|
Post by hibernicus on May 22, 2009 11:38:34 GMT
In relation to Fr. Amorth: I have no expertise on real-life exorcism (probably not an area where it is wise to indulge idle curiosity) but I confess that his book strikes me as a bit less sceptical than it should be. He claims that he sees many people who are possessed not as the result of any action of their own but because some other person has cast a spell over them by means of occult objects - I was under the impression that while you can be attacked or obsessed by the devil against your will (as happened with many saints) you can't be possessed without some degree of co-operation on your part. Fr. Amorth is an officially sanctioned exorcist and a preist in good standing but I have a nasty feeling that he and many of his clients are influenced by Italian folk-beliefs within the local version of Catholicism, and that many of them are either mentally ill or acting out conflicts within their families in this way. I'm not saying that everything he describes should be dismisssed - some of the cases he describes are evidently the real thing, involving knowledge which could only be obtained supernaturally etc, but it is important to keep one's critical faculties awake and not succumb to panic.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on May 22, 2009 12:44:04 GMT
Want to hear what a real possession is ? Want to hear a real exorcism ?
Just click.... GET YOUR HEART READY, BECAUSE IT IS TOUGH !!!!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 22, 2009 13:51:29 GMT
Now THIS is what I mean by idle curiosity. If she was really possessed, what good is served by listening to the voice of the Devil? If she was merely mentally ill, this is a dreadful intrusion on her privacy and her sufferings. I move we ask Guillaume to withdraw it.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on May 22, 2009 13:58:40 GMT
It is an interesting matter of interpretation to treat problems associated with adolescence as demonic possession. I know this may cross many parents' minds at this time. But the film maker seems to think the case is just a case of projection on the part of the girl. Surely the real life case involved a lot more than that.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on May 22, 2009 14:00:52 GMT
NO Way. This sounds to me real, and inspired the "Exorcism of Emily Rose" and even the "exorcism" film.... This sounds a real fact, a real event. Terrible, i Know.... But seems to be truth.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on May 22, 2009 14:12:22 GMT
Now THIS is what I mean by idle curiosity. If she was really possessed, what good is served by listening to the voice of the Devil? If she was merely mentally ill, this is a dreadful intrusion on her privacy and her sufferings. I move we ask Guillaume to withdraw it. and i won't withdraw it, just to show the atheists "friends" that demonic possessions are real, and that they all suffering from it. Sounds bad, horrible, terrible, but truth... sorry...
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 22, 2009 14:20:01 GMT
First, a minor clarification in relation to Alasdair's response on REQUIEM. The girl in the film is not presented as sleeping with her boyfriend on a regular basis while remaining rotherwise religiously observant. She does it once; the film seems to imply that she is trying to work out what it would be like to break with her parent's world and become what the film-maker would doubtless regard as a proper modern girl, but that her sense of what she is is so deeply tied up with the values of her upbringing that she eventually abandons the attempt and (to use the terms in which the film-makers would probably put it) regresses to the uncomplicated pirety of her childhood and tries to escape from the growing pains of adolescence by treating them as demonic and to be exorcised. I don't think the distinction defeats my point. The 1960s and 70s saw a lot of pious Catholics trying to come to terms with the world around them. Now things tend to be more polarised. The girl in the film tried to get away from her upbringing by ditching her virginity and then reverted to her faith - I am sure that happened a lot in real life and I have heard anectdotal evidence of women like this entering convents subsequently. Others reached a sort of co-existence which saw them both sleeping with boyfriends and practicing the faith. This hit Ireland later than Germany, but I witnessed it. I think the reaction of the devil at work was an extreme one, but nevertheless I was aware of circles indulging in activities such as playing with ouija boards, who later consulted priests due to weird events in their houses. I know I heard a lot of ghost stories as a student, but aside from a number of the cited examples, I did here stories about unexplained incidents in regard to persons and properties. And I have been hearing more about exorcisms on the grapevine in recent years than ever before.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 22, 2009 14:23:19 GMT
