AmericanPapist Comments
At the “Daily Mail” site, someone condemned the Church as if it were trying to say, “The devil made them do it, so they’re not responsible.” The critic also said Hitler and Stalin were psychopaths.
If they were true psychopaths, then: “not guilty by reason of insanity.”
If by their personal choices Hitler and Stalin brought themselves under demonic sway, then Hitler and Stalin are responsible for those choices.
To link the personal choices of Hitler and Stalin to evil is to hold them responsible (and, at times, some individuals make choices that open the way for demonic possession to occur).
By contrast, to tie the choices of Hitler and Stalin to psychopathology opens the way for excusing them for diminished responsibility.
'an exorcist tells his story'? or
'an exorcist gives a thorough, scientific and documented exposition on his life's work' ?
I thought it was the former.
I find it unfair to claim that his claims are silly. What is the source for this claim?
anon - someone who claims to have personally conducted over 30,000 exorcisms has no right to practice the craft. The list for Amorth, sadly, just starts with silly assertions like that.
I have always had a major problem with Fr. Amorth's claims. He has made absolutely ridiculous statements, including as has been pointed out the claim to practice over 30,000 exorcisms. In a field where a single exorcism often takes multiple visits over the period of months, and where most diocese would be running a bit high to have 10 in one year, Fr. Amorth claims to have done over 9 eac day. Something is greatly amiss.
His appointment is limited to the Diocese of Rome, of which the Pope is Diocesan Bishop. He is not an "universal papal exorcist", as the story seems to imply, but merely chief exorcist for the Roman Diocese. He is Pope Benedict´s chief exorcist only in the sense that the Pope is the local Bishop of the Roman Diocese. What is more, I believe that he is appointed to the office of Rome´s chief exorcist is made by the Pope´s Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Ruini, who manages the daily affairs of the Diocese on the Bishop of Rome´s behalf. If that is correct then he is not a direct papal appointee.
People who think Hitler was possessed because of the things he did should have a look at the chilling number of white-supremacist types out there who agree with his "racial cleansing" policies wholeheartedly. These people aren't possessed; they are, of course, guilty of embracing evil. That's a different thing, as Fr. Stephanos points out.
Regarding the possession of entire populations: Isn't excorcism a part of every baptism? (CCC 1237)http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/
catechism/search.cfm
What do you think he means by 30,000 exorcisms? Is it his way of say "a lot?" Perhaps he just has an odd way of telling his story...he wouldn't be the first Italian...
Regardless, I think the chief exorcist of Rome is more in grade to state if Hitler/Stalin were possessed or not, though of course only God probably knows for certain.
Do you have by chance the original Italian of the interview? (if it was in Italian, that is)
Interesting. Thomas, your father's article made some valid points. But maybe he exorcised 30,000 demons, instead of performing 30,000 exorcisms? Think about it, when a person is possessed, aren't there more than one demon? Sometimes as many as 30? I guess someone could work the math out and see what's possible....
In any case, I do believe in exorcism, because, duh, Jesus did it and gave that power to his Apostles. That being said, the guy kinda sounds a little loony. Working with possessed people might make one a little ... off.
Regardless of whether or not Fr. Amorth meant 30,000 exorcisms or 30,000 demons, there is still something wrong with the number, because he has also given the number of 60,000 (or something thereabouts, I do not recall precisely). In fact, he provided these numbers in two seperate interviews less than a year apart.
I don't know if anyone has come across this but I remember reading in God and the World, Cardinal Ratzinger mentions Hitler as being so terrified by the devil. I don't know if he meant this as possession or obsession.
Well I agree it's an incredibly high number. It's really unbelievable. The man is probably exagerrating.
Why would Hitler be terrified of the devil? Shouldn't he have been terrified of God? Maybe Hitler saw too much of himself in Satan and didn't like what he had to see.....
I have read Fr. Amorth's book and frankly I can't believe anyone would nitpick over the NUMBER after reading the book. Who cares how many he did in a year, in a day, in an hour?? Maybe the translation from Italian to English was screwed up. Every think of that?
I think the book is incredible. I was very, very impressed and I told several friends about it. A few of them immediately went and read it. We are not people easily fooled, mislead, or inclined to pious drama. In fact, we LOOK for stuff to be horsecrap!
Forget this nonsense about the numbers. Read the book. What he talks about is SO important. It is not outlandish. I believe everything he says in that book.
