Vatican and Pope Francis Seek New Demon Exorcists

[Warren Stupidity]

The Catholic Church says it's dealing with a spike in Satanic worship by training a growing team of specialized priests to keep the devil at bay.

A new push to train priests in Italy and Spain to perform the mysterious rite of exorcism could rid these two Catholic countries of their demons—or at least confront a growth in occult worship.
...

Taraborelli, who says he performs up to 100 exorcisms some weeks, is part of a new training program in Italian Catholic churches designed to teach priests called to this particular specialization. Similar programs have been launched in Spain and Malta, where a spike in devil-worshiping practices has caused concern among Catholics. A host of new websites advertising everything from pagan rituals to training in black magic and the occult have sprung up in recent years and the Catholic church is hoping to fight fire with holy water. In Milan, seven new exorcists have been certified for service. In Florence, five new exorcists now take appointments.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/08/vatican-and-pope-francis-seek-new-demon-exorcists.html

[skepticscott]

1. 100 exorcisms a week for one guy?

That's about one every waking hour. I guess it must be done on an outpatient basis. And that's (allegedly) AFTER they root out the people with recognizable mental illness and other similar disorders. Hard to imagine why there are so many people out there who are firmly convinced that demonic possession is real...unless it's because the Catholic Church for centuries has been teaching people that they shouldn't bother trying to really understand the world, and should just embrace medieval ignorance and superstition instead.

Nice to know that Francis plans to maintain the Catholic tradition of woo woo.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. It does make one wonder about the sincerity.

Does the RCC leadership really believe in this idiotic world view? Or are they manipulative charlatans? Either way it is not a good thing.

[skepticscott]

3. Oh, I think the Catholic leadership

is pretty much all on board with the notion that demonic possession is real and that true exorcisms are sometimes necessary, though they try not to look too foolish about it. I suspect that a good number of them shake their heads and laugh a little at guys like this, who do it on an assembly line (though still tolerating him like you do a crazy relative), while maintaining the general belief, but hedging that the "real" thing is fairly rare.

[rug]

4. Exorcism is part of Baptism.

[Arugula Latte]

90. Oh, well, okay then.

Get rid of those demons -- we don't want any evil spirits inhabiting a newborn infant.

[rug]

102. I imagine you feel precisely the same about Baptism itself.

You can save time by providing the code, then you can just type 12 for Communion or 25 for fasting, 31 for prayer, and so forth.

[hrmjustin]

5. Sounds like fun!

[rug]

6. Lol!

I'll bring the pea soup!

[hrmjustin]

7. I try to levitate.

[rug]

8. I want to try that upside down crabwalk down the stairs.

[hrmjustin]

9. You would be the life of the party.

[struggle4progress]

10. "... the person requesting the exorcism must be seen by a physician to make sure the cause

of the perceived possession is not mental illness. That, he says, is at the crux of why Pope Francis wants to train more exorcists ..."

[goldent]

11. The article didn't have any solid reference to the pope or Vactican

and exorcism and I could't find anything on the Google. I think this is just a gossip piece.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. The only thing scarier than adults with imaginary friends,

is adults with imaginary enemies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10550800/Rise-of-the-exorcists-in-Catholic-Church.html

[rug]

13. Not to mention adults who imagine all sorts of nefarious activity.

[cbayer]

14. I don't find adults with imaginary friend or enemies scary at all.

I'm assuming you are talking about people with serious psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia, no?

I find people who are prejudiced against those people much scarier. The patients themselves are much more likely to be victims than attackers.

Or are you talking about religious people? Do these people scare you?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. This president has, to my knowledge, made no statements about being guided by god's voice.

The last president did claim so, and yeah, he scared the shit out of me.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

[cbayer]

17. Oh, so you are only talking about religious people who say their actions

are guided by god's actual voice, not religious people in general who may feel they have a relationship with a god.

Glad we cleared that up.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. We apparently define 'relationship' differently.

[cbayer]

22. How do you define it?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Two-way communication at least.

[cbayer]

25. And how do you define "communication"?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Nouns 1-4 in this case.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Communication?s=t

[cbayer]

32. So if someone reports that there is "something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted"

to them by their god, you would accept that as communication?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. And be worried. Yes.

