Well you have to be careful when you take this at face value. I know Fr. Skluzacek -- I have not doubt he said the things he said about the cost to clean up -- but I'd bet you that his real concern is a lot deeper and spiritual. I'd guess that reporter chose to 'spin it' that way.

Is it wierd, yeah you bet. Bishop Flynn is a good and holy man, but he's choosing to act that is less 'direct' than many people would have him.
Joel Neisen | 11.24.04 - 4:48 pm | #

Just to cast a different light on the "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" cleric - Fr. Michael was my spiritual director when I was in the college seminary in St. Paul. He's a solidly orthodox guy, and a very holy priest (as an example, he brought the Nashville Dominican Sisters into his last parish, St. Michael's in Stillwater). I know that he's very concerned about the Rainbow Sashers in general and particularly at the Cathedral. He's not one to encourage or even tolerate dissent of any kind. I'm sure that the newspaper simply chose the quotes they needed or wanted for their article.
Knowing him, and considering him to be a good friend and one of the very good priests out there, I'd hate for Fr. Michael Skluzacek to get portrayed incorrectly. Plus, I think he's right in saying that, regardless of the intention of those who did this act, it was a very disruptive thing.
Tim Ferguson | 11.24.04 - 4:54 pm | #

I was at one of the masses that day -- Fr. Ralph said the mass. Handled the Rainbow Sashers beautifully, firmly asking them not to receive if they insisted upon wearing the sash (but did not deny them the Sacrament). He took a fair amount of abuse from them after mass. He also asked people to not attempt to prevent anyone from receiving, and last year's vigilantes were obedient to the admonishment to not take matters into their own hands. Things went smoothly and mass was prayerful. Although I can understand the frustration, I'm sad to hear that someone wasn't obedient and decided they were holier than these two wonderful priests.
Anonymous | 11.24.04 - 5:15 pm | #

Weird is Weird, which breaks the rule: I before E, except after C.

Email me for spelling help, and donate at my Homepage. I lost everything bluffing a Poker machine on an inside straight.
John C | Homepage | 11.24.04 - 5:16 pm | #

What impression should the media have when the local church offers up only words? Reading other articles about previous Rainbow Sash incidents at this church, one can only conclude that the church is at best indifferent to this movement. Please don't post CCC documents and other such things trying to refute this. The doctrine on the church is clear on homosexuality; many of its members are lukewarm. Not everyone that cries Lord, Lord will see the kingdom of heaven. For the clergy that merely pontificate rather than shepherd, what will become of them?
Michael Forrest | 11.24.04 - 5:21 pm | #

Call me cynical, but I'd like some proof that the people who did this were the ones who gathered to pray about the desecration of the Holy Sacrament. What proof do we actually have of who might of done this? The rector seems to think it was done by those opposed to the Rainbow Sash crowd, but is he jumping to conclusions? Did the head of the pastoral office on sexual minorities really get an e-mail, or are we just supposed to take his word for it? And even if he did, it doesn't prove that the person who wrote the e-mail committed the act. This just seems like such a great PR ploy for the Rainbow Sashers that I think it deserves special scrutiny before anyone assumes anything.
Judy M. | 11.24.04 - 5:40 pm | #

I also know Fr. Mike from a retreat we attended. I believe him to be very orthodox and committed to the Faith. One must remember that he just took over as the rector of the Cathedral earlier this year (the seat of the Bishop), and he is not in a very good position to "root out" a Rainbow Sash organization which was well-established. This whole thing looks worse for the Bishop than the rector. The other Rainbow Sash incidents in MN were actually across town at the Basillica in Minneapolis. MN is a very "blue state" with a large and active urban gay community. I doubt the "sashers" can be so easily disbanded by the Archdiocese.
cursillo | 11.24.04 - 6:06 pm | #

Here are two good reference points to put this story in context: The first is an article that appeared in last week's diocesan paper regarding the vandalism. The other is an editorial about how the RS folks are wearing out their welcome.

http://www.thecatholicspirit.com...hp? article=3060

http://www.thecatholicspirit.com...hp? article=3070

I myself really like Fr. Skluzacek and Archbishop Flynn and believe them to be true men of the Church who are trying to do the right thing. But I think the archbishop was a little naive in taking the RS leaders at their word. After this second incident, I'm reminded of the adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
a jay | 11.24.04 - 6:20 pm | #

Thanks 'a jay' for the articles. I'm also sympathetic to Judy's opinion on this matter.