Oh, and I meant to add: Fr. Amorth is not the first person to trace Hitler to demonic possession. Read 'Salvation is From the Jews'. The author of that book mentions that Hitler was deeply involved in the occult and that indeed his entire "program" of Aryan supremacy is tied in with specific types of occult activity. It's covered in one of the chapters in the book. It is a GREAT book, by the way.
"The man is probably exagerrating."
And Andrew, you know this because? Where you there for his 30 years of working in this ministry? For heavens sake, you are discounting the man's entire story because a news article quoted his numbers wrong?
None of you have the right to call this man a liar. Please save your verbal attacks for people who want to abort babies and sell abortion pills to 14 year olds. Not an old priest who has given his life to serving those poor souls suffering from demonic activity--a misery NONE of us could begin to imagine.
miss B,
Did you read the link to Mr. Peter's review of the book? What do you think of the many contradictions he found in it?
Dimbulb,
I read it. I don't know who Dr. Peters is or what his field of acadamia is, but his "review of problems" is pathetic. Having read the book I really, really am stunned by Dr. Peters nitpicking. And it is nitpicking. One example is his observation that Fr. Amorth has no bibiliography. Tell me, how do you write a bibliography for a book about your person experiences with demonic activity?? How DO you write that? And then Dr. Peters mockery of the Fr. Amorth's story about the man who cursed his son, with the result that the boy was plagued his whole life "with unemployment" and various other things. Folks, THAT is how a curse works. Curses are part of black magic. Black magic is part of witchcraft. Witchcraft is part of satanism. Curses ARE demonic activity and like all demonic activity, requires an exorcism to be rid of it.
Since you asked me, I find Dr. Peters review to be extremely unsettling.
Dr. Peters is a canon lawyer and well-respected in the Catholic blogosphere and in the Catholic Church in general in the United States.
Miss B., No I wasn't there, and I don't claim to be. It was a conjecture that he was (and is) probably exagerrating. I've never read his book, but it seems to me that writing something that sensational calls into question the authenticity of the rest of the "facts" in the book. According to Dr. Peters, there didn't seem to be too much documentation. And you know, there needs to be in these kinds of incidents. Maybe, eyewitness accounts???
By the way, Dr. Peters is AmericanPapist's father.
Miss B., Fr. Amorth claims to have performed over 9 exorcisms per day. The vast majority of diocese do not have this many in a single year, and unless I am mistaken, their territories are generally much greater than that which Fr. Amorth is responsible for.
More importantly is the fact that Fr. Amorth claims in his book to have disobediently performed exorcisms without receiving the approval of the local ordinary. When it comes to judging apparitions, disobedience to the bishop is taken as evidence of demonic activity. I am not accusing Fr. Amorth of being posessed or anything of the sort, but I am pointing out that he is practices behaviors of the very evil he speaks of battling against.
I read "God and the World" in German ("Gott und die Welt"), and to me it is quite clear that Ratzinger believes Hitler was connected to something demonic. I try to translate the passage:
[Ratzinger]: Surely we cannot say that Hitler was the devil; he was a man. But there are credible eyewitness reports that can make us think that he had a kind of demonic encounter, that he said trembling "He was there again" and so on. We cannot see through this. But that he indeed was somehow, in a deep way, held into the space of the demonic, this, I think, we can see in the way he was able to exercise power, which terror, which doom his power gave reason to.
Sorry for the poor translation. (Then) Ratzinger uses a very cautious language, but I think it is obvious what he wants to say.
The story about a "long distance" exorcism I already heard before - though I can't say if it was Amorth who told it then.
Victor, this is exactly what I read. This was definitely some sort of demonic infestation.
"I've never read his book"
Right. But you're making judgments off it based on someone else's opinions. Dr. Peters may have all the smarts in the world and be a wonderful person, but he is only expressing an OPINION. You should read the book and draw YOUR own conclusions, not form opinions based on someone else's views.
"By the way, Dr. Peters is AmericanPapist's father."
And I still disagree with his assesment. Everyone is entitled to their own conclusions. It doesn't mean Dr. Peters is right or wrong. I happen to disagree with him and frankly, I didn't think the "problems" he mentioned warranted being pointed out. They just weren't major enough to discount Fr. Amorth's entire book.
" Miss B., Fr. Amorth claims to have performed over 9 exorcisms per day."
I understand that, Shane. I read the book! And I have seen half a dozen comments posted here already stating that Fr. Amorth claimed to do NONE EXORCISMS A DAY. Good heavens, I'm sorry he didn't have time to do 20 of them a day!!
