Devil Resides in Vatican
Mar 12, 2010
Anthony Sacramone
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?
Anthony Sacramone is a freelance writer and the former managing editor of First Things.
Comments:
3.12.2010 | 7:54am
Jacques says:
Hmm. The Vatican's chief exorcist a strange story, but Mr. Sacramone's take is oddly dismissive for a follower of the One who with equal ease called out the lusts of men and the demons that troubled.
3.12.2010 | 8:16am
Philotheos says:
Your discomfort with the chief excorcist diagnosing cases of demonic influence should be a cause for some cirucmspection.
If a medical doctor performed a battery of tests and diagnosed you with a heart problem would you complain that to a cardiologist everything looks like a heart problem? Probably not.
Even among the orthodox we get uncomfortable when modern Christians mention the Devil (or hell). We get a little embarrassed about the idea of principally because we are all to some small degree de-mythologizers now.
As a layperson it is probably wise to be cautious about assigning the Devil responsibility for some particular action (sort of like Flip Wilson with his old "the devil made me do it" routines).
Given a choice between assigning problems to the world, the flesh and the devil - we may not be concerned about differentiating because we think the consequences of an amateur misdiagnosing the situation could cause problems, and in any case the cure is likely to be the same (more Jesus).
That said, the Chief Exorcist is a professional. What if rather than feeling embarrassed, we just deferred to his expertise and realized the world is stranger than we previously thought.
CS Lewis wrote "' 'There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors.' "
If a medical doctor performed a battery of tests and diagnosed you with a heart problem would you complain that to a cardiologist everything looks like a heart problem? Probably not.
Even among the orthodox we get uncomfortable when modern Christians mention the Devil (or hell). We get a little embarrassed about the idea of principally because we are all to some small degree de-mythologizers now.
As a layperson it is probably wise to be cautious about assigning the Devil responsibility for some particular action (sort of like Flip Wilson with his old "the devil made me do it" routines).
Given a choice between assigning problems to the world, the flesh and the devil - we may not be concerned about differentiating because we think the consequences of an amateur misdiagnosing the situation could cause problems, and in any case the cure is likely to be the same (more Jesus).
That said, the Chief Exorcist is a professional. What if rather than feeling embarrassed, we just deferred to his expertise and realized the world is stranger than we previously thought.
CS Lewis wrote "' 'There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors.' "
3.12.2010 | 8:18am
JDD says:
I'm struck by the tone and content of this article. Hostile and insults, respectively. Remarkably, almost no sentence escapes unscathed.
I don't know how the Enemy is prowling, and exactly where and when. I do believe that he is real and active - and that his opponent is Christ and the Church. Sir, you've added nothing to that conversation.
I don't know how the Enemy is prowling, and exactly where and when. I do believe that he is real and active - and that his opponent is Christ and the Church. Sir, you've added nothing to that conversation.
3.12.2010 | 8:18am
JDD says:
I'm struck by the tone and content of this article. Hostile and insults, respectively. Remarkably, almost no sentence escapes unscathed.
I don't know how the Enemy is prowling, and exactly where and when. I do believe that he is real and active - and that his opponent is Christ and the Church. Sir, you've added nothing to that conversation.
I don't know how the Enemy is prowling, and exactly where and when. I do believe that he is real and active - and that his opponent is Christ and the Church. Sir, you've added nothing to that conversation.
3.12.2010 | 8:59am
George Sim Johnston says:
I don't understand the author's point. Is he mocking the idea of demonic possession? Well, he should read the Gospels, which relate many exorcisms. Does he not believe in the devil? Again, consult the Bible. Does he think the devil has no interest in leading astray bishops and priests? That would be an odd attitude to find in the infernal regions. C.S. Lewis remarked that there are no bad men so bad as religious bad men, and a believing Christian might reasonably think that the devil has something to do with this.
That said, Saint Therese of Lisieux was correct: We're not supposed to "fight" the devil, we are supposed to turn our backs on him and direct our attention to God, who is infinitely above the devil. We shouldn't even think in terms of "God versus the devil"; it's more accurate to talk of "Saint Michael versus the devil."
Still, Scripture makes clear (cf. Book of Job) that God allows the devil a certain latitude for his malicious assaults, and we should be aware of this.
If the author thinks that exorcisms are a quaint anachronistic urban legend, he should read Scott Peck's "People of the Lie" for a description of one. Peck is not a Catholic, and had no reason to make this up.
That said, Saint Therese of Lisieux was correct: We're not supposed to "fight" the devil, we are supposed to turn our backs on him and direct our attention to God, who is infinitely above the devil. We shouldn't even think in terms of "God versus the devil"; it's more accurate to talk of "Saint Michael versus the devil."
Still, Scripture makes clear (cf. Book of Job) that God allows the devil a certain latitude for his malicious assaults, and we should be aware of this.
If the author thinks that exorcisms are a quaint anachronistic urban legend, he should read Scott Peck's "People of the Lie" for a description of one. Peck is not a Catholic, and had no reason to make this up.
3.12.2010 | 9:10am
cricket says:
Yippee! It's both fun and sophisticated to be flippant about the Devil; and so modern!
3.12.2010 | 9:32am
rich says:
Not the first time Sacramone has denied the existence of evil or the devil. He ridiculed Pope Leo's warning in the past and exoricists in general.
3.12.2010 | 9:34am
Dave Taylor says:
Mr. Sacramone asks why we just can't agree with Lord Acton about power corrupting as though that disposes of the question. Why can't we agree with Scripture where it says the devil is as a roaring lion seeking whom he can devour (I Peter)? Does it really mean what it says or do we need "higher criticism" to properly interpret it? Demonic oppression is real - just ask the African bishops. When Pope Benedict was raked over the coals for his commentary on Islam, it was First Things that helped bring clarity and accuracy to what he was actually saying. Why doesn't someone interview Fr. Amorth - I for one would love to hear what he meant.