[cbayer]

41. Again, what would you worry about?

What threat does that impose on you?

I'm sincerely interested in where your fear has come from. It's seems extreme and I am concerned that it might even interfere with your life.

If that's the case, it might require attention.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. I've answered that question multiple times.

I can point to MOUNDS of dead people because of that sort of thinking. MOUNDS.

People dying, every day, today, from the social upheaval of a failed/failing nation state in the wake of that war, of materials used in that war, you name it.

Why do you keep resetting the conversation to the point prior to me answering this question? In the last 10 years, this nation fought a war largely predicated on confidence instilled by such 'guidance'. That's a problem. It remains a problem.

[cbayer]

57. We are in agreement. I think we have to be extremely vigilant about

separation of church and state, and in keeping religious zealots out of position of power.

I think both religious and non-religious people have a deeply vested interest in doing this and should work together to make sure it doesn't happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I can't even craft a search query that might reveal if he's made any claims about that

without burying myself in 'OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST' type bullshit.

Some days, the search engines are fucking useless.

[cbayer]

18. He has made statements about praying every day and that his religious beliefs

are important to him.

But I agree that a search in this area could be difficult.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If he thinks he gets a response

then I would be worried.

[cbayer]

21. I think "response" is a pretty broad term.

Most religious people, imo, don't report hearing a voice or anything like that. But they do feel that receive insight and/or guidance.

That could be because they have taken an opportunity for self-reflection and the answer was in them all the time. However, if they feel that their god provides for the opportunity to discover that, why would that be a problem?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Nuance, indeed.

Introspection, fine. Celestial fax? Worried. That's all.

[cbayer]

26. Do you know anyone who has said they have received a "celestial fax"?

Would you apply that to any type of communication that a person felt they received from their god?

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yes I do, and yes I would.

It actually frightens me.

[cbayer]

31. What are you fearful of?

If someone says that they feel they receive guidance or insight from their god, why would that be any more frightening than them saying they receive it from some music or ancient writings or nature?

I would agree that if someone told me they were receiving celestial faxes, I would wonder what they were talking about.

Have you had some frightening experiences related to this?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. What worries me? People in positions of power acting on moral authority from

dubious sources.

I just linked you a frightening experience. Were you in the US when Bush felt he had a celestial mandate to fuck over Iraq? That happened. People on both sides died. For an issue that I don't believe for one second there was a supernatural anything mendacious enough to encourage such a thing. (Leaving the question of whether there is a supernatural anything at all, aside.)

Music/et al, carry no 'revealed truth'/mandate connotation.

If someone said "We need to invade Iraq because I was listening to this Slayer song, and" blah blah blah, no one would give it one iota of credence. Moreover, the band members would probably issue a press release along the lines of; "Bwuh?"

But you tell people, as president, in 2003, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq" there's an appreciable percentage of this nation that would just nod sagely and agree.

That's genuinely fucked up, and frightening to a secular person. That's stark raving mad shit, on the part of the man who directs the single most powerful military on the planet.

[cbayer]

38. Your definition keeps getting narrower, which is a good thing.

You have gone from being afraid of "people with imaginary friends" to being afraid of people in positions of authority basing their decisions on what they believe are directions from a deity.

I think we are in agreement then.

What Bush did should be frightening to most people, and was indeed frightening to both religious and non-religious people.

Other people, including some non-religious people, ate that stuff up, though, because it entirely supported their political agendas.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Agreed on both points.

I most certainly did see some people of obviously identifiable faith expressing concern over Bush's sentiment. I also agree that people of secular means, such as Hitchens, supported the war.

The 'imaginary friends' line is a quip, and meant to be provocative, but I do mean it on some level. Friends implies a communicative relationship. When people express such a thing, I genuinely become concerned for the state of their mental health/credulousness. It's truly worrying. And that worry amplifies depending on that person's position in the social power structure.

[cbayer]

43. I want you to understand my objection to the term.

It's a slur. It's implying that religious people suffer from a mental illness. And it is wrong, imo, on several levels. It's like saying "That's so gay". It's meant to insult the target and is an insult to people who are gay because it's being used as a pejorative.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. It is not a slur. It's an accurate description of the situation from a secular point of view.

