The devil is the latest thing
The US Catholic church is giving the gnu atheists support for their claim that science and religion are not epistemically compatible. Very obliging and civil of them, I must say.
There are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists, but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.
Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care.
So they are operating on the assumption that some people really do need an exorcism, and that there are reliable repeatable teachable ways to distinguish between those people and lunatics. Right. Well this is our point, isn’t it – there is no evidence that anyone “really needs” an exorcism, but the Catholic church thinks that some people do, all the same.
“Not everyone who thinks they need an exorcism actually does need one,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., who organized the conference. “It’s only used in those cases where the Devil is involved in an extraordinary sort of way in terms of actually being in possession of the person.
“But it’s rare, it’s extraordinary, so the use of exorcism is also rare and extraordinary,” he said. “But we have to be prepared.”
Thank you Bishop Paprocki for spelling it out some more. The bishop is telling us that (according to his religious belief) there is an entity called “the Devil” and the Devil (however rarely and extraordinarily) can be “in possession” of a person, by which is meant can magically inhabit a person and make the person do things. This is a pre-scientific belief. There is no evidence of the existence of an entity that fits the description of “the Devil,” or of anyone inhabiting another person and making the person do things. It’s a magical story, yet here is the modern church taking it seriously and holding conferences on how to spot it.
“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.’ ”
Bingo! That’s just what we say. No, the church isn’t just one more institution, the church thinks it deals with angels and demons.
“People are talking about, are we taking two steps back?” Father Vega said. “My first reaction when I heard about the exorcism conference was, this is another of those trappings we’ve pulled out of the past.”
But he said that there could eventually be a rising demand for exorcism because of the influx of Hispanic and African Catholics to the United States. People from those cultures, he said, are more attuned to the experience of the supernatural.
“More attuned to the experience of the supernatural” being a euphemism for less educated and more credulous, which of course the priest doesn’t want to come right out and say is the best path to belief in Catholic nonsense.
Now that the world knows and understands that religion has been a fraud incapable of acting as it preaches and yet very capable of committing widescale atrocities and abuses on the most vulnerable and our children and then protecting itself, its power and its wealth are we expected to honor and respect them and their followers simply because of their belief in a fraud.What a horrible shame these religions have brought to society. These religions have spent years telling us about justice and rights and lo and behold they are shown to be the greatest abusers of these things.In times gone by people would be stoned to death simply for their ignorant participation in the atrocities of the Catholic church and its promoters. They should have the decency to remove themselves from any area of life dealing with social, community or health services and children until they can show that they have something of worth or value to bring to society.
You would think that this would cause some Catholics to shake their head and stay away next Sunday Service.
I have this vision of priests being trained like solders… running at large punchbags with holy water and a bible, yelling. Or, perhaps they start small by exorcising mice, and work up?
The CBS news coverage contained this lovely gem, sadly ablsent from the Times story:
“In 1999, the church updated the Rite of Exorcism, cautioning that “all must be done to avoid the perception that exorcism is magic or superstition.” “
Oooh yes, by all means avoid that perception.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John FitzGerald, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: The devil is the latest thing http://dlvr.it/8V0ZW […]
So, priests (men who have dedicated their lives to the edification of an imaginary friend) are going to determine who needs a psychiatrist and who does not? Makes sense to me.
Oh don’t worry Andy, they’ll be properly trained – the bishops’ conference is seeing to that right now, even as we speak.
How many times do they have to watch The Exorcist movie before they get their merit badge?
Maybe I can start offering “exorcisms” gnu atheist-style. Perhaps even a television commercial, like in Ghostbusters: Is your friend or family member acting strange? Talking to an imaginary friend? Speaking in tongues? Well we can help! (Instead of holy water, we could spritz the afflicted with formaldehyde or something—“The power of Darwin compels you! [spritz] The power of Russel’s Teapot compels you! [spritz]”)
Hey, Grendel’s Dad…
I would go further and say that the reason the church is reintroducing exorcisms is because The Exorcist (and also Exorcist sequels and prequels, Fallen, etc.) have shown that the concept of exorcism and possession plays well to the movie-going crowd. One example: The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which whitewashes a real incident, argues that priests should not be charged with manslaughter for killing a child during an exorcism, and made a fortune at the box office while having movie critics applaud the even-handedness of the script.
Basically, the church is reintroducing exorcisms because it’s good theatre.