Without calling Archbishop Flynn disengenous, I do have difficulties seeing his prudential judgement. The Rainbow Sashers actions could not be confused for anything but a protest IMHO. VOTF and other groups I would consider to be heretical as well. I would not deny communion myself; I would go straight to excommunication. Only one other Bishop in the US seems to think that is appropriate though. Though I admired Archbishop Burke's actions, I considered his actions quite moderate. (That is not to say that I disagreed with him. His stewardship has down wonders for the Church.)
Michael Forrest | 11.24.04 - 6:43 pm | #

Wasn't St. Patrick's in NY officially exorcised for incidents of desecration of the Eucharist?...or was that for the sexual activity instigated by the radio show?? Often there is fear of worse desecrations if a firm stand is taken publicly against such sasher actions based on what has taken place before by such groups as ACT UP.

If they had just used Holy Water, only they and God would have known!
Chris Kelly | 11.24.04 - 9:12 pm | #

And only those who have the order of Exorcist (and that would include anyone in Major Orders) have the power to exorcise, anyway. Read carefully the prayers permitted for use to the laity and you will see that these lack the "I command you" element that the official prayers have.

Spoiling of a holy place (by oversaturating it with salt and oil, especially by an improper minister) is itself a sacrilege, albeit not equal in immensity to desecration of the Holy Eucharist. But any sacrilege is a grave sin.
Charles M. de Nunzio | Homepage | 11.24.04 - 10:10 pm | #

Was reminded of Apostle Paul's warning: "do not say, 'let us do evil that good may come out of it.'" Or- another case of Good Intentions Bad Results. Like Ron Artest objecting to having soda dumped on his jersey, while sprawled on a scorer's table. Taking swings at Pistons fans was not a good response. Neither was dumping salt and oil in a cathedral.
Gerard E. | 11.24.04 - 10:49 pm | #

I'm sorry, "very disruptive" and 'costing thousands of dollars" to remove olive oil and salt that was sprinkled? "Destruction of property"? "Acts of violence"? You've got to be kidding! We've had enough rain to remove it all, anyway. Does it occur to anyone that this was probably done by valid priests?

It is *possible* that this priest is not as straight and orthodox as you imagine him to be -- if he really said those things. We had a -great- pastor in another State once, who was solidly orthodox, except he would chastize the congregation for thinking that homosexual offenders shouldn't take communion. Then he was found dead by his own hand, with a drawer full of sodomite porn.

But I see that the St. Paul police consider Judaism (and Christianity) to be hate crimes, and that the Vatican is a "fringe group."

As to "less direct than some would like" How about the One Whose Body and Blood are being desecrated? You think He might have something to say?

Is there really a "pastoral office on sexual criminals////"sexual minorities"??

Cursillo, outside of two counties of the Cities, and the traditionally DFL Iron Range counties, Minnesota bleeds red. Maybe the archbishop needs to get out more.
Puzzled | 11.25.04 - 3:22 am | #

+J.M.J+

Puzzled: read the second article "a jay" linked to above. It says that "oil was spilled on the stone all the way around the Cathedral and also smeared on some of the doors", and "salt was spilled in all of the donation boxes around the Cathedral".

This is not proper procedure, so I highly doubt a priest would do such a thing. And lay people cannot "reconsecrate" a church; we have no such authority. Abusing sacramentals is sacreligious, and devout Catholics should know better. Even the antics of dissident groups like "Rainbow Sash" cannot justify the abuse of something sacred.

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.25.04 - 8:48 am | #

"There's the bogus claim that people who oppose homosexual behavior think gays and not their sinful acts are "evil".

I'd say that was just intellectual laziness, complicated by victimhood. Even a comparatively obvious distinction - between the actor and the act - is hard for a mind accustomed to sloppy thought processes. Add into the equation the extent to which homosexual orientation tends to become an identity, and it isn't difficult to understand, I suppose.