In relation to Fr. Amorth: I have no expertise on real-life exorcism (probably not an area where it is wise to indulge idle curiosity) but I confess that his book strikes me as a bit less sceptical than it should be. He claims that he sees many people who are possessed not as the result of any action of their own but because some other person has cast a spell over them by means of occult objects - I was under the impression that while you can be attacked or obsessed by the devil against your will (as happened with many saints) you can't be possessed without some degree of co-operation on your part. Fr. Amorth is an officially sanctioned exorcist and a preist in good standing but I have a nasty feeling that he and many of his clients are influenced by Italian folk-beliefs within the local version of Catholicism, and that many of them are either mentally ill or acting out conflicts within their families in this way. I'm not saying that everything he describes should be dismisssed - some of the cases he describes are evidently the real thing, involving knowledge which could only be obtained supernaturally etc, but it is important to keep one's critical faculties awake and not succumb to panic. This is why the Church, let alone people like Hazel or Harris, are skeptical of the area of possession. Incidentally, Catholics aren't the only people influenced by folk religion. I read recently about steps taken by a Jewish woman on a rabbi's advice to ward off the evil eye. But as Hibernicus says, some of the incidents related by Fr Amorth defy explanation. I have no doubt though, that the likes of Malachi Martin is sheer sensationalism.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 22, 2009 16:13:06 GMT
Since THE EXORCIST raises questions which are relevant to Guillaume's attitude about posting the Anneliese Michel recording on this forum, I will post about it now. THE EXORCIST falls into the category of pulp art which may be deeply flawed but nevertheless strikes a chord with a lot of people. Bram Stoker's DRACULA and its offshoots may be such another, and indeed the basic literary template for THE EXORCIST is Dracula. The prelude with the old exorcist/archaeologist Fr. Merrin encountering evil in the temple of the wind god Pazuzu in Iraq corresponds to DRACULA'S opening in Transylvania; Fr. Merrin himself is based on Van Helsing (who in Stoker's original is a priest-like figure, though not actually a priest, and employs Catholic sacramentals against Dracula); the central theme of an ancient evil appearing at the present-day centre of world power, amid the trappings of the latest technology, and having to be defeated by calling on ancient and half-forgotten spiritual resources is an exact copy of Dracula (we don't now realise how remarkably contemporary DRACULA's medical and technological references were when they appeared). The change from having a young adult woman as victim to a child may reflect the fact that it is appearing in a society which attaches much less value to chastity and virginity than Stoker's and in which women are less expected to rely on male protection, so that a child is more likely to evoke the required sense of victimhood and helplessness. (Stoker's Minna is by no means a helpless victim, but a brave and resourceful woman, but the second point still applies. The first point helps to explain why later adaptations of DRACULA especially since the sixties tend to present Dracula more or less explicitly as the hero and to suggest that he rather than Jonathan Harker is Minna's true love. I intend to post a bit on the horror genre on the Halloween post at some time in the future, and I will say more about DRACULA there.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 22, 2009 17:30:06 GMT
Any account of THE EXORCIST does have to take note of the very strong reasons against taking it seriously. The author of the book and screenplay, William Peter Blatty, comes from a Lebanese Maronite background. (I believe one of his grandfathers was a prominent Maronite theologian.) He was brought up by his devout mother after his father abandoned them. He was a scholarship-winner who studied English at Georgetown when it was more Catholic than it is today. He found fame and fortune as a scriptwriter on a number of comedy films which were risque to say the least. He underwent a period of religious disturbance in response to his mother's senility and death. (This is mirrored in THE EXORCIST by Fr. Karras's own relations with his mother; Fr. Karras is tormented by guilt because as a Jesuit with a vow of poverty he couldn't be with his mother, couldn't afford to pay for private healthcare and had to leave her to die in a public hospital. I somehow wonder if Blatty's mother, or perhaps Blatty in his younger days, wanted him to be a priest, and if there is an element of self-justification here. Blatty certainly identifies with Fr. Karras very deeply.) This took some very disturbing responses (according to Pauline Kael's hostile review of the film, Blatty said in TV interviews he tried to contact his mother by using mediums) and THE EXORCIST comes out of this. It is based on a real-life exorcism of a (Protestant) boy in the late 1940s which Blatty heard about when he was at Georgetown. (The case is surrounded in