Shane--and all you others who seem to feel it so important to call into question Fr. Amorth's honesty--let me ask you a serious question: how many patients do you think a doctor sees on an average day? I mean total: check-ups, surgery, administering medication, etc. How many? Do you think he sees 9 patients a day? Or more?
"More importantly is the fact that Fr. Amorth claims in his book to have disobediently performed exorcisms without receiving the approval of the local ordinary."
Where is your proof for this accusation, Shane? I read the book and there was no such admission. Please provide a source.
A doctor can see around 50 patients a day. And that's a fairly typical day. But it seems you're comparing apples and oranges. Aren't exorcisms supposed to take awhile? Hours, days? even weeks? I'm still skeptical that any priest could perform 9 exorcisms a day.
Let me ask you Miss B., WHY do you come to the defense of Father Amorth? Has he done anything for you? Why don't you try convincing us that it's possible that a priest could perform 9 exorcisms a day?
Please don't brush off my questions. My opinions are constantly changing, based on what reliable sources have to say. I just don't think it's possible to do NINE exorcisms a day.
Shane--and all you others who seem to feel it so important to call into question Fr. Amorth's honesty--let me ask you a serious question: how many patients do you think a doctor sees on an average day? I mean total: check-ups, surgery, administering medication, etc. How many? Do you think he sees 9 patients a day? Or more?
Of course doctors see more than 9 per day, but the comparison is not even as close as apples and oranges. It is the norm for doctors to see many patients per day, and there is no rule prohibiting this. It is not the norm for an exorcist to see that many posessed people per day. It is not the norm for an entire diocese to have that many exorcisms in a year.
Aside from Dr. Peters' statements that Fr. Amorth makes it pretty obvious he did ad hoc exorcisms frequently is the fact that it would be impossible to perform 9 exorcisms per day and actually have gotten the approval of the local ordinary. Doing that for one case requires extensive investigation by ecclesiastical, medical, and psychological experts, not to mention the time it takes to get anything to the attention of the bishop. It is simply impossible for Fr. Amorth to have performed 9 exorcisms per day without violating Church authority.
I lived in Italy for five years. If I ever meet an Italian who doesn't exagerate, I'll eat my hat. Really.
An exorcism need not take hours or weeks. Here is a real life example: My friend met a lady on the street who claimed she was possessed and needed an exorcism. They were near the Vatican (we were seminarians in Rome at the time). So he took her to that little church inside the porta Sant'Anna and went into the office, and said "I'd like to see an exorcist."
The secretary said "have a seat, it'll be just a moment." He got a kick out of that.
So Fr. Amorth came out, and took the lady off his hands. I don't yet see the reason why he couldn't have said the rite of exorcism and then kicked the lady out. A 20 minute meeting.
I know that it normally takes time to discern whether an exorcism is called for.
But if there can be expertise in all other fields, why not in this one?
"Fr. Amorth has enough experience to make a quick diagnosis." Can anyone disprove that statement? If not, I'd think it should be assumed, out of respect for his office and his years of experience.
Further, it is said that he needs the permission of the ordinary to perform an exorcism. Likewise, a priest needs permission of his ordinary to release someone from excommunication --- but in the Church, these types of permission can easily be delegated, so that the ordinary need not get involved at all.
Given that so many priests and bishops deny the existence of fallen angels (and good angels too, for that matter) I'd think we should approach Fr. Amorth's writings with great deference to his unique expertise.
"Let me ask you Miss B., WHY do you come to the defense of Father Amorth? Has he done anything for you? Why don't you try convincing us that it's possible that a priest could perform 9 exorcisms a day?
Please don't brush off my questions. My opinions are constantly changing, based on what reliable sources have to say. I just don't think it's possible to do NINE exorcisms a day."
I don't even know Fr. Amorth--what a silly question. "Why don't you try convincing us"...Please don't talk to me like I'm a jackass, Andrew. It's uncalled for. I defend people whom I think are worth being defended. I don't need to know them and they don't to have "done something for me". If you defend the Pope...is it because you know him personally?
I read a book that I think is about a subject that is important, over-looked and misunderstood. And you and others (some of whom haven't even read the book!) can only find fault because things were written by Fr. Amorth that you don't understand, either because you are uninformed or miseducated on the subject. You should not be criticising me for defending him. Rather, you should be asking yourself why you NEED for him to be wrong.