Puzzled - Oil is extremely hard to remove from a stone surface, particularly if it's a porous stone like limestone. It requires steam under pressure to get it all out, and the cost could easily run into the thousands.
Elinor | Homepage | 11.25.04 - 9:39 am | #

Joel, Wake up. I spoke at some length with the diocesan spokesman, and he told me that the Rainbow sashers had written to Flynn months ago and told them they were coming and why they were doing what they were doing. Apparently Archbishop Flynn's "compassion" does not extend to the rescue of the immortal souls of sodomists, or to those who are trying to convince him that his duties lie in upholding the Catholic Faith, not championing evil. I asked why the addition of holy oil and blessed salt could have caused 'thousands of dollars of damage' and he said that they had steam cleaners in there because it 'stained the stone'in their beautiful cathedral. Yeah? well, funny I don't remember when holy oil was declared a health hazard. If the police decide to charge this fellow with a hate crime, I wonder if the compassionate Flynn will clear the air and explain Catholic doctrine of the love we have for homosexuals extending to the hatred for the sin that is killing their souls. That I would like to see.
hilary | 11.25.04 - 10:11 am | #

Judy, McGrath told me that the guy who tried to exorcise the cathedral is definitely not a part of any of the groups who protest when the R.S's show up. I noticed that the aritcle, in artful journalistic fashion, while not exactly coming out and saying that the groups did it, certainly make that impression the easiest one to reach.
hilary | 11.25.04 - 10:15 am | #

Hilary

My personal opinion on this is probably very close to yours. If I were the archbishop, I would do thinks very differently -- but I'm not.

Someone else commented that Bishop Flynn is being naive WRT to the RS-ers. I don't think they want peaceful dialogue -- they simply want their way and will employ whatever tactics they think will achieve that. The RS-ers are the ones causing the real disruptions.
Joel Neisen | 11.25.04 - 10:32 am | #

There is no order of Exorcist anymore. It was suppressed with all the the other minor orders.
Geoff | 11.25.04 - 11:40 am | #

+J.M.J+

True, the minor order of exorcist was suppressed, but priests still have that office, and lay people are *forbidden* to act as exorcists.

We can pray that God "deliver us from evil", we can pray to Blessed Mother and St. Michael the Archangel for protection against the Devil and evil spirits, but we are not allowed to command the spirits ourselves or perform an exorcism.

It's a question of obedience. A lay person who tries to perform an exorcism is disobeying the Church, and disobedience is a sin. So if a lay person attempted that ersatz exorcism he committed a sin of disobedience on top of sacrilege.

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.25.04 - 12:07 pm | #

You comment about Fr. Michael Skluzachek, a holy and orthodox priest. I know him. He's not the problem. If anything, he will bring some sanity back to a situation that he was thrust into when he assumed the job of cathedral rector just months ago. Pray for him.

The article you refered to quotes Dr. David Pence, whom I also know, as against damaging the cathedral property by dousing it with oil and salt. David is a firebrand of orthodoxy and a very good man whose stand is that people wearing sashes are in danger of sacrilege. I agree on that, and also agree that they should not be allowed communion.

What was NOT reported in the Duluth News Tribune article was that Fr. Skluzacek asked the responsible person to come and talk with him. Whoever it is that did this renegade act should do just that.

This whole Rainbow Sash farce has gone too far. It is time for it to end. The body and blood of Jesus Christ is made into a political thing, which is the heart of desecration. I can understand the impulse to exorcize the building, in which I have spent many quiet hours of prayer. I hope and pray that the archbishop, also a holy man, will soon agree.
Richard Waterfield | Homepage | 11.25.04 - 1:27 pm | #

Here is another story of a Cathedral being vandalized in Montreal a few years ago. No charges were laid. In Canada the politics of the offender and whom they hate are big factors concerning whether charges will be laid.

http://catholiceducation.org/art...on/ pch0016.html
Lorenz | 11.25.04 - 3:12 pm | #