mystery. The exorcism is said to have been successful; the boy is still alive but refuses to give interviews, and I have heard claims, of what substance I don't know, that the thing was a prank which got out of hand.) It should be added that according to Biskind's account of Seventies US cinema, EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS, both Blatty and the director, William Friedkin (much of whose other work is anything but edifying) were known users of the casting couch. In addition, THE EXORCIST certainly pushed the envelope in terms of what could be tolerated on screen. The sexualised torment of the little girl, the foul language used by the demon, shocked many critics at the time. Furthermore the ending of the film as originally released could be read as nihilistic, as leaving open the possibility that the devil won by causing Karras to commit suicide. (Blatty's intention was that Karras should ultimately deliver the girl by getting the demon to possess him and then throwing himself to his death - in other words that his death is a form of self-sacrifice rather than suicide - and he meant to signal this by having a slightly more upbeat ending in which another Jesuit character befriends the Jewish detective who has been working on the case; this scene was omitted from the original director's cut though it has been added in the most recently released version. The first sequel, John Boorman's EXORCIST II - THE HERETIC is based on the assumption that the exorcism was incomplete and was disowned by Blatty and Friedkin. EXORCIST III - LEGION, directed by Blatty, was hacked about by the studio but is meant to affirm that Karras was a saint and is not responsible for actions carried out when the devil controlled his body.) Nevertheless, Blatty's conception of the film does include a serious theological point which is worth discussing. So what's that? Answer next week
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on May 22, 2009 20:04:00 GMT
Now THIS is what I mean by idle curiosity. If she was really possessed, what good is served by listening to the voice of the Devil? If she was merely mentally ill, this is a dreadful intrusion on her privacy and her sufferings. I move we ask Guillaume to withdraw it. and i won't withdraw it, just to show the atheists "friends" that demonic possessions are real, and that they all suffering from it. Sounds bad, horrible, terrible, but truth... sorry... My "friend" (to quote the generous title you lovingly bestow upon us heathens, all be it in inverted commas hinting at a tinge of irony.....), this recording does not show that demonic possession is real. I cannot verify what the source of the above material is. Therefore I cannot say with any confidence how controlled the recording was or under what circumstances it was made. I cannot analyse the data to satisfy myself of its authenticity. And why is there anadd for the Church of Scientology up there beside it? Kind of takes from the credibility of the other video don’t you think? I am not saying that there is no such thing as demonic possession, but this recording of what sounds like a very disturbed individual does not go any way to convincing me that there are demons. Its just noise and some still photos. I'd need a bit more evidence than that to change my stance. My heart goes out to that poor girl as she was obviously in some kind of distress, but thats the only comment I can make at this point. She may have been possessed by demons, but frankly the above recording doesn’t convince me of that. My uncle worked in a mentally disturbed wing of a hospital in the United States for some years and regularly told us stories of people growling for hours on end and scratching the walls like animals. These poor people were severely mentally ill. All the doctors could do was medicate them quite heavily to give them some peace. Its very sad but these things do occur unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on May 22, 2009 20:18:58 GMT
This is why the Church, let alone people like Hazel or Harris, are skeptical of the area of possession. Its not so much that I'm a skeptic but even my local priest is unconvinced. Some years back at a local function for the local Boy Scouts, we briefly chatted about possession (not exorcism per se I know but a related topic) and he was quite dismissive and laughed it off. He was even of the opinion that some of the demons described in the bible as possessing people were probably more likely to be individuals with afflictions such as epilepsy. I got the distinct impression from him that he thought it was a lot of nonsense. I, on the other hand, have never experienced any happenings that would be described as possession. I have never even spoke to anyone who has experienced it. They clergy rarely, if ever, speak of it either. Therefore, I am not a total skeptic, just surprised that this topic is taken as seriously as it is by many people who are acting on here say and second hand stories. These stories rarely come from the church, but rather from sensationalist sources. We have to be mindful of the agendas of others and not scream “Well if it sounds like demonic possession then damn it, it must be demonic possession!”. There are other alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on May 23, 2009 9:03:29 GMT