The only people who need exorcisms are believers. They’re possessed with God beliefs. I would also go as far to say that they need counselling for psychological abuse.
Like hosting a Templeton-funded conference on ‘The Science of Exorcism’.
Buddhists view exorcism as being nothing more than a metaphor for expelling negative thoughts and transforming them into enlightened minds.
Muslims read some specific verses from the Quran.
In the meantime, Roman Catholics, in order to make sure that there is no violence to the *possessed*, or the **possessee** will tie the former down. Potential for violence, screaming and vomiting will enivitably be lurking around, while the devil detoxification is taking place with unholy Roman Catholics. Cruelty permeates almost every aspect of Catholicism.
Heathcliff knows all about supernatural drama!
So how is it decided whether your brother is psychotic or your brother is possessed?
My guess is it involves money.
The religious tried to vehemently beat the devil out of children in Goldenbridge all the time. Flogging children perpetually and asking them to show their tongues, to see if they were black, was common-place. One particular child with very pretty dark brown eyes was always told that she had the devil’s eyes, so she kept her head down for years; as she did not want anyone to see her ‘devil’s eyes.
The devil is so very real and children have always been taught to be so afeared of him. There is a gross monetary lucrativeness, plus a gargantuan power thing going on there in keeping the devil alive; as firstly it implants fear into the minds of young children; who then continually subconsciously recall the old fears when they are no longer children – and even as adults they find themselves running to the confession box to seek absolution from their sins and the temptations of the devil.
Hence the church reminding all at this spooky time of year in November, that ‘there are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists, but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil’. The devil fear factor must rule okay, to keep the church in business. It wouldn’t do for old detox Nick to collapse; who will be there then to keep the church afloat and to give it a boost? The GNU’S? :-666!
Anton LaVey once said, “The Devil is the best friend the Church ever had.”
By providing an archetypical boogeyman, the Church has taken the lucrative sales strategy of inventing a problem…and then selling the solution.
““People are talking about, are we taking two steps back?” Father Vega said. ”
No, Father Vega, you are demonstrating to everyone that you haven’t actually taken the two steps forward that you claimed you did. You’re still many steps behind the rest of us.
Walk toward t
To complete my post:
Walk toward the light!
(Its called the Enlightenment)
If the insane or gullible can be fleeced, far be it for the Catholic Church to turn their back on a business opportunity. By openly supporting the idea that possession is real, they’re hoping to increase their client base
I wonder if I need a CAT scan or not. Think I’ll ask a priest.
I don’t believe that the law recognizes demonic possession as a medical condition; certainly my health insurance company does not. So people who think themselves possessed in fact have a psychiatric problem. Wouldn’t that mean that in attempting to cure such patients RCC(USA) Inc. is practicing medicine without a license? Or do they have an unconstitiutional approval of government to do this?
@Jynx:
“the Church has taken the lucrative sales strategy of inventing a problem…and then selling the solution.”
By george, I think you’ve got it!
sailor1031, alas I would suspect in many places the traditions trump anything like rationality.
Exorcisms? In the 21st century? Appalling.
I think that’s a genuine issue in psychiatry, isn’t it? How (and if at all) to distinguish between mental illness and religious belief/delusion?
To paraphrase The Usual Suspects: “The greatest trick the Catholic Chuch ever pulled was convincing the world the Devil exists.”
I’ve just been reading an article on Exorcism
After 30 years as an exorcist, Father Malachi Martin has learnt to recognize the natures of the demons he pursues. They may be ingenious or stupid, coarse or charming, brazen or craven. Hell, it seems, is no place for stereotypes.
It wouldn’t do to paint them all with the one demonic brush at all.
http://starharbor.com/fr_martin/exorcism.html
But the Bible says that only on the last day can the followers of Satan return to Hell. Where they go, I do not know. We do not destroy them, we drive them out. Sometime I encounter the same ones again
So, now I know, from reading the article, that demons do not go away at all. Well, it wouldn’t do for the latter to disappear forever, as they would definitely defeat the object. If the Church was to utterly destroy them, it would be out of business.
Keep them moving around, hopping from atheists, accommodationists, unbelievers, lapsed Catholics, apostates, bankers. Those who do not toe the churches line, homosexuals, women-priests, secularists, humanists. agnostics, doubting Thomas’s and survivors of institutional abuse who speak out about the wrongdoing of the Church. Not to mention the very sophisticated folk that Fr Malachi mentions in the article.