Until shown otherwise, I have a real problem with trying to blame this crime on orthodox men. The CW goes that these men were so holy and pious that they could not bear the desecration of their church, and so they exorcized the church using unorthodox means and methods. All the evidence in the case shows that this was done not methodically, but sloppily. There also seemed to be a specific intent to cause destruction of property. Secondly, who is more likely to confuse the need for a validly ordained priest (or other specialist) to perform an action, a radical dissident group or a "super"-orthodox group? Thirdly, the RS-ers had the most to gain from this, because this action seems to back the idea that the only reason they aren't accepted is because of bigotry.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
Michael Forrest | 11.26.04 - 9:15 am | #

Michael -
I think the most prudent course of action is to "wait and see". We simply don't know who did it. And until we do, it doesn't do much good to project guilt on anybody, whether it's a supposed "super-orthodox" person, or a dissident group.
Dan W. | 11.26.04 - 10:26 am | #

Dan W.,
I agree with you to a degree. The media is trying this though, and this story is providing aid and comfort to the heretics. This story dismays me at so many levels. Where are we at as a Church? There are large groups of laity and religious that have bought into a heresy. That heresy is that you can be Catholic and not follow magesterial teachings. This heresy has expressed itself most profoundly in the abortion and homosexuality debates. There are a lot of casual Catholics I talk with that seem to think that the Pope and bishops are political offices, and that they opine on various topics. If you don't like one bishop's (or pope's) opinion, just wait for the next one.

Some of this thought is intellectual. People will say that Jesus saves and not the Church. There is a faux-truth to that. The rejoinder needs to be, did Jesus establish a Church that he gave all Truth so that men could be saved? Or did Jesus come to earth so that men who chose to be good, but fell short, could still go to heaven? Obviously it is the first, but so much well intentioned ecumenism has deminished this truth to the point that people don't even think about it.
Michael Forrest | 11.26.04 - 12:34 pm | #

The Rainbow Sash group misses the point. The nexus of Catholic anti-gay bigotry is the conflation of acknowledged orientation with some percieved sin. The Rainbow Sash group should be attacking point but should not challenge the Church's teaching on homosexual activity.
Ignatius | 11.26.04 - 12:41 pm | #

Ignatius,

That misses *their* point. They don't want to distinguish sinner and sin; they want the sin to be undefined.

Granted, I think I'm contradicting their declared aims. I just think they are lying.
Ed | 11.26.04 - 1:43 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Michael: you could be right that this may be the work of the Rainbow Sashers, but I'm not totally convinced yet. It seems like it would be a very strange thing for them to do: "Hey, let's go to Mass in our rainbow sashes and try to receive Communion, and if anyone gives us trouble let's pour chrism oil all over the place so they'll get blamed for it!"

If I were on a jury, I'd be willing to entertain your theory, but I'd need a lot more conclusive evidence before voting to convict them.

Part of me wishes it was one of "them" rather than "us", but I know from experience that orthodox Catholics can sometimes do kooky things, either out of ignorance or even mental illness.

One Catholic I know comes to mind in particular; he put up huge signs in front of his house denouncing birth control and a visiting priest in the parish for not being tough enough in his preaching, or something like that. Guess I should mention that he is mentally ill - schizophrenia, I think. He believed that Mary was telling him to do all these things.

Anyway, if the person who did the ersatz "exorcism" is also mentally ill, it would at least decrease his culpability for sacrilege and disobedience (not to mention theft of the chrism oil).

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.26.04 - 4:06 pm | #

Rosesarie: Just wondering: Is your only evidence for the diagnosis of schizophrenia in that huge sign guy his Marian visits and huge signs themselves?
John C | Homepage | 11.26.04 - 4:34 pm | #

+J.M.J+

No, he's definitely mentally ill, professionally diagnosed as such with a perscription for meds, too. When he took them he was okay, but as often happens, he sometimes lapsed in taking them. He then began acting irrationally and hearing voices, not just of Mary, but he claimed to hear voices coming from people he knew (other than their own voices, that is).

I could tell you more, but a lot of what I know concerns his family and should not be shared on a public forum, if you know what I mean.