3.12.2010 | 9:53am
Thomas says:
Yeah, why don't we just get rid of the idea of spiritual beings altogether and just substitute political theory. I mean, we're moderns, we don't need anything more than social theory. And why don't we just get rid of this idea that Jesus is God. Where does it really get us anyway? Why can't we just agree that we should all be nice to each other and leave it at that?
3.12.2010 | 10:24am
blackelkspeaks says:
I realize that Mr. Sacramone is attempting to be witty, sarcastic, and funny. But I don't get the ridicule here. With the myriad of examples of clerical perfidy, fecklessness, scandal, and Vatican II-induced error we have witnessed for so many years, I find I have to agree with the good Father.
3.12.2010 | 1:34pm
Nicholas Frankovich says:
I would agree that the main reason Christians shy away from talk of the demonic is that it exposes us to ridicule by secularists. They might be willing to entertain theologically informed discussions of, say, natural law or bioethics, but their frame of reference for any discussion of demonology consists primarily of horror films and the psychology-101 cliche that the bogeyman of course is not real but what is important is our fear of him, that’s what we need to take seriously and ponder.
I would add that a secondary reason for Christians being uncomfortable with the concept of the demonic is that it implies our obligation to fight, to wage spiritual battle, to play our part in the Church Militant, a term that could hardly be more unfashionable. Peace and love are Christian themes, to be sure. But so are persistence, fierce determination, and victory.
I would add that a secondary reason for Christians being uncomfortable with the concept of the demonic is that it implies our obligation to fight, to wage spiritual battle, to play our part in the Church Militant, a term that could hardly be more unfashionable. Peace and love are Christian themes, to be sure. But so are persistence, fierce determination, and victory.
3.12.2010 | 2:33pm
Lee Podles says:
I must admit that Amroth sounds like a nut case, but if he is why does Benedict have him as Chief Exorcist?
In the hundreds of sexual abuse cases I have investigated, there is very often a strong hint that the abusers engaged in Satanic practices. Some think it was to scare the victims. I think that it added a frisson to the abuse, and also protected the abusers. No one would believe a victim who claimed that priests and bishops sexually abused him during Satanic rituals – Why, people don’t do such things! Especially not priests and bishops and cardinals, especially not in the Vatican. Mr. Sacramone would know how to discredit such claims with ridicule.
In the hundreds of sexual abuse cases I have investigated, there is very often a strong hint that the abusers engaged in Satanic practices. Some think it was to scare the victims. I think that it added a frisson to the abuse, and also protected the abusers. No one would believe a victim who claimed that priests and bishops sexually abused him during Satanic rituals – Why, people don’t do such things! Especially not priests and bishops and cardinals, especially not in the Vatican. Mr. Sacramone would know how to discredit such claims with ridicule.
3.12.2010 | 2:47pm
Matthew says:
I can understand the need for caution with certain of Amorth's remarks that he makes from time to time. For one the claim he has done 70000 exorcisms.
However this piece thoroughly confused me. It almost sounds as though the author himself has a hard time believing in the devils' existence or is responsible for any evil. The Church has always taught the three sources of temptation are "the world, the flesh and the devil" not exclusively one or the other (and one can never blame one's sin on any of the three, we are always personally at fault). If the author doesn't mean to demean belief in the devil and his works then at the very least he did a poor job of making his position clear. A critique is needed but not one so sloppy as this.
However this piece thoroughly confused me. It almost sounds as though the author himself has a hard time believing in the devils' existence or is responsible for any evil. The Church has always taught the three sources of temptation are "the world, the flesh and the devil" not exclusively one or the other (and one can never blame one's sin on any of the three, we are always personally at fault). If the author doesn't mean to demean belief in the devil and his works then at the very least he did a poor job of making his position clear. A critique is needed but not one so sloppy as this.
3.12.2010 | 3:20pm
John W. Martens says:
Here is something even stranger than the article I think. This article was published on the blog yesterday. I wrote: "There are two issues here: the reliability of Fr. Amorth; and the existence of Satan and demons. Stephen Barr (in a comment on the blog) 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?"
Joe Carter responded: "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."
Finally, I responded: "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."
Instead of a clarification, this blog post makes it way "On The Square"? I do not understand the point of posting this article to begin with and certainly not posting it again in a more prominent location! Am I missing something?
Joe Carter responded: "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."
Finally, I responded: "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."
Instead of a clarification, this blog post makes it way "On The Square"? I do not understand the point of posting this article to begin with and certainly not posting it again in a more prominent location! Am I missing something?
3.12.2010 | 5:51pm
Charlie Cahill says:
I expected a more reasoning approach from 'First Things'. I am not sure what the point of his article(?) is.
Recent developments inside the Vatican and in the Church world-wide would seem to posit the work of some kind of Satanic being.
Is that not good theology?
Recent developments inside the Vatican and in the Church world-wide would seem to posit the work of some kind of Satanic being.
Is that not good theology?
3.12.2010 | 6:41pm
Jeanette O'Toole says:
Satan, abortion's prince, has destroyed some 50+ million children so far and has wounded their mothers beyond belief (when they come to realize they paid assassins to kill their own kids), and Mr. Sacramone evidently doesn't believe this same man of darkness can wiggle himself into Rome and The Vatican? Yipes! That's just what the devil wants to hear ...
3.12.2010 | 7:00pm
Thomist says:
"The first lie the devil tells us is that he doesn't exist." Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law both affirm the the reality of the devil - as 'Vatican II & Canon Law For Dummies' (aka the Catechism) repeats.