I think a few leading theologians like Keith Ward and Alisdair McGrath should be asked to give their considered opinion about this, as well as such as Terry Eagleton and Karen Armstrong. I confess, I much prefer people like Bishop Paprocki who show us what religion really is.
IN fairness to the RCC in America, exorcism are only considered after the individual has undergone medicla evaluations by both psychiatrists and doctors in order to elminate any possibility the ‘possession’ is due to mental or physical illness.
In America, The Church is alerted to more than 400 possible ‘possessions’ every year, but of that number only 2 or 3 ( and sometimes none) are ever considered to be genuine.
It’s a similar process with miracles. When a potential miracle shows up, exhaustive medical/scientific studies are done to determine whether or not there is a rational cause. Very, very few of the cases can withstand this scrutiny, and so The Church is actually quite methodical, honest and open about these things.http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/Modern/?view=usa&ci=9780195336504
Google atheist doctor, historian, research scientist and university prof. ‘Jacalyn Duffin’ for more info on this.
“The religious tried to vehemently beat the devil out of children in Goldenbridge all the time. Flogging children perpetually and asking them to show their tongues, to see if they were black, was common-place. One particular child with very pretty dark brown eyes was always told that she had the devil’s eyes, so she kept her head down for years; as she did not want anyone to see her ‘devil’s eyes.”
Yes, when I was growing up and going to Catholic schools they did that sort of thing all the time.
You’ve an Irish name, and so I believe that most of your comments about the RCC are utter blarney.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/04/03/saintly-science-when-doctors-and-doubtersare-called-upon-to-prove-miracles.aspx
Sauder, the point is that the church (like everyone else) has no good reason to think that the devil exists or that possession by the devil is a genuine phenomenon or that exorcism can extract the devil from a human being.
Marie-Therese’s comments about the Catholic church are by no means blarney; she has intimate personal experience of its way with powerless people. She was imprisoned in Goldenbridge industrial school for her entire childhood.
Sauder, cancer is an ongoing arms race between the immune system and the random mutations of cells that have switched off their mortality gene–the gene that tells them to self-destruct when they have become aberrant. We all have cancer cells, but our immune system usually knows how to beat them. Every so often, cancer cells come up with variant that escapes detection, and the race is on. But even for the most deadly cancers, the immune system can still win the race. Some of these people will pray, but that has no bearing on the outcome.
Jynx’s comment puts me in mind of an observation I’ve made concerning First Things, in which I have noticed a predominant mood of despair. First Things doesn’t deal in hope; like all unscrupulous pill pushers, they first sell the disease. So it is with the devil. The Catholic Church is selling Evil to create a market for their product, Good(TM). But as with fundamentalists, you have to ask after a while, do they really believe in God as much as they believe in their precious Devil? And how long can you believe in evil that strongly without becoming it? Not long, if history is any guide. If the child is evil, what atrocities toward that child cannot be justified?
Sauder, cancer is an ongoing arms race between the immune system and the random mutations of cells that have switched off their mortality gene–the gene that tells them to self-destruct when they have become aberrant.
I completely agree. And the medical reasearcher in the article I mentioned IS an atheist. I merely wanted to say that the Catholic Church uses very rigorous and very scientific methods when determining whether a “miracle” has happened or not. Jacalyn Duffin’s reasearch and writings are very popular with other researchers in her field because they are so different, unexplainable and just fascinating.
She’s studied some 1,400 of them and taken together they make for a very interesting medical file. Some of the cases are just mind-boggling. Proof of the old adage that truth is stranger than fiction.
Marie-Therese’s comments about the Catholic church are by no means blarney; she has intimate personal experience of its way with powerless people. She was imprisoned in Goldenbridge industrial school for her entire childhood.
The Roman Catholic Church in Québec province was once very powerful and stories of abuse abound. However, with time those stories became more and more embellished as former orphans and such realised there was big money in it. At one point an orphanage run by the Grey Nuns was targeted. but a former orphan who had lived at that orphanage from the age of 5 to 16, and who knew many of the nuns being accused of every abuse on earth stood up and asked some hard questions. Since she knew many of the ‘evil’ nuns in question and had lived in very close proximity with them for years, she wondered why she hadn’t witnessed any of the abuse described in the victim’s testamonies. Later, several of those seeking compensation were found to have never even been to the orphanage in question.