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.26.04 - 7:31 pm | #

This church was neither exorcised in any full meaning of the term nor re-consecrated (wherever that came from) by the actions as so far known. In the past couple of decades there have been lots of traditional prayer group retreats or conferences with very good priests who would bless the retreatants' oil which they brought with them and/or salt with instructions to use around their homes - windows, doors, perimeters, rooms where porn or evil influences, say, in some of the persons their kids may have brought in, occult practices or books, etc. There are legitimate prayers for the laity to say against evil they may feel is having an influencing effect upon them or their families - the St. Michael prayer for one. Some of these people come with several gallons of oil to be blessed and given out to others. In Italy where there has been an explosion of satanic cults with ritual killings of late, more and more official exorcists are being appointed to particular dioceses. The official exorcist of Rome, Fr. Amorth, has written or spoken against the new rite re: the strong traditional or formerly powerful prayers being left out, making the prayers and ritual impotent against certain evil infestations. The same need for appointment of exorcists in certain of our big cities is being felt more and more. Since many of the laity who have been introduced to the benefits of blessed oil/salt with particular prayers see more and more laxity in action by the guardians of their sacred temples, they, granted overzealously, may inappropriately take things in their own hands. Not knowing all the facts here, there may not be reason to condemn them. This just shows the current division in the different factions of the faithful today - as well as in the understanding of particul rituals by the shepherds who teach and influence them.
Chris Kelly | 11.26.04 - 10:22 pm | #

Rainbow Sashers annoy and deeply concern me. Their aims are ridiculous. They'll never reach their goal of getting homosexual activity accepted by the Church. We already know whose side God's on, and we already know that bit about the gates of Hell never prevailing against the Church. They're fighting a losing battle.

How can we be sure that the people who made a mess of the church were trying to exorcise it? Perhaps they were trying to bless it, no? I know some Catholics, particularly Charismatic Catholics (I'm not pointing the finger at them with this), use blessed oil and salt. I read that they do on a website for Charismatic Catholics (that received a "yellow" rating from Catholic Culture). Perhaps the people who did this were well-meaning, but very wrong nonetheless.

If it was the Rainbow Sashers, perhaps they did it to "exorcise" an "unclean" Church that doesn't accept homosexual activity as normal. These people truly believe that they're right -- and that the Church is wrong. Scarily enough, perhaps they even think that God's on their side. That would explain why they used blessed items to "bless" the church against the "oppression" they think takes place there against people like themselves.

God bless,
Jennifer Benjamin | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 6:04 am | #

P.S. Those are just guesses on my part. I don't want to make it seem like I'm actually blaming anyone for this yet.

Peace,
Jen Benjamin | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 6:07 am | #

The more I read about this, the more the whole story smells fishy. It just beggars credulity to suppose that orthodox Catholics would "exorcize" or "reconsecrate" a church, but using such quantities of oil and salt as to require thousands of dollars of labor to remove the oil from the stones.

Every since Tawana Brawley, I've found it a good rule of thumb in almost every prominent case of "hate crime" that involves vandalism or non-life-threatening physical abuse to include the putative victims among the suspects. (In this case, that wouldn't mean the cathedral itself, but the RSers or their fellow travelers). Two recent examples that come to mind are Kerri Dunn, the black professor at Claremont McKenna who claimed her car had been vandalized, and the woman on the train in Paris who claimed she and her baby had been jumped by a bunch of youths who had slashed her clothes and drawn swastikas on her belly. A couple more such hoaxes are mentioned here: http://www.discriminations.us/st...age/ 002314.html
Seamus | 11.29.04 - 11:03 am | #

Reminded of a technique the KGB of the old Soviet Union used to use -- release damaging facts through an easily discredited source and thus try to get our intelligence services to disbelieve the entire thing.
broed | 11.29.04 - 1:56 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Yeah, but are the Rainbow Sashers really that intelligent? I mean, comparing them to the KGB??? I dunno....

Like I said, I hope it wasn't an orthodox Catholic, but I also know that we're not perfect and some of us can sometimes do foolish things. We've seen enough examples of foolishness lately from among our number - think Deal Hudson, Bob Sungenis, etc. No, they didn't try to reconsecrate a cathedral, but they did do things of which we thought they should know better, like cheat on a wife or embrace geocentrism.

Why is it so hard to believe that a lone zealous Catholic who, is well-meaning yet a bit ignorant, might not try to "exorcize" a church where active homosexuals had just recently protested and attempted to receive Communion? It could have been a charismatic Catholic, since they sometimes try to perform exorcisms. Or yes, it could even have been a traditionalist! Skeptical of that? Read on....

I have in my possession three Catholic tracts, each entitled "Prayer Against Satan and the Rebellious Angels". Each one contains the Church's official exorcism prayers, "Published by order of H. H. Pope Leo XIII". In fact the content of the three tracts is almost identical, though each comes from a different publisher. One is printed by the Fatima Center (Fr. Gruner's group), one by Catholic Treasures (a Trad/Feeneyite publisher in CA), and the third by the Catholic Fraternity for Restoration.

Each of these tracts states at the beginning: "The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer."

The second sentence is just plain wrong! Laymen and women are NOT allowed to say these prayers, particularly the ones which address evil spirits directly. The three traditionalist organizations that print these tracts are erroneously telling Catholic laity that they may perform exorcisms "in their own name"!

Is it so hard to believe, then, that a well-meaning traditionalist might have taken their word for it and taken it upon himself to "exorcize" a cathedral? Especially if he thought the clergy weren't doing enough to discourage sacrilege? I don't see what's so farfetched about that.

As for the salt in the poor boxes, maybe it was blessed salt and the guy didn't want to sprinkle it on the floor (it's blessed, you know; can't have people stepping on it!). So he poured it in the collection boxes, which were conveniently located on the perimeter of the building. Is this so hard to believe?

Of course, if it does turn out to be the Rainbow Sashers after all, though, it might help discredit them. Here's hoping....

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.30.04 - 8:20 am | #

(sorry for the typographical and syntactic errors in the above post).

I just had another thought: blessed salt is a relatively obscure sacramental. What are the chances that dissident Catholics like the Rainbow Sashers would know a) that such a sacramental even exists and b) that it is still in use? After all, many modern Catholics might think most sacramentals "went out with Vatican II"!

Yet orthodox Catholics, and trads in particular, know about blessed salt and are more likely to possess and make use of it than are the "progressives". So that fact means that an orthodox Catholic is the more likely perpetrator, rather than a progressive dissident.

Unless, of course, the progressive dissident did his homework really, really well and learned about blessed salt on some trad website. Possible, but not too probable; hoaxes aren't usually carried out so flawlessly (see the forged Bush/Air Force memos).

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.30.04 - 8:40 am | #

Here is an excellent interview with the best known exorcist in the Church, Fr. Gabriel Amorth, speaking to the new rite of exorcism. It is very informative and enlightening, although the greater in-depth articles written by him cover a lot more:

Not knowing how accurately reported is the article we are discussing there could be some misunderstandings, but for a pastor to casually toss about the term, "exorcism", in referring to some salt and oil spread about a church demonstrates some of the points Fr. Amorth makes here about the lack of knowledge present in the episcopate today. With the evidence given below of the hostility towards those appointed to the fight against evil in the church, no wonder those simple faithful often feel the necessity to act themselves.

Part of the interview:

"30 Days: How do you exorcists see your position within the Church?

Fr. Amorth: We are very badly treated. Our brother priests who are charged with this delicate task are treated as though they are crazy, as fanatics. Generally speaking they are scarcely even tolerated by the bishops who have appointed them.

30 Days: And the most striking manifestation of this hostility?

Fr. Amorth: We organized an international congress of exorcists near Rome. We asked to be received by the Pope. To avoid pressurizing him and adding yet another audience to those he had already granted, we simply asked to be received in a public audience, that of Wednesday in Saint Peter's. We were not even asking him to address us his personal greetings. We made our request for an audience in the proper manner, as will be perfectly recalled by Mgr. Paolo de Nicolo of the Prefecture of the Pontifical House, who received our request very warmly. But on the day before the audience, Mgr Nicolo told us - to tell the truth, he was very embarrassed and it was very apparent that the decision did not depend on him - not to present ourselves at the audience, and that we had not been admitted. Unbelievable: 150 exorcists from five continents, men appointed by their bishops in accordance with the rules of canon law which requires that they be men of prayer, knowledge and good reputation - and thus in some way the cream of the clergy - ask to take part in a public audience with the Pope and are shown the door! Mgr Nicolo told me, "I promise to immediately send you a letter explaining the situation." Five years have passed and I am still waiting for this letter. It [was] certainly not John Paul II who excluded us. But the fact that 150 priests should be forbidden to take part in a public audience with the Pope in Saint Peter's shows what kind of obstacles exorcists encounter even within their own Church and to what extent they are frowned upon by a great number of ecclesiastical authorities.

