I recommend removing it.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
I take some comfort in thinking that where evil exists to an unthinkable degree Satan may have something to do with it. Perhaps that is letting humanity of too easily, but there are cases where one can’t imagine such a total absence of good without a supernatural agent in the mix. Stalin and Hitler are, of course, examples, but recently the duplicity and cruelty of Marcial Maciel come to mind. Reportedlyy, his death bed was attended by exorcists. Le’t hope that his doings were not all of his own prompting.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
I’m not sure if we should call him a Vatican exorcist. It’s easy to forget, but Rome is an archdiocese where people get married, have kids baptized, and oh yeah, need to call on an exorcist now and then. Just because you are a priest in in the Archdiocese Rome doesn’t mean that you have an office in the Vatican or have any particular theological and pastoral authority above and beyond one’s ordinary duties and charism as a priest.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:39 pm
Mr. Sacramone’s tone is flippant and offensive. It wold also seem that he has fallen prey to the first trick in the book – thinking the devil does not exist. Those who still believe the Scriptures would be surprised if Satan was not at work in the Vatican – when you are at war, you attack the enemy. Satan is at work anywhere Christians are doing the Lord’s work – that is his “job”.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:50 pm
This is because of Avitar. Aliens, like ET; the devil using creation to make what we call aliens. They then attack us, doing Satan’s bidding; destroying us because we are reflections of lucifer. We see and hear and dream. Assuming an alien, creation of lucifer, is not the answer; as we do this to our own God created selves. Satan would put all these creations on a control like a device for seeing hearing and dreaming, including us because we have become what lucifer wanted; creations.
An exorcist has always been the answer whether it’s a person or an alien assuming. Anyway, it’s women’s week or whatever and the bible says their evil too.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:10 pm
While, as a Catholic, I believe in fallen angels, and Scripture makes clear that there is such a thing as demonic possession, I think its pretty clear that old Fr. Amorth is around the bend — far, far around the bend. According to the wiki article about him, he has made lots of really loopy statements over the years. He claims to have performed 50,000 exorcisms in his career. Apparently that works out to be ten a day, every day, for his whole career — and if you believe that, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. He has attacked the changes the pope has made in the rites of exorcism. He says that the Vatican replaced prayers that work with ones that don’t work. That conception of prayer may be the most grossly superstitious thing I have ever heard. (Can you imagine the devil saying, “You know, I was all ready to leave this fellow I possessed, but the priest didn’t say exactly the right words!”) Admittedly, there are times that certain words have to be used in Catholic ritual for the validity of the sacrament (the words of institution in the Eucharist), but that is to fulfill the command of the Lord to “do this”. It is a matter of obedience. But Christ gave no command about what precise form of words should be used in exorcisms. To think that the words of a prayer have IN THEMSELVES magical power is a perversion of Catholic teaching. Amorth makes wild accusations against unnamed bishops and cardinals. That is defamatory. He should learn that spreading injurious and unsubstantiated gossip about people is itself a work of evil. The only possible defense of this man is that at the age of 85 he may no longer be in full possession of his faculties. Except that he has been making his nutty observations for a long time now. What I found most fun about Amorth’s statement is that sometimes the demons “laugh at him”. Yes, and not only the demons!
March 11th, 2010 | 4:13 pm
But given the evil that men do, spiritual causes are as likely as psychological, societal, and biochemical ones. Unless you’re a pure naturalist, in which case, it’s all in the wiring.
Didn’t y’all read to the next to last paragraph? I don’t think Mr. Sacramone is being offensive nor necessarily flippant. If failing to acknowledge that the devil exists is the first trick in the book, dismissing the blessing of humor is probably in the top ten.