Real abuse, though, DID took place, and those who did it should be punished and those abused compensated. However, over the past 15 to 20 years this whole movement has largely degenerated into a vulgar shakedown.
I might also note that an inordinately large pourcentage ( at least in N. America) of the clergy AND nuns charged with being abusers belonged to Irish orders and/or were of Irish descent.
IN addition, many of the abuser “priests” were merely homosexuals, and many had ongoing relationships with adult males at the same time they were absuing underage boys.
They weren’t repressed, and they weren’t oppressed by Catholic doctrine. They freely, enthusiastically, and consciously indulged their lusts and homoerotic impulses. Some were just vulgar, promiscuous drunks who didn’t give a hoot for Catholic theology, and who probably didn’t even believe in god.
But hey! The pay is great! The car and the house are free! And, to boot, you’re gay in any case.
That’s the basic portrait of the “repressed” abuser priest
Sauder, just out of curiosity, why would you deem it necessary to appear to be protecting the “tipsy women”? You say, Yes, when I was growing up and going to Catholic schools they did that sort of thing all the time. Meaning, from what I deduce, anyway, that what the Sisters of no Mercy did to children in Goldenbridge was/is acceptable? Because it was on a par to what happened in schools in Canada all the time? I’m rather baffled?
There were day-schools and there were industrial schools and orphanages. There were gargantuan differentiations between all these three institutions.
Judging from link below the GN seem as though they do not need anyone’s help. So I think you shouldn’t worry about the mere pittance that genuine ex-orphans received from the Canadian redress board.
Grey Nuns in Canada sell motherhouse for $18 million :: Catholic 4 Jun 2004. The Sisters of Charity of Montreal, commonly known as the Grey Nuns, have sold their downtown mother-house to Concordia University for CAD$18.
By the way, Goldenbridge was an ‘industrial school’, where children were interned via the judicial system. The systematic abuse that occurred in industrial schools in general covers a plethora of abuse. Physical/sexual abuse being only a part of it. Survivors of institutions have been challenging, not only the religious, but also the government and the judicial system. So the religious are only a part of it.
As for those who said they were “orphans” with the Grey Nuns, etc, when they weren’t at all. Sure, you get them the whole wide-world over. Nothing new about tricksters rearing their heads when there is a bob or two going for nowt. Well, for them ’twas for nowt. The church is indeed big enough to handle tricksters. They’re well used to them, that’s for sure!!
Sauder:
The tests carried out are clearly not scientific, as they require a different standard of evidence than do scientific claims. Consider the ‘miracle’ that was presented as part of Mother Teresa’s beatification. Monica Besra claimed that a beam of light emerged from a locket containing a picture of Mother Teresa and magically cured her cancer (from beyond the grave: this was after Mother Teresa died). However, several people disagree, including Besra’s husband and her doctors, who insisted that she had been receiving medical treatment for months and that the tumor wasn’t cancer in the first place, but a cyst which was healed by conventional medicine.
The miracle claim seems on very shaky ground to me. Science could not conclude that a miracle occurred. Any process that concluded a miracle could not be exhaustive, since it accepts testimony that supports the miracle conclusion and rejects those which don’t.
I’ve read about many such stories of supposed miracles that don’t stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny. Many putative miracles are certainly rejected, I don’t dispute that in the slightest. But this doesn’t imply that those accepted have been properly – let alone scientifically – investigated.
“The miracle claim seems on very shaky ground to me. Science could not conclude that a miracle occurred. Any process that concluded a miracle could not be exhaustive, since it accepts testimony that supports the miracle conclusion and rejects those which don’t.”
A “miracle” is just an event ( often medical in nature) that simply defies all rational and scientific explanations. Such unexplainable events, though, nonetheless occur. When one does, and if it involves some aspect of the Roman Catholic religion on the part of those who’ve undergone it, that unexplainable event is taken and placed in a box labelled “miracle” Also the frequency of such events is sufficient enough that The Church really doesn’t need to fudge the facts.
Unexplained and unexplainable healings ( cancer remissions and such) occur every week in the medical field, so church authorities can almost pick and choose their cases.
“Grey Nuns in Canada sell motherhouse for $18 million :: Catholic 4 Jun 2004. The Sisters of Charity of Montreal, commonly known as the Grey Nuns, have sold their downtown mother-house to Concordia University for CAD$18.”