As for "Absolute Power corrupting absolutely", is Mr. Sacramone suggesting that God is the devil?
His article is the kind typical snotty, illogical sniberalism that seems cute, but is horribly false and will take precious time and talent to refute.
As for "Absolute Power corrupting absolutely", is Mr. Sacramone suggesting that God is the devil?
His article is the kind typical snotty, illogical sniberalism that seems cute, but is horribly false and will take precious time and talent to refute.
3.12.2010 | 7:08pm
MaryTeresa says:
There has definitely been a marked rise in Satanic activity in formerly Christian societies in general over the past few decades, as anyone involved in the ministry of exorcism will tell you. Because many - if not most - American bishops actually did away with this ministry altogether after Vatican II, the majority of people who are grappling with direct demonic activity today have nowhere to turn. If they are fortunate enough to be living in a diocese where the bishop actually believes in demonic attacks, or even in satan, they may have some limited recourse. The priests who are trying to help them often have to reach out to dioceses where there are more experienced clergy. Lay and religious themselves often find themselves in perilous and terrifying situations and they are completely overwhelmed by a direct confrontation with evil. All too often, children are involved - as they are a favorite target of the Adversary and its minions. This situation is deplorable and it is inexcusable. The bishops who are responsible for it will have a hell of a lot to answer for, and I for one would not want to be in their shoes. And yes, tragically, I stand by Fr. Amorth and his courageous statements. Few priests have had more mexperience and knowledge of this critical ministry than Fr. Gabriel Amorth. He knows of what he speaks, and he was speaking directly and not off the cuff regarding a very frightening and dangerous situation in the Church today. I would like to also suggest that for those investigating this, look closely wherever there is a particularly intense number of incidents involving the corruption of innocence. That is a hallmark of the Evil One. And, incidentally, Father Malachi Martin also knew what he was talking about. He was also one of the most experienced exorcists in the Church. He stated that the famous scene in Windswept House describing a simultaneous satanic mass in the Vatican and the U.S. actually did happen. Most of the copies of that book were destroyed, so you will be lucky if you can find a copy.
3.12.2010 | 7:31pm
Artaban says:
"With the myriad of examples of clerical perfidy, fecklessness, scandal, and Vatican II-induced error we have witnessed for so many years..."
No more than is to be found in other religious demographics, and still less than in the public school system. If your measures and claims are to be taken at face value, blackelkspeaks, it would seem this whole world is the dominion of the Devil.
I won't concede that, nor did Christ. We are the Church of the sinners, dropouts, losers, and fools--precisely the people Christ came to save. Why should it be a surprise there are flaws, sin enough independent of demonic influence, and yes, even spots of the dastardly.
That shouldn't come as a surprise, and neither cause undue alarm nor complacent comfortableness in the presence of our Enemy. There are vast and deadly intelligences opposed to humanity itself--as any glance at abortion statistics will show--but God's grace and the gifts of the Church are more formidable indeed. Let's not take either for granted.
No more than is to be found in other religious demographics, and still less than in the public school system. If your measures and claims are to be taken at face value, blackelkspeaks, it would seem this whole world is the dominion of the Devil.
I won't concede that, nor did Christ. We are the Church of the sinners, dropouts, losers, and fools--precisely the people Christ came to save. Why should it be a surprise there are flaws, sin enough independent of demonic influence, and yes, even spots of the dastardly.
That shouldn't come as a surprise, and neither cause undue alarm nor complacent comfortableness in the presence of our Enemy. There are vast and deadly intelligences opposed to humanity itself--as any glance at abortion statistics will show--but God's grace and the gifts of the Church are more formidable indeed. Let's not take either for granted.
3.12.2010 | 8:05pm
Jerry B says:
I think it's important to read the article Mr. Sacramone linked to at the top of his piece, just to be clear about the target of his sarcasm. That said, I find myself in full agreement with all of the criticism written here so far.
3.12.2010 | 8:06pm
mari says:
the thing that strikes me most, is the authors knowing the names..dominions....finer details of the devil.....
i clicked on this to read fr amorth's story....not some article that does nothing but attempt to ridicule fr amorth by someone who must have another agenda.
i clicked on this to read fr amorth's story....not some article that does nothing but attempt to ridicule fr amorth by someone who must have another agenda.
3.12.2010 | 8:26pm
Thomas More Hopkins says:
Did this piece sneak in from Salon.com. It's got all the low-brow bigotted snarkyness of the chablis sipping beautiful people set. Maybe why this dude's title starts with "former."
3.12.2010 | 8:35pm
John says:
The most basic qualification for the unpleasant work of the exorcist is a deep piety and uncluttered frankness of disposition. Father Amorth's qualification is on display in his comments about trouble in the Vatican. Mr. Sacramone's dearth of such qualification is on abundant display in his response.