It is, and must be, imaginary from my viewpoint. It's also a point on a FFRF billboard in Colorado, come to think of it.

Your second example is an abusive term based on a broad stereotype. Not a core definition.


I can find endless references to sermons on:

"“even if you have no friends in this world, God will be your friend.”"
"God Is A Friend"
"God’s Greatest Desire Is for You to Be His Friend"

The internet is LITTERED with this sort of phraseology, as are churches I have visited in person, AM radio shit, TV evangelists, etc. This theme is ubiquitous.

If I don't believe in god, from my viewpoint, it must needs be considered imaginary. Does that clarify it?

[cbayer]

50. I'm going to only say this once more, then I am through.

Calling people delusional is a slur. It's a slur against the target and the truly mentally ill. It's not in any way representative of a "secular point of view".

It's not a core definition. It is, however, just from your viewpoint. And you use it as a slur.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I didn't call them delusional.

I called them credulous, and in some cases, I do worry about mental health, and I have given examples.

So, no, I reject your attempt to box this issue into that context.

[trotsky]

60. "Delusional" is not the same as "mentally ill"

You're the one who constantly pushes that meme, and it's because of ignorance.

A delusion, quite simply, is a belief that isn't true. That's it. That's the "core definition." You should really stop trying to saddle words with additional meanings in your attempt to shame and silence other viewpoints.

[PassingFair]

105. Helter Skelter.

I tread lightly around ANYONE who receives "special messages".

[cbayer]

106. Helter Skelter? As in Charles Manson?

The grossly psychotic sociopath who considered himself a scientologist?

Yeah, I would agree that one should be afraid of him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Since the topic is exorcism, this is about 'enemies' that such believers think control people

If any Obama ever says that an 'angel' made them do something, it would worry me. With Barack it would worry the fuck out of me, but I'd worry if any of the rest of the family felt that way too.

[cbayer]

34. I think it's more a metaphor, but I think that about a lot of religious ritual.

So, do you agree with the statement that was made? Are you also afraid of "people with imaginary friends" and "enemies"? Do you define all religious people that way or just some?

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. As you said, it's a symptom of a mental illness

and an organised attempt to portray that as part of religion, rather than something that needs medical attention, is more than 'a metaphor'. I suppose I'm afraid of the people, like the Pope, who are interfering in people's lives like that; I feel sorry for their victims.

[cbayer]

40. No, I didn't say that.

The member was clearly using the phrase as a derogatory way to refer to believers and I objected to that. There is absolutely nothing to support the notion that religious people are mentally ill. And smearing people by painting them as mentally ill is wrong on many levels, including the level that includes gross prejudice against the mentally ill.

I'm sorry that you are afraid of the pope. While there have clearly been victims of the RCC, I don't think this particular thing is victimization at all.

But, by all means, lock your doors! He may send someone to get the evil out of you, lol.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. "people with serious psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia"

The people who the Pope and his specially trained 'exorcists' think are possessed by 'demons' should have medical help. Like a homoeopathic quack, Francis is poking his ill-informed nose into an area where he can harm people.

[cbayer]

44. You would be hard pressed to find any psychiatric professional who

would agree with you.

While religious delusions clearly do exist and while both religious and non-religious people can become delusional, you making diagnoses and saying that others need medical help is much more like quackery than what is being described here. You could actually cause harm, were you in the position to follow through with your "beliefs".

The issue here is that there are quacks out there who are taking advantage of people. The pope has identified this as a problem and wants to bring the practice back to what it really is and performed by people who understand what it is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. You think "demon exorcists" are the "people who understand what it is"?

So you believe in possession by demons?

I'm saying such people should seek medical help. That's not 'quackery'. If a doctor decides there's no problem, then there's no treatment. Why do you think that would harm them?

"there are quacks out there who are taking advantage of people" - yeah, Pope Francis.

[cbayer]

48. I don't believe in possession by demons, but I understand it as a metaphor.

I am not entirely opposed to exorcism as a ritual exercise that may help some people. As long is no harm is done, I'm not going to either support or oppose it. I think confession is also a ritual that may help some people. I really don't care, as long as people are not harmed.