Andrew, the reason I asked you that question before answering YOUR question was to set myself up for my answer. Which is this: it is not apples and oranges, AND I don't think you know much about exorcisms. Have you read Fr. Amorth's book--or, nevermind him, how about ANY solid sources on exorcisms and demonic possession? If you had, you would know that exorcisms are "nothing more" than a series of prayers. Exorcisms are not--as commonly erroneously understand--ONLY for casting out demons.
The very first reason for an exorcism is so that the priest can discover if there is demonic activity present in the individual. That's the very, very first reason for an exorcism. To discover if there is demonic activity. Maybe there is none. The priest would then be able to recommend that the individual seek medical intervention of some kind for their illness. In his book, Fr. Amorth is absolutely clear that the first step is to find out if there is demonic activity and that, if not, the individual needs to see a doctor (or a shrink).
Second step: If the demonic presence shows itself in some way then the priest will continue doing the exorcisms until the individual is liberated. That can happen in one single exorcism or several over months and years.
So yes, Virgina, there really is a Santa Claus! Just in the same way that a doctor can see 50 patients in a day, so any exorcist (not just Fr. Amorth; he doesn't have magical powers) can see 9 patients in a day. Maybe the reason that Fr. Amorth didn't see MORE than 9 a day is for the simple fact that many poor souls who suffer from demonic activity don't know why they are ill. Many people do not believe in satan and thus, will continue looking for help through medical doctors and mental health professionals.
"It is not the norm for an exorcist to see that many posessed people per day."
That's because they are not always possessed! It's amazing that you can speak so forthright about a subject that you are obviously ignorant of. Look, I'm not trying to be mean to you or make you feel bad. But you are simply UNINFORMED and you continue trying to make Fr. Amorth out to be a liar by using UNINFORMED statements to "prove" that he's a liar. I explained it more in the post above, but I'll address this one issue AGAIN briefly:
A priest performs THE FIRST exorcism in order to FIND OUT if there is a demonic presence. He does NOT--as you stated and as many people mistakenly believe--perform an exorcism because "the person is possessed". The priest doesn't even know if the person is possessed yet. Only in some cases does the demonic presence show itself in an obvious way (like the little girl in 'The Exorcist') before an exorcism, but even in that case the priest does the exorcism to be SURE it is demonic and not just that the patient is mentally unbalanced. So, the priest must first establish that there is demonic activity.
THAT, Shane, is the purpose of the first exorcism. So you are incorrect when you said that Fr. Amorth couldn't possibly see that many possessed people in one day. Out of 9 patients Fr. Amorth might have discovered demonic activity in ONE person...or in none of them at all.
Is the first exorcism permitted prior to any medical investigation or the permission of the local ordinary? If the answer is no to either of those cases (which I strongly suspect that it is), then there is still a very big problem.
Shane, I'll be honest: I don't know the answer to that one. If it was mentioned in the book, I don't remember it. But from what I DO remember there isn't a DEMAND for medical review before simply doing the first exorcism but usually the individual has ALREADY done all that just by necessity, to find out what is wrong with him, and going to the priest is almost always a last option. In fact, on most cases the first thought in their minds is NOT "this person must be possessed". The first thought is "let's get this person to a shrink or a doctor". Often it is someone near the person who says "you might need a priest for this". AS for ecclesial permission... I honestly don't know if permission is necessary from the bishop for the very first exorcism(usually priests don't need permissions to pray!)...however, I believe that if after that first exorcism demonic activity is discovered then the priest would need permission from his authorities to continue with this person. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember it this way. The case would need to be reviewed, perhaps a second priest would be brought in for a second opinion, and there are various things which are necessary to do further exorcisms. But I don't know the answer to your question right off hand 100%. I would have to either look through the book or search online and right now I don't have a whole lot of time for either. But if you are sincerely interested in knowing you can leave a message at my board (you don't even have to join if you don't want to--just post as a guest) and tell me how I can get in touch with you when I have the answer. I know some good priests, so I could probably get the answer with one phone call or email.
BTW, Shane, remember: Fr. Amorth was the head exorcist of the diocese of Rome. Thus, his Bishop is THE POPE. I seriously doubt he was off performing 9 exorcisms a day WITHOUT permission and the Bishop wouldn't know about it!
But, I'll see what I can find out...
Miss B.
I disagree for you completely. Fr. Amorth is one of the most respected Catholics there is, not to mention he has fought a battle against the evil one that none of us could even think of.
Commenting by HaloScan