I wouldn’t quibble with Fr. Amorth except to question his prudence in making broad-based statements to a less than well schooled public. To draw a personal correlation, I work for the Church (same Church – different city) and felt a certain degree of demonic malice at work while wrestling with a fax machine at a time when its adequate performance was definitely needed – culminating with the fax machine dialing the police. The fax machine. No human digits involved. Honestly. And I would divulge that here – but I wouldn’t call Channel 9 and have request a press conference.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:32 pm
In as much as I can’t know for sure that God exists, I rely on faith. In as much as our faith does not require us to beleave that satan exists I rely on our faith.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:39 pm
There are two issues here: the reliability of Fr. Amorth; and the existence of Satan and demons. Stephen Barr tries to disentangle the two issues to the benefit of Sacramone’s article, but it does not work. If the point is that Fr. Amorth is loopy, then Sacramone needs to focus on this and be direct about it in his own post. The tone of the article, however, is flippant and offensive. I did not only read to the penultimate paragraph, but to the last paragraph: “But where does all this talk of demons finally get us? Can’t we simply agree with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and leave it at that?” Where does all this talk of demons finally get us? To the teachings and actions of Jesus?
March 11th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
John W. Martens The tone of the article, however, is flippant and offensive.
I don’t think your reaction is completely offbase. Mr. Sacramone does seem to downplay (if not outright deny) the doctrine of demonology. Since he’s a good, orthodox Lutheran, though, I think it may be that he worded that, as you say, too flippantly.
What I suspect he meant—and I hope he’ll clarify—is let’s not jump to blaming the devil for the sinfulness of men.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:59 pm
Joe Carter: “What I suspect he meant—and I hope he’ll clarify—is let’s not jump to blaming the devil for the sinfulness of men.”
Fair enough, I am all for human responsibility, and so I do hope he will clarify this. There is so much going on in this fairly short post that intentions might have gotten muddled, including what might simply be misfired attempts at humor.
March 11th, 2010 | 8:59 pm
Maybe if a Bishop had thrown an inkwell…
March 11th, 2010 | 10:18 pm
Absolute power corrupts absolutely??
This is the flip (or flippant, maybe?) side of the famous question, “How many divisions does the pope have?”
If it’s power you’re perceiving, you are following a mirage. The power of St. Peter was the same as the power of his successor. See the gospels and Acts for Peter’s own assessment of that “power”, and how completely that power corrupted.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:31 pm
Of course the devil is at work in the Vatican. Isn’t he always “prowling about the world, seeking the ruin of souls?” Isn’t awareness that people are always subject to temptation — from their own fallen natures, the world, and the devil — a fairly standard and typical part of Christian theology? Lucky for us, Christ is also at work in the Vatican! And elsewhere.
March 12th, 2010 | 3:04 am
Dear Anthony,
Making fun of it is not the best policy. This is in fact very dangerous. JPII used to say: Remember, Satan was here before the mankind appeared and he had his plan ready to get people to hell. He’s the ultimate evil and intelligence (though not omnipotent – he’s also a creation like other angels). Ridiculing him or making people not believe in his existence is a part of his plan.
Greg
March 12th, 2010 | 9:55 am
Stan drinks Mr. Pibb when he can’t find Fresca.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:55 am
Oops. Satan drinks Mr. Pibb. Stan, as far as I know, likes Yoo Hoo.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:42 pm
“He should learn that spreading injurious and unsubstantiated gossip about people is itself a work of evil. ”
I love it: a priest who spends a life performing excorcisms and fighting for the Lord is ‘nuts’. Know-it-all bloggers at First things, whose sacrificial lives include spending lots of time posting on oh-so-important matters like French New Wave and Brian MacLearen, and who think forgoing Starbucks is a Lenten sacrifice, find him laughable.
As for Barr’s disingenuous half-true howler, “To think that the words of a prayer have IN THEMSELVES magical power is a perversion of Catholic teaching….”
I guess in terms of the words for Eucharistic consecration, any old phrase would do? Or for that matter, the Mormon baptismal equation, where words and meanings are scattered helter skelter? Amorth is nutty? I’d rather have ten such nuts than 100 self-important and pretentious North American bloggers.
March 19th, 2010 | 10:29 am
Come on, people. It’s time to stop saying “the Devil made me do it,” and start taking responsibility for our actions. When a person chooses to abuse another person, the fault lies with the self-centeredness of the abuser, who doesn’t take the time to consider the impact and consequences of his/her actions. The abuser has no concept of the suffering caused by the abuse. The abuser does not attempt to put him/herself in the sufferer’s place. The abuser does not follow the “Do unto others” rule.
The Devil and demons, etc. are as real to me as the Bogeyman. Enough! Let’s focus on placing responsibility on the abusers and on the culture in the Catholic Church that fosters abuse and allows it to continue!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact