|
Post by Harris on Mar 10, 2010 17:52:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2010 15:50:06 GMT
My opinion of Fr. Amorth has come up in the exorcism thread in the "truth or superstition" section of the Forum. I do think he is a bit out there as Harris puts it . I linked to a post from another blog in which a Spanish exorcist complains that Amorth bases his claims on two sources - people claiming private revelations and alleged devils whom he is exorcising. (What more reliable source could one have than the second?) The traditionalist fringe go in a lot for tales of satanist conspiracies, and some charlatans like Malachi Martin have made a fast buck out of this. That being said, I would not be surprised to find the devil particularly active around the Vatican, given its importance to the Church, and certainly not all the staff are saints (there have been a couple of nasty scandals in recent years) but I am a bit sceptical about big conspiracy stories. I don't think the devil needs to intervene in person that often - he can usually find humans to do his work for him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Mar 11, 2010 19:45:46 GMT
Fr Amorth should perhaps say less. He does unfortunately excite some of the more simple-minded and superstitious elements on our side (insert usual nod here to our atheist friends who think that being Catholic and being simple-minded and superstitious are the same thing). But if you accept that there is a personal evil then it would not be surprising if it set out to weaken the Church, and discourage believers, by tempting its most high-profile representatives, the priests and bishops, into behaving disgracefully in the incidents of sexual abuse. One is not for a moment trying to excuse these men, because they are fully responsible for what they did, but it is not illogical to suggest that they were singled out for temptation. Fr Amorth might appear to be on weaker ground when he suggests that some prelates and priests who are a bit lukewarm on orthodox teaching might be influenced by Satan; but I don't think he is. A priest or bishop who is equivocal on matters of doctrine gives far more scandal and can do much more harm to people than the occasional pervert.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Mar 12, 2010 10:00:07 GMT
Fr Amorth is a well known and official Exorcist of the Vatican. And I think his judgment is worth noting. I totally agree with him. Not to mention that some prelats, bishops and cardinals might belong to what he calls "satanist sects", known also as Massonry. The problem of today's catholicism is that the role of the Devil, not only in the world, obviously, but also in some part of the church is real. It is a real pity and a danger to dispise the influence of the beast on our life, of course, and also in the church. If we look at the life of the saints, our Lord of course, but also, for example, Saint Padre Pio or Saint curé d'Ars, we can see that the devil is in action anywhere, anytime and to anybody if we do not protect ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 12, 2010 11:22:27 GMT
Fr Amorth should perhaps say less. He does unfortunately excite some of the more simple-minded and superstitious elements on our side (insert usual nod here to our atheist friends who think that being Catholic and being simple-minded and superstitious are the same thing). Perhaps you say the above in jest (I note the smiley face) however, if sincere, I don’t think this is fair comment. Having read posts from Inedifix, Hemingway and hazelireland on other threads I do not believe that they think having faith or a religious belief system equates to simple-mindedness. They do seem baffled as to why Catholics can believe what they do without what they term physical evidence, but I am sure they do not regard us as stupid. In fact they have posed some very thought provoking questions for myself. Some of their contributions on the "Not only for Catholics" section of the forum clearly convey these sentiments. I would recommend that members pop in there from time to time and help Hibernicus out a bit in his conversations with them. I am actually spending more time in that section of the forum than anywhere else of late as the debate is very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 12, 2010 11:36:45 GMT
Fr Amorth is a well known and official Exorcist of the Vatican. And I think his judgment is worth noting. I totally agree with him. Do you really think the Devil is in the Vatican? Is that not Fr Amorth and people who share similar views looking for some kind of easy explanation for the sins of these perverts? Instead of pointing the finger at the evil men who carried out these sick acts and the stupid Bishops who protected them, Fr Amorth is blaming the Devil for the actions of these men. I think we have to be more logical when it comes to this particular issue. Although Fr Amorth may be respected in some circles, I cannot subscribe to his point of view on this issue at all. The priests who carried out these dreadful acts did it for their own personal gratification and the bishops who helped cover these things up, did so to avoid embarrassment for the church. Whether the Devil is involved or not, I cannot say, but I do not agree that these acts were carried out purely on the instructions of St. Nick. Fr Amorth purely blaming the Devil, alleviates the guilt of these men (“Oh I couldn’t help it, it was the Devil taking me over. Please God forgive me!”) and in some people’s eyes will lessen the degree of the criminality of the act because the Devil was involved. In my opinion this is wrong. The acts themselves and the cover up in the aftermath have to be seen for what they were…… WRONG and CRIMINAL! I am readying for the onslaught from other members but I intend to put up a stern defence of my position.......
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 12, 2010 12:15:42 GMT
I think Harris is doing Fr. Amorth an injustice here. He tends to see the proximate intervention of Satan in every evil, so I don't think he is singling out clerical abuse here, any more than he is saying Stalin and Hitler were not responsible for their own actions when he claims they were diabolically possessed. Also, to be fair, there is a tendency for some types of evildoer to invoke the Devil, not necessarily because they believe in him but because they see it as a way of asserting their own strength (much in the same way as some business leadership manuals hold up Hitler and Attila as model leaders as a way of urging their readers to be focussed and ruthless). This would be problematic even if the devil didn't exist, but since he does, it is quite plausible that he will come when he is called and enter those who invoke him.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Mar 13, 2010 8:23:07 GMT
"The smoke of Satan had reached the Church", said famously Paul VI himself during the VII revolution. If You read my post regading this subject, I did not mention the sexual scandals. The way of evil is not only focused on those sins. But they are far more subtil. Regarding Prelats and some members of the Clergy being under the influence of Satan, means that there decisions, regarding the "management" of the CC, could be influenced in a way to please the ennemy of the Church and the Catholic Faith. I have no doubt some are Free Masons, which is concidered a satanic sect and is condemned by the Church (and particular the Great Leon XIII).
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Mar 13, 2010 20:15:14 GMT
I think Harris is doing Fr. Amorth an injustice here. He tends to see the proximate intervention of Satan in every evil, so I don't think he is singling out clerical abuse here, any more than he is saying Stalin and Hitler were not responsible for their own actions when he claims they were diabolically possessed. Perhaps I am being a bit hard on him. However I am sick to death of men not taking responsibility for their actions. You state "I don't think he is singling out clerical abuse here...", however the opening paragraph of the article clearly states: "Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist."I do not fully understand the reference you make to Hitler and Stalin in the above. They are mentioned in the article merely to inform us that the Father believe that they were both possesed by the Devil. The sad thing is, (and this is the real point I am attempting to make) that some people will read the statement "possesed by the Devil" and feel it lessens the dreadful acts these people carried out because they were not fully in control of themselves. An evil was at work inside them therefore they were not fully responsible. I think this is pish. People must take responsibility for their actions and not try to explain it away by lightening the load of their guilt by sharing some of the blame with the Devil. None of us are in a position to comment with 100% accuracy on the motives that drive people to do what they do, be it greed, evil, lust, possession, hate etc. But we are in a position to judge them in a court of law when they break the rules. And I personally want them to take responsibility for what they have done. These people claiming that they carried out wrongs because they were possessed does not fly with me. Also, to be fair, there is a tendency for some types of evildoer to invoke the Devil, not necessarily because they believe in him but because they see it as a way of asserting their own strength (much in the same way as some business leadership manuals hold up Hitler and Attila as model leaders as a way of urging their readers to be focussed and ruthless). This would be problematic even if the devil didn't exist, but since he does, it is quite plausible that he will come when he is called and enter those who invoke him. I cannot say if the Devil is at work here, but I must say that I am very sceptical of demonic possession. I am yet to be convinced by any reported case that I have looked into.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 15, 2010 17:08:16 GMT
Harris: I am more familiar with Fr. Amorth's writings than you are, and he has made this claim about Hitler and Stalin in the past. Fr. Amorth is claiming and has claimed in the past not that these men were sweet and innocent little lambs who were suddenly seized by the devil like a hawk swooping on small birds and made to do evil deeds like puppets without a will of their own. His claim, so far as I can make it out, is that these men already did evil and as a result were possessed by the Devil, who then led them to commit more heinous sins than they would have done to begin with, but which they would never have been led into had they not already turned to wickedness. Personally, I have no particular brief for Fr. Amorth as I have repeatedly stated on this thread and on the earlier thread in the "truth or superstition" forum. I think this sort of moral deterioration can be explained by the well-known fact that the practice of virtue over time tends to make you more virtuous while the practice of vice corrupts you further. (As Shakespeare's Macbeth puts it "I am in blood so steeped that should I wade no more/Return would be as tedious as go o'er".) I think demonic possession exists but is very rare and that morbid curiosity about it is a bad thing. If you want to raise the question of whether demonic possession exists at all, as distinct from the specific issue of Fr. Amorth's statement, I suggest you move the discussion to the exorcism thread. Incidentally, the question of whether satanists might exist withn the Vatican is a separate matter from demonic possession. Inversive rituals are fairly common among criminal subcultures (like the Mafia initiation where a saint's paper picture is burned in the initiate's hand), and there was a strong element of deliberate desecration and defilement in the actions of many paedophile priests (see Leon Podles' SACRILEGE if you can bear the details). this doesn't mean the devil intervened to make them do it; they did it as a way of exerting power over others and of acting out their resentments and frustrations.
|
|