30 Days: You fight against the demon every day. What is Satan's greatest success?

Fr. Amorth: To succeed in making people believe that he doesn't exist. And in this he has almost succ
Chris K | 11.30.04 - 10:15 am | #

cont'd

Fr. Amorth: To succeed in making people believe that he doesn't exist. And in this he has almost succeeded. Even within the Church. We have a clergy and an episcopate who no longer believe in the devil, in exorcisms, in the extraordinary evil that the devil can cause, nor in the power that Jesus has given us to drive out demons.

For three centuries, the Latin Church - in contrast with the Orthodox Church and various Protestant confessions - has almost entirely abandoned the ministry of exorcism. As the clergy no longer practice exorcisms, as they no longer study them and have never seen them, they no longer believe in them. And nor do they believe in the devil either. We have entire episcopates who are hostile to exorcisms. There are countries in which there is not a single exorcist, as for example Germany, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal. A terrifying deficiency.

http://www.thecatholiclibrary.or.../ fr_amorth.html
Chris K | 11.30.04 - 10:16 am | #

"I just had another thought: blessed salt is a relatively obscure sacramental. What are the chances that dissident Catholics like the Rainbow Sashers would know a) that such a sacramental even exists and b) that it is still in use?"

I dunno. Among the Anglicans, there is a very high homosexual contingent among the High Church types who are *most* likely to be familiar with all the sacramentals. Of course, those are exactly the kind of homosexuals who are least likely to trash a church--because it would compound sacrilege with an offense against aesthetics. The ACT-UP types, on the other hand, would have no such qualms, and they could easily find out about salt as a sacramental by a few minutes' trolling through the internet.
Seamus | 11.30.04 - 11:31 am | #

Something that also needs to be distinguished in this is the specific intent to cause destruction of property. The two prevalent views are that the destruction was unintended or the damage was intentional. I'm in the latter camp. Hopefully, there will actually be resolution to this matter. The idea that the orthodox are so intolerant that they would intentionally destroy property just bothers me. The orthodox don't say that homosexuals are more likely to be murderers, but the orthodox get blamed for Mathew Sheppard and every other criminal act where the victim is homosexual.
Michael Forrest | 11.30.04 - 2:01 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Do Anglo-Catholics use blessed salt?

Well, it was either a well-meaning yet misinformed orthodox Catholic or a very clever and devious dissident. I think the evidence points more toward the former, but I can't rule out the latter either. I do wonder whether we will ever find out, though....

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 11.30.04 - 6:33 pm | #

Wow, you all are the most self-righteous and mean-spirited bunch of people I have ever found on the internet! And probably the most ridiculously supersitious also....
Anonymous Coward | 12.04.04 - 3:50 am | #

Thanks for sharing, Anonymous Coward.
Seamus | 12.04.04 - 8:18 pm | #

Well, normally I would find a conversation about "blessed salt" to be merely comical. (What's next, magic beans?) But within the context of the harsh bigotry that seems to prevail here it's rather disturbing.
Anonymous Coward | 12.06.04 - 1:01 am | #

+J.M.J+

Blessed salt is a Catholic sacramental, part of the Catholic Faith. If you find it so hilarious, perhaps you are being mean-spirited toward our Faith, Coward. I find your lack of tolerance of our beliefs interesting - how quick you are to judge us!

In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie | Homepage | 12.06.04 - 9:48 am | #

Mean spirited.... Oh to live back in a world where words had actual meaning, where thought involved thinking. What the tolerance crowd doesn't understand and never will is that their idea of tolerance is really anarchy. One of the great truths of life is that true freedom can only be found in righteousness; conversely, wickedness is the shortest path to enslavement.
Michael Forrest | 12.06.04 - 1:09 pm | #