3.12.2010 | 9:42pm
Krzysztof says:
Why so noise? Devil is not sleeping even after Auschwitz@Komyla. He works at every office at every state@Editorial; a lier (J8:44); in hiding scandals is an obvious way of discovering who inspires it- I know it (I do not need an exorcist to tell me); actors are in Hell already or in coming. So obvious
Since John Paul II encyclique Fides et RAtio,1998, there is really nothing creative in Vatican@of course dioceses; typical traditional theological junk stuff (liberal or traditionalist)
ex. On Jan 27, 2001, at Domaniewska 20, Warsaw, I was attacked by 200 sheep under the order of R.C presbiter after criticizing NEOcatechumant@Dominus Jesus; the Priest did not finish the Mass falling at the altar;I know for sure it is a SECT! I spent with them 2 years (2 suicides at W-wa); after my REg.Letter finally Pope (Bendict xvi) acted changing just the form of liturgy. Listen their teaching! 1 million movement . Fortunately, the criminal case against me: art 195.1 kk R.P is still on.....my against the Plot was dismised for foraml reasons (problem with my not fixed address);Police Warszawa-Mokotow
Nice day from B.Th+Ignatious Exercises (I knew there Devils personaly)+more
Since John Paul II encyclique Fides et RAtio,1998, there is really nothing creative in Vatican@of course dioceses; typical traditional theological junk stuff (liberal or traditionalist)
ex. On Jan 27, 2001, at Domaniewska 20, Warsaw, I was attacked by 200 sheep under the order of R.C presbiter after criticizing NEOcatechumant@Dominus Jesus; the Priest did not finish the Mass falling at the altar;I know for sure it is a SECT! I spent with them 2 years (2 suicides at W-wa); after my REg.Letter finally Pope (Bendict xvi) acted changing just the form of liturgy. Listen their teaching! 1 million movement . Fortunately, the criminal case against me: art 195.1 kk R.P is still on.....my against the Plot was dismised for foraml reasons (problem with my not fixed address);Police Warszawa-Mokotow
Nice day from B.Th+Ignatious Exercises (I knew there Devils personaly)+more
3.12.2010 | 9:50pm
Krzysztof says:
After John Paul enc.Fides et Ratio, 1998 there is just ...theological junk in Vatican@elswhere incl.here.
What a surprise Devil works in Vatican? He is not sleeping .As a liar (J8:44) he is easily recognizable also in Vatican
What a surprise Devil works in Vatican? He is not sleeping .As a liar (J8:44) he is easily recognizable also in Vatican
3.12.2010 | 9:54pm
Krzysztof says:
Fides et RAtio of John Paull II in 1998 the last serious theological thing in Vatican@elswhere incl.here.
Hej, DEvil as a liar (J 8:44) he works everywhere incl.Vatican!
Hej, DEvil as a liar (J 8:44) he works everywhere incl.Vatican!
3.12.2010 | 11:36pm
kmattwalker says:
I wish someone would point out the same about the Los Angeles Archdiocese.
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/18/31/9e/cathedral-of-our-lady.jpg
Now that's freaky. Lord help us.
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/18/31/9e/cathedral-of-our-lady.jpg
Now that's freaky. Lord help us.
3.13.2010 | 12:37am
Fr. Frowin says:
Leaving the correctness or prudence of Fr. Amorth's comments aside, I find such sarcasm as exhibited in this article - especially to such a degree - far, far beneath the standards of First Things.
3.13.2010 | 12:40am
Fr. Frowin says:
Setting aside the accuracy and prudence of Fr. Amorth's comments, I find the sarcasm in this article to be far far beneath the standards of First Things. It strikes me as juvenile or something from a tabloid. Raise the bar!
3.13.2010 | 3:48am
Marcellinus says:
The influence of Satan has always been evident in the world...Genesis confirms this. At the Last supper "Satan had already entered into Judas". The Vatican and the people associated with it are not immuned. Even Paul VI stated that the smoke of Satan has entered into the Church. Need I say more?
3.13.2010 | 5:47am
Éamonn says:
Two equal and opposite errors: to see demonic influence where human foolishness, turpitude or spite will suffice, like Fr Amorth. On the other hand, Mr Sacramone's mistake is to dismiss the demonic altogether, which is to deny Scripture and the longstanding witness of the Church. For a more balanced view, try Dr Ed Peters blog especially http://www.canonlaw.info/a_amorth.htm. For the record, having read Fr Amorth's two books and various intervews with him, I find that he tends to make his more extravagant claims repeatedly and with some additional embellishment each time. There are good authors out there on this topic, like Fr Fortea or Matt Baglio that I would rather read than Fr Amorth.
3.13.2010 | 6:00am
Therese says:
Mr. Sacramone,
The strength of your protest and ridicule alone gives one pause. In this modern world it requires a great deal of humility to face the fact of the devil.
The strength of your protest and ridicule alone gives one pause. In this modern world it requires a great deal of humility to face the fact of the devil.
3.13.2010 | 6:49am
RandallMEAGAN18 says:
I had a desire to begin my own firm, nevertheless I didn't have got enough of cash to do this. Thank goodness my close mate said to take the loans. Therefore I received the collateral loan and realized my desire.
3.13.2010 | 7:02am
SCMS says:
Look, fellas, all general good-will toward the office of exorcist aside, Amorth is on record as stating that "The Exorcist" is a good depiction of demonic possession, and he seriously claims that he has dealt with 70,000 cases himself--that's 2 or 3 incidences per day, if you do the math. I mean . . . really? You'd think he'd be so overworked that he wouldn't have the time to read "Harry Potter" (which, in charity, we have to presume he did, given his critique of Rowling's demonology). So, before anyone equates Sacramone's post with "den[ying] the existence of evil," perhaps he should take a good, hard look at some of Amorth's more delusional assertions (they are available for purview all over the internet). Rather than question others' orthodoxy, I think we should reflect on the the question of why Amorth--who is, at best, senile--is allowed to make these sort of pronouncements by his superiors. This puzzles me, because it actually DOES seem to argue a real failure by at least some Vatican officials to take the reality of Satan seriously.
3.13.2010 | 7:25am
Bosco says:
I don't consider this facile rejection of the chief exorcist's insights worthy of publication. The tone is inexplicably sneering and the content is not thoughtful. Odd piece. Very odd.
3.13.2010 | 9:00am
John Cummins says:
"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...”
What it means is essentially simple and ritual trappings are secondary,
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." - Rev. 13:16-17
Whether there's a physical mark or not, mark on the hand or on the head means to think as the beast thinks and to do as he does. Anyone could decide to try that out, and a fair number could decide they like it and to stick with it: "...wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
The characterization in Guardian article is nothing so hysterical as this post makes it out to be. Fr. Amorth certainly doesn't indicate the Vatican is demon possessed, just that the devil has a long lease on a workspace there. One would rather take issue with Fr. Cucurull's statement: "...all [Cardinals] have upright intentions".
In the article Fr. Amorth doesn't express dismay that the devil makes fun of him. Wouldn't any devil worth the name use what he could against an effective exorcist?
"Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, 'In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.' Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. The evil spirit answered them, 'Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?' Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding."
- Acts 19:13-16
Fresca was great; is it still around?
What it means is essentially simple and ritual trappings are secondary,
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name." - Rev. 13:16-17
Whether there's a physical mark or not, mark on the hand or on the head means to think as the beast thinks and to do as he does. Anyone could decide to try that out, and a fair number could decide they like it and to stick with it: "...wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
The characterization in Guardian article is nothing so hysterical as this post makes it out to be. Fr. Amorth certainly doesn't indicate the Vatican is demon possessed, just that the devil has a long lease on a workspace there. One would rather take issue with Fr. Cucurull's statement: "...all [Cardinals] have upright intentions".
In the article Fr. Amorth doesn't express dismay that the devil makes fun of him. Wouldn't any devil worth the name use what he could against an effective exorcist?
"Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, 'In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.' Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. The evil spirit answered them, 'Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?' Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding."
- Acts 19:13-16
Fresca was great; is it still around?
3.13.2010 | 10:21am
Paul Bennett says:
Why is this garbage included in my Catholic World News? If I want to read an irreverant, funny piece I'll read a good writer, not this hack. A man's got to know his limitations.
3.13.2010 | 10:45am
Fr DJB says:
I am also upset by the flippant tone which this article by Mr. Anthony Sacramone presents. I fear it does more damage in belittling the presence and action of satan in the world than what Mr. Sacramone may think about how Fr. Amorthe's position may overemphasize the presence of satan in the world. Mr. Sacramone thinks that no one can make truthful, unbiased statements outside of their "profession", generally speaking. In any case, Fr. Amorthe, along with his mentor, should at least receive the benefit of the doubt in having many, many decades of experience in possessions and exorcisms. We should let the "joint" and the Holy Father decide about the truth in this matter.
3.13.2010 | 12:56pm
Patrick Griffin says:
I have to agree with a number of comments regarding the level of ridicule in this column. One only has to look at the fall that the Catholic faith has in Europe and America and ask why;especially since there were so many faithful. As a practicing Catholic I would tend to agree with the exorcist rather than Mr. Sacramone. I personally know of priests who aided and abetted pedophiles, and those same priests are now in Rome, in the Vatican, enjoying a life of ease.
3.13.2010 | 1:56pm
Columcille says:
Neo-con Salon indeed. . . You can do better than this guys.
http://fumare.blogspot.com/2010/03/rationalism-ascendant-or-tonys-ass.html
http://fumare.blogspot.com/2010/03/rationalism-ascendant-or-tonys-ass.html
3.13.2010 | 2:01pm
Carmelo Fallace says:
Mr. Anthony Sacramone should take some Scripture lessons from those who believe, as the Church teaches, that it is innerant and the first sense is the literal.
3.13.2010 | 4:24pm
paula says:
What was the name of that bank robber? Everybody says when they asked him why he robbed banks he said, "That's where the money is". You will have to decide for yourself whether or not there is a satan. Once you have done that, if you have decided that there is a satan. Do you think he would want to hang out with the souls he already has or do you think he would go looking for the souls that belong to God?
3.13.2010 | 6:29pm
Dan says:
I read an article on Fr. Amorth on Drudge. If I read it correctly, Fr. Amorth says there are priests who do not believe in the divinity of Christ, which is a staggering thought. I appreciate the thoughtful comments above.
3.13.2010 | 8:06pm
Robert Hill says:
I respectfully agree tha tthe tone of this commentary is a little off. It should not be a surprise that the enemy would strike at us wherever and however it can do the most harm. It would not be the first time, certainly. All of us, including bishops and cardinals, should take heed.
And of course we must continue pray every day that God will stand between us and evil.
And of course we must continue pray every day that God will stand between us and evil.
3.13.2010 | 10:57pm
Warren Anderson says:
While I normally appreciate light hearted banter, it is unsettling to hear flippant talk about such a serious issue. Furthermore, what I have read from other sources concerning Fr. Amorth's comments also has me concerned. As of late, Fr. Amorth comes off sounding irresponsible. This topic of grave concern demands sober reflection if sensationalism is to be avoided. A follow up interview with Fr. Amorth would help clarify what he actually said.
3.14.2010 | 6:31am
Sarah says:
I was expecting a lot more out of this article. I think that Father Amorth's comments warrant serious discussion, especially given his position. Yes I would like to know what he meant more specifically, but your sarcastic comments don't really give me any material for thought. It's just sarcasm for it's own sake.
It is very easy to dismiss talk of the devil, which is why I expected better from First Things.
Disappointing article.
It is very easy to dismiss talk of the devil, which is why I expected better from First Things.
Disappointing article.
3.14.2010 | 8:18am
Roger Stenson says:
One expects more from a former managing editor of First Things, which position, incidentally, should not entitle publication, especially of material so sarcastically dismissive of a question with which serious people must responsibly contend. Some ridicule toward points of view on settled issues like abortion or adultery is understandable, but demons-in-the-Vatican deserves discussion - even if it is as excitable as, say, that over the theology of Holy Saturday in these pages.
This voice is added to Mr. Taylor’s suggestion. And it expresses that Mr. Sacramone might want to rejoin with a dose of politeness.
This voice is added to Mr. Taylor’s suggestion. And it expresses that Mr. Sacramone might want to rejoin with a dose of politeness.
3.14.2010 | 9:53am
Andrew Lormand says:
Mr Sacramone is right to be dismissive. One does not have to be a materialist to realize that the devil is an altogether comforting figure to invoke when the alternative is a deeper and unwavering scrutiny of institutional evils. The breadth and depth of the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church is still far greater and more horrifying than most Catholics are willing to confront, and it calls into question the very structure of church authority as presently constituted (decades of ecclesiastical "enabling" of pedophiles cannot be simply an accidental aspect of the institution's practices, procedures, and internal culture). By all means, give the devil his due, but remember he only slips in through the doors we leave open.
3.14.2010 | 10:45am
Tim says:
I think one unspoken frustration is that these comments come at a time when the clergy abuse scandal is grasping towards the very Chair of St. Peter. No doubt, some critics will wrap the comments together by suggesting that Pope Benedict himself is the Devil by failing to address the clergy abuse in his younger Ratzinger days. Depending on what else emerges from the recent revelations, we may even feel that ourselves, or at least, the most profound disappointment.
On an unspoken level, I feel Mr. Sacramone is tactically trying to blunt these thoughts by winking to the crowd, straddling the fence and implying without actually saying that this old wizard is out to pasture. It is an understandable impulse. It is also wrong.
We live in trying times. We know the Devil is real. We know that even Jesus Himself was subject to diabolical temptation. The Church is administered on this level of existence by humans. That the Devil would set up shop in the Vatican to tempt Church leaders should not surprise us in the least. It really is, when it comes down to it, not news at all. But in the context of the clergy abuse scandal, it is an unfortunate reminder that we must pray for our Church and its leaders and not undermine our faith by succumbing to the temptation of playing to the unsympathetic secular crowd.
On an unspoken level, I feel Mr. Sacramone is tactically trying to blunt these thoughts by winking to the crowd, straddling the fence and implying without actually saying that this old wizard is out to pasture. It is an understandable impulse. It is also wrong.
We live in trying times. We know the Devil is real. We know that even Jesus Himself was subject to diabolical temptation. The Church is administered on this level of existence by humans. That the Devil would set up shop in the Vatican to tempt Church leaders should not surprise us in the least. It really is, when it comes down to it, not news at all. But in the context of the clergy abuse scandal, it is an unfortunate reminder that we must pray for our Church and its leaders and not undermine our faith by succumbing to the temptation of playing to the unsympathetic secular crowd.
3.14.2010 | 12:40pm
Laura says:
Come on people, this really doesn't have anything to do with the Devil. The point is that if other people seem to operate in a way that you oppose, or assert positions that are in opposition to your position, it is easy to say that they are under the influence of the Devil.
When, in most cases, they are just plain old sinful people, corrupted by the influence of power. Might they be influenced by Satan? Sure, maybe. But it doesn't help forward the debate if you just say that your opponent is under the influence of the devil. Why not engage them with logical argument and expose how their actions/positions are wrong? We can do this with other forms of evil (such as abortion) and demonstrate how they are logically and morally unethical. We don't just say, "they're under the devil's influence."
When, in most cases, they are just plain old sinful people, corrupted by the influence of power. Might they be influenced by Satan? Sure, maybe. But it doesn't help forward the debate if you just say that your opponent is under the influence of the devil. Why not engage them with logical argument and expose how their actions/positions are wrong? We can do this with other forms of evil (such as abortion) and demonstrate how they are logically and morally unethical. We don't just say, "they're under the devil's influence."
3.14.2010 | 2:57pm
Thomas says:
While I tend to think that Father Amorth may have overstated things in regards to demonic activity at the Vatican (and I say that without having actually read the full context of the interview he gave), I think that this article is very problematic from a Catholic perspective.
Firstly, it implies that belief in demonic possession and diabolical activity is some sort of outdated superstition.
Yet such an implication runs totally contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture - it was none other than Our Lord Himself who is recorded as having cast demons out of their tormented victims, and our first Pope warns us that Satan roams about like a 'roaring lion' seeking whom he may 'devour'.
Yes, absolute power corrupts, but to dismiss the role of the great tempter, the who comes to 'steal, kill and destroy', in exploiting human weakness in this area is simply naive.
And it is just as naive to think that Satan would have no interest in targeting the leadership of the Church with schemes and temptations to bring about the 'ruin of souls'.
For some reason, the famous saying that 'the Devil's greatest work is convincing people that he doesn't really exist' comes to mind.
I have to say that I found Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull's (a theologian who specializes in demonology) comments on the Fr. Amorth interview about demons in the Vatican far more helpful and balanced.
Firstly, it implies that belief in demonic possession and diabolical activity is some sort of outdated superstition.
Yet such an implication runs totally contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture - it was none other than Our Lord Himself who is recorded as having cast demons out of their tormented victims, and our first Pope warns us that Satan roams about like a 'roaring lion' seeking whom he may 'devour'.
Yes, absolute power corrupts, but to dismiss the role of the great tempter, the who comes to 'steal, kill and destroy', in exploiting human weakness in this area is simply naive.
And it is just as naive to think that Satan would have no interest in targeting the leadership of the Church with schemes and temptations to bring about the 'ruin of souls'.
For some reason, the famous saying that 'the Devil's greatest work is convincing people that he doesn't really exist' comes to mind.
I have to say that I found Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull's (a theologian who specializes in demonology) comments on the Fr. Amorth interview about demons in the Vatican far more helpful and balanced.
3.14.2010 | 2:58pm
Thomas says:
While I tend to think that Father Amorth may have overstated things in regards to demonic activity at the Vatican (and I say that without having actually read the full context of the interview he gave), I think that this article is very problematic from a Catholic perspective.
Firstly, it implies that belief in demonic possession and diabolical activity is some sort of outdated superstition.
Yet such an implication runs totally contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture - it was none other than Our Lord Himself who is recorded as having cast demons out of their tormented victims, and our first Pope warns us that Satan roams about like a 'roaring lion' seeking whom he may 'devour'.
Yes, absolute power corrupts, but to dismiss the role of the great tempter, the who comes to 'steal, kill and destroy', in exploiting human weakness in this area is simply naive.
And it is just as naive to think that Satan would have no interest in targeting the leadership of the Church with schemes and temptations to bring about the 'ruin of souls'.
For some reason, the famous saying that 'the Devil's greatest work is convincing people that he doesn't really exist' comes to mind.
I have to say that I found Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull's (a theologian who specializes in demonology) comments on the Fr. Amorth interview about demons in the Vatican far more helpful and balanced.
Firstly, it implies that belief in demonic possession and diabolical activity is some sort of outdated superstition.
Yet such an implication runs totally contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching and Sacred Scripture - it was none other than Our Lord Himself who is recorded as having cast demons out of their tormented victims, and our first Pope warns us that Satan roams about like a 'roaring lion' seeking whom he may 'devour'.
Yes, absolute power corrupts, but to dismiss the role of the great tempter, the who comes to 'steal, kill and destroy', in exploiting human weakness in this area is simply naive.
And it is just as naive to think that Satan would have no interest in targeting the leadership of the Church with schemes and temptations to bring about the 'ruin of souls'.
For some reason, the famous saying that 'the Devil's greatest work is convincing people that he doesn't really exist' comes to mind.
I have to say that I found Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull's (a theologian who specializes in demonology) comments on the Fr. Amorth interview about demons in the Vatican far more helpful and balanced.
3.14.2010 | 2:59pm
Anton Bloc(k)head says:
I heartily agree the subject can have its comedic side (I didn't get the eliptical "linked" reference but can probably guess) but you don't have to be fresh from the Crusades (or even a Baptist) to believe that such matters should be taken "dead" seriously. The Lord said "get thee behind me" when offered the World. Thank God, as it were, that I do not rate the offer.
3.14.2010 | 3:13pm
Pete says:
While I agree that the tone of the this piece is rudely dismissive, I do have some problems with Fr. Amorth's comments, and with his approach to speaking about the demonic in general. He makes some very strong remarks in the original article, and yet they are so vague that he comes off as a bit of a crank. If he has names and evidence then let's hear them, or else stay out of the papers and find some non-demonic folks in the Vatican to investigate. Moreover, his book, "An Exorcist Tells His Story", he is similarly vague with details. I suppose there could be a thin line between being frank and being titillating, but if one's point is that demonic activity is very real, then one ought to be more up front about individuals and events of the demonic sort in order to be as convincing as possible.
3.14.2010 | 4:46pm
Hickory Bow says:
St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray.
And do thou, oh prince of the Heavenly host, thrust into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the destruction of souls.
And do thou, oh prince of the Heavenly host, thrust into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the destruction of souls.
3.14.2010 | 6:30pm
David says:
This article is far too flippant and inappropriate for something as orthodox, Catholic and intellectually rigorous as First Things. To agree with Lord Acton and dismiss the possibility of satanic activity even in the most holiest of places is dangerous and disappointing.
3.14.2010 | 8:09pm
datechguy says:
You should make clear the difference between disagreeing with the exorcist in this case and the suggestion that there is no such thing.
If you are catholic you are catholic, the existence of the Devil and Demons is not an optional part of the faith.
Or to put it another way. Given the existence of the Devil and Demons, would it be an intelligent move to attempt to infiltrate the enemy camp or no?
If you are catholic you are catholic, the existence of the Devil and Demons is not an optional part of the faith.
Or to put it another way. Given the existence of the Devil and Demons, would it be an intelligent move to attempt to infiltrate the enemy camp or no?
3.14.2010 | 9:23pm
FW Ken says:
When I saw "Devil Resides in Vatican", I thought: Bob Jones is posting here. That's odd.
:-)
:-)
3.15.2010 | 6:18am
Singing Sparrow says:
I found the article offensive and pointless.
I understand why modern Christians are hesitant to consider anyone possessed: we have history to guide us. All the religious leaders have reason to proceed with caution when condemning anyone as possessed by evil when they have their own history to guide them-how often is genius condemned as evil, the work of Satan in history. How many women have been murdered because their neighbors didn't like them and made up stories about Satan visiting the hated neighbor?
I understand why modern Christians are hesitant to consider anyone possessed: we have history to guide us. All the religious leaders have reason to proceed with caution when condemning anyone as possessed by evil when they have their own history to guide them-how often is genius condemned as evil, the work of Satan in history. How many women have been murdered because their neighbors didn't like them and made up stories about Satan visiting the hated neighbor?
3.15.2010 | 11:56pm
J says:
This article is in bad taste. It is far beneath what one expects from FT.
No matter what one thinks of the comments of Fr. Amorth, there is simply no justification for this article in an important and serious journal that claims to have serious theological underpinnings.
And, if one takes exception to the possibility -- the possibility, mind, not even an alleged fact -- that there is evil spiritual influence at work in the Vatican, as this article seems to do, then it evinces either a doubt about the existence and work of evil spirits, or a profound naivete about the church in the era of the wheat and tares.