and i won't withdraw it, just to show the atheists "friends" that demonic possessions are real, and that they all suffering from it. Sounds bad, horrible, terrible, but truth... sorry... My "friend" (to quote the generous title you lovingly bestow upon us heathens, all be it in inverted commas hinting at a tinge of irony.....), this recording does not show that demonic possession is real. I cannot verify what the source of the above material is. Therefore I cannot say with any confidence how controlled the recording was or under what circumstances it was made. I cannot analyse the data to satisfy myself of its authenticity. And why is there anadd for the Church of Scientology up there beside it? Kind of takes from the credibility of the other video don’t you think? I am not saying that there is no such thing as demonic possession, but this recording of what sounds like a very disturbed individual does not go any way to convincing me that there are demons. Its just noise and some still photos. I'd need a bit more evidence than that to change my stance. My heart goes out to that poor girl as she was obviously in some kind of distress, but thats the only comment I can make at this point. She may have been possessed by demons, but frankly the above recording doesn’t convince me of that. My uncle worked in a mentally disturbed wing of a hospital in the United States for some years and regularly told us stories of people growling for hours on end and scratching the walls like animals. These poor people were severely mentally ill. All the doctors could do was medicate them quite heavily to give them some peace. Its very sad but these things do occur unfortunately. It is obvious that this poor girl was not suffering from a mental disease, but was really possessed. The sound of her voice tells us all. Like angels, demons exist as well. We all have a guardian angel, but also a "demon". This "guardian demon" - so to speak - represent the evil side of ourself. It will do everything to bring us to sin, to get away from holy things, prayers in particular. The Demon obeys the word of Satan, his master. Satan does not care about human being. It is not his will or wish. Satan's motivation is toward and against God only. Via the temptations, Satan is using the human creatures to humiliate God. When you prove your lack of faith, you actually do the will of Satan, to deny God, his existence. You like it or not, you believe it or not, this is a fact. Satan's evil influence to us, is motivated by his hate of God. We become instrument of Satan, not because the Devil "cares" about us at all, but because he is using us in order to displease God. We all possessed on somehow. As soon as we fall in sin, mortal sin, we become possessed. It is not a possession as visual as in the "exorcist" or the one saw in the video. But it is one. Obsession, for example, is also a form of possession. The Gospel reminds us many times of cases of possessions, in which Jesus had to intervene in order to heal the poor people affected. Saint Mary Magdelene, for example, suffered from a possession of 7 demons (she was a prostitute). Demons, like angels, exist big time.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on May 23, 2009 18:32:57 GMT
It is obvious that this poor girl was not suffering from a mental disease, but was really possessed. The sound of her voice tells us all. Like angels, demons exist as well. We all have a guardian angel, but also a "demon". This "guardian demon" - so to speak - represent the evil side of ourself. It will do everything to bring us to sin, to get away from holy things, prayers in particular. The Demon obeys the word of Satan, his master. Satan does not care about human being. It is not his will or wish. Satan's motivation is toward and against God only. Via the temptations, Satan is using the human creatures to humiliate God. When you prove your lack of faith, you actually do the will of Satan, to deny God, his existence. You like it or not, you believe it or not, this is a fact. Satan's evil influence to us, is motivated by his hate of God. We become instrument of Satan, not because the Devil "cares" about us at all, but because he is using us in order to displease God. We all possessed on somehow. As soon as we fall in sin, mortal sin, we become possessed. It is not a possession as visual as in the "exorcist" or the one saw in the video. But it is one. Obsession, for example, is also a form of possession. The Gospel reminds us many times of cases of possessions, in which Jesus had to intervene in order to heal the poor people affected. Saint Mary Magdelene, for example, suffered from a possession of 7 demons (she was a prostitute). Demons, like angels, exist big time. Wow...... Would any of the Catholic posters like to comment with regard to this reply?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 25, 2009 9:12:10 GMT
I think guillaume is exaggerating the concept of possession enormously. He seems to equate it with original sin.
|
|