Well, it’s not as though none of those nuns never did an honest day’s work. If the convent was worth 18 million, it’s can only be thanks to the work of the nuns who laboured in it. I had a Grey Nuns convent in my home town. All of its veiled denizens worked as teachers, nurses, administrators, music instructers…you name it. Those who didn’t were involved in support work; cooking for the other nuns, cleaning and general houskeeping etc.
An interesting anecdote: The grey nuns are officially known as “The Sisters of Charity”. The moniker “grey” is a reference to one’s pallour when poisoned by alcohol. Back in the 1700s when baking cookies and making strawberry preserves for the locals wasn’t enough to sustain the sisters, they’d sometimes resort to brewing booze and engaging in bootlegging.
Oh really? Ever heard of the Goldenbridge rosary bead factory?
An event that is not currently explained is just that. “Miracle” assumes more than that – it assumes that there is no naturalistic explanation. That is to assume too much.
Sauder
Do they really? Events that can’t be explained? Occasionally, things happen that science can’t explain? Have you told science? I think science will probably want to know.
I’m going to go right ahead and guess that you can’t and won’t provide us with an example of a supposed miracle that couldn’t very easily be explained by entirely non-supernatural means.
Prove me wrong.
Coincidentally, I see that the foundress of the Grey Nuns was a widow, as too was the foundress of the Sisters of Mercy, Mother Catherine McAuley.
Names do really stick. I note that the city residents mocked the nuns by calling them “les grises” – a phrase meaning both “the grey women” and “the drunken women”, in reference to d’Youville’s late husband, François-Magdeleine d’Youville (1700–1730), a notorious bootlegger.
Well, it’s not as though none of those nuns never did an honest day’s work.
I thoroughly agree with you. I’m sure they must have worked very hard in their chosen professional religious careers, as too did the very professional religious Sisters of Mercy. You must also take on board that the very dedicated hard-working nuns made personal life-choices to join their specific religious orders. They took vows of poverty. (Notwithstanding the vows of obedience and chastity to boot). The orphans on the other hand would in all likelihood not have made decisions to be in their care. They would not have been given the choice to not work in the orphanage, that is to say, if I were to draw comparisons with Goldenbridge and other institutions.
Religious orders in general are very wealthy institutions.
All of its veiled denizens worked as teachers, nurses, administrators, music instructors…you name it.
Most young women joined orders in order to get professional training. The prestige associated with being nuns and especially ex-tern educated ones, knew no bounds. They were middle-to high-drawer material. Parents’ yearned to have it to say that there were religious nuns or priests in their families. The latter were held in very high esteem in their respective communities.
Capitation grants that were paid to Goldenbridge inmates by the Government, ended up first and foremost in the coffers of Carysfort College, which was a breeding postulant teaching ground. A portion of the grants were then sent on to the institution to care for its child detainees.
I wonder how many of the orphans, I use that word lightly, who were in the care of the Grey Nuns were in the privileged position of becoming teachers, nurses, etc? If it’s anything to go by GB inmates I’d say they were very few and far between.
Society can’t have the underclasses taking over. They must at all costs be kept down, and who better to do it than obedient, subservient to superiors religious- all under the guise of charity and humility.
The Sisters of Mercy whose ethos it was to educate the poorest of the poor, managed only in over a hundred years, up to the mid-sixties, to educate to Leaving Cert standard, one solitary child in Goldenbridge industrial school. What an absolutely pathetically diabolical indictment on one of the most important principles that they gave their lives up for in order to see to the educational needs of defenceless poor children. The capitation grants certainly gave them status-standing, even in their communities, at the expense of the incarcerated children whose funding it initially some of it belonged. It is disgraceful. They made sure to educate most nuns, but to hell with the teeny untermenchen in their care.
I know nothing of Goldenbridge school. I know something about the Grey Sisters, however, and most of their wealth was generated by the hardv work and dedication of the nuns themselves. It is foolish to suggest that the order supported itself by forcing children to make rosaries. They were teachers, nurses, administraters, book-keepers and dontated most of their salaries to the order. And as for ‘miracles’, here’s the article again. It’s like The Vatican’s “X-files”
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/04/03/saintly-science-when-doctors-and-doubtersare-called-upon-to-prove-miracles.aspx