I hope the author will offer some response to this deluge of commentary above, preferably in the form of an apology.
No matter what one thinks of the comments of Fr. Amorth, there is simply no justification for this article in an important and serious journal that claims to have serious theological underpinnings.
And, if one takes exception to the possibility -- the possibility, mind, not even an alleged fact -- that there is evil spiritual influence at work in the Vatican, as this article seems to do, then it evinces either a doubt about the existence and work of evil spirits, or a profound naivete about the church in the era of the wheat and tares.
I hope the author will offer some response to this deluge of commentary above, preferably in the form of an apology.
3.18.2010 | 7:37am
Martin says:
Agreeing with Pete. I think part of Mr Sacramone's frustration is that Fr. Amorth makes nameless and fairly general accusations.
I have no doubt that there are some less than worthy sinful Church leaders. But If there are some cardinals who don't believe in God and Bishops who are in league with Satan and members of unnamed Satanic sects ..... then let's hear who specifically those men are.
I have no doubt that there are some less than worthy sinful Church leaders. But If there are some cardinals who don't believe in God and Bishops who are in league with Satan and members of unnamed Satanic sects ..... then let's hear who specifically those men are.
3.20.2010 | 8:15am
Julie Grimstad says:
If I were Satan, infiltrating the enemy's headquarters would be my strategy.
6.24.2010 | 8:12am
Tony Toners says:
The allegations of Fr Amorth – who btw, has said in the past that the scenes in the 1973 film The Exorcist are “substantially exact” – are recorded in Father Amorth: Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan, a series of interviews edited by Marco Tosatti. He asked Amorth if Pope Benedict XVI himself knew of the existence of Satanic sects in the Vatican.“Of course he was informed ” replied Amorth. “But he does what he can. It's a horrifying thing."
I prefer to leave the last word with the redoubtable Fr Amorth, who in this interview, pointed out that power anywhere leads to temptation: “I have no doubt about the fact that the demon tempts the authorities of the Church especially, just as he tempts every authority, those of politics and industry.”
Demons aside, is pride, chief of all sins, to blame for human corruption in the Church and Vatican?
I prefer to leave the last word with the redoubtable Fr Amorth, who in this interview, pointed out that power anywhere leads to temptation: “I have no doubt about the fact that the demon tempts the authorities of the Church especially, just as he tempts every authority, those of politics and industry.”
Demons aside, is pride, chief of all sins, to blame for human corruption in the Church and Vatican?
7.23.2010 | 2:24pm
mARIO mORRIS says:
God help us.....Fr Amroth is the only saviour trying to uphold something and here we have people mocking him..Wow!Only Jesus can help us.
Do you people even know what a demonic possession is?A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and after reading some of your comments i belive its true. Prayer is the only way out.Cant you see.....
Stop critics and thats a real stop i mean please...
Again I say only God can help us....so please i urge you start praying.
Do you people even know what a demonic possession is?A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and after reading some of your comments i belive its true. Prayer is the only way out.Cant you see.....
Stop critics and thats a real stop i mean please...
Again I say only God can help us....so please i urge you start praying.
8.18.2010 | 2:12am
Ayirma Büyüsü says:
The allegations of Fr Amorth – who btw, has said in the past that the scenes in the 1973 film The Exorcist are “substantially exact” – are recorded in Father Amorth: Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan, a series of interviews edited by Marco Tosatti. He asked Amorth if Pope Benedict XVI himself knew of the existence of Satanic sects in the Vatican.“Of course he was informed ” replied Amorth. “But he does what he can. It's a horrifying thing."
10.4.2010 | 2:54pm
Plaza Hotel says:
This is interesting. He is assuming that any bad thought or action is influenced by demons which of course implies that we have no free will. All our actions are influenced by God or the Devil.
10.29.2010 | 9:11am
Mendel says:
700,000 Exorcisms? Jeepers, this guy must be kicking the demons out of everything, from people to lawn gnomes to letter openers to lanterns to pickles to sports bras to discount hotels to beach towels. My toaster's acting up, I wonder if he can exorcise that?
10.29.2010 | 10:29am
Jersey City Dude says:
That is a lot of exorcisms. That could have made the Ghostbusters rich. My toaster has been acting up too. hmmmm...
1.11.2011 | 1:19pm
Lodging for the Soul says:
I am so sorry, but I simply cannot take this article seriously. Just...that first line...that the "joint is demon possessed". I cracked up. Seriously. Fell out of my chair laughing and everything. Bravo for giving me a good laugh!
3.1.2011 | 1:11pm
Lilia says:
Thanks for the information. After reading this post, I think I've changed my mind about a weekend near the Vatican. Halkidiki hotel in Greece, here I come!
3.24.2011 | 1:11pm
70,000 cases of demonic possession in 25 year?! At the Vatican? That sounds a little outrageous to me. That comes out to an average of 7-8 exorcisms per day. Sounds like he's embellishing the numbers a bit.
4.6.2011 | 3:37pm
Harvey Hotels says:
Thanks for the post, it seems like any organization as large as the Catholic church would have some incidents occur in house. However, the entire concept seems a little like the Harvey movie with the large rabbit, especially considering the statistics cited in this article seem more than a little far fetched.
12.16.2011 | 11:36am
Gary Neal says:
Ok, first of all, loved your hammer/nail metaphor. Thought it was very appropriate and applicable. Secondly, your article was very well written. You addressed the problem admirably and spoke with conviction. Just the way a person selling satellites or vacation rental homes Orlando FL would. Well done with the post my friend.
1.19.2012 | 1:23am
Ios On Android Phone says:
I cracked up. Seriously. Fell out of my chair laughing and everything. Bravo for giving me a good laugh!