Do you have any evidence that it creates harm?

You are making a diagnosis and recommending that people seek medical attention. You are way over the line in this regard.

You don't like the pope, I get that, but if you look closely, you might see that he is taking a practice that appears to have lost it's way and trying to correct it.

I don't like being in the position of defending him, as I am no fan of the catholic church, but I am willing to give him a chance to turn this massive boat, even if just a little.

And I will continue to object to statements like the initial one here that state that religious people have a psychiatric illness.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. The CIA used confessions to spy on people.

I can find plenty of horrible examples of harm from exorcism, and the 'possession' ideas upon which it is predicated.

The church has done it, the CIA, and other entities.
http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2014/01/julian-assange-says-the-catholic-churchs-confessional-system-can-be-used-to-spy-on-its-congregants-c.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. "recommending that people seek medical attention" is not diagnosing them

it's saying they should go to someone who can diagnose them (which can include "there's nothing wrong with you&quot .

The pope is milking a situation to make his church look necessary. If he were trying to 'turn this massive boat', he'd not support adding more exorcists.

[cbayer]

55. Certainly it is.

If you recommend that a person seek medical attention, particularly when that person has no complaint, you are saying that you think they are sick.

Again, you are way over the line.

I find tea drinking really scary. I think all people who drink tea need to see a medical professional. I have no basis for thinking that they are all sick, but I believe that they are.

BTW, he is replacing exorcists, not adding them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. "a growing team" - they're adding to them

So, you think that someone who has been led, by religious dogma, to believe they are possessed, has no complaint?

If you recommend someone seeks medical attention, you think they may be sick. As DU2 mods, we locked threads, recommending people seek medical attention, rather than relying on unqualified DUers. But at least DUers meant well in such threads, and weren't trying to justify their existence by saying "we need more unqualified people weighing in on what might be a medical problem".

[cbayer]

62. It is you that has the complaint, not them.

Is it your job to protect them from what you perceive is harmful to them. If they present no harm to themselves or others, is it even any of your business?

We locked threads when people presented medical complaints. If someone has a complaint, then I think it's appropriate to refer them. Are you proposing that society in general take it upon themselves to "rescue" people from their religious beliefs. Should we also rescue them from the sports they choose to participate in? What they eat? How much they sleep? Where shall we draw the line?

You assume that the RCC does not mean well. That's your opinion. And you are certainly in no position to define what is and isn't qualified in these cases, as you reject them in toto.

[cbayer]

65. I forgot about this part.

Did you know that the RCC requires a psychiatric evaluation for anyone requesting an exorcism? They want to make sure the person doesn't have a psychiatric disorder.

How does that fit into your narrative?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. They 'require it' but do not always follow said guideline.

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=290

[cbayer]

71. I think, but am not sure, that one of the purposes of the new initiative is

to enforce this guideline.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. In that sense, I suppose that is helpful.

But I still deplore the RCC's continued insistence that demons/demonic possession are real.

People can and do take the church seriously on faith, and that can and does promigulate harm, even if the church's own hand didn't inflict the harm.

The church alone doesn't create this all by itself, people around the world of different faiths believe in demons. Fine. People around the world believe Elvis is still alive. I think it would be a gross waste of resources, and harmful, if a 'credible' entity like the RCC also maintained Elvis was alive. Harm might come in the form of individuals wasting personal resources searching for him, etc. Something the RCC maybe didn't ask them to do, but something they did on faith that what the RCC said was true, and therefore...

Does that at least make my position clear?

[cbayer]

88. I appreciate your last several posts on this and I think we agree for the most part.

I have been the devil's advocate to some extent (pun intended - sometimes I crack myself up).

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I'm sorry that we vehemently disagree on some things and then

finally, circle back around and come to some sort of agreement, on most issues at least.

I think it's a character flaw of mine, as it happens to me with people I know of all relationships, on subjects of any type, from time to time.

[cbayer]

92. I'm not that different from you in that regard.

But being able to find a common point of agreement makes it all worth while.

I hope we have the opportunity to have some lively discussion in the future.

[goldent]

86. "a growing team"

Do you have any reference to any real reporting on this story, that links it back to the Vatican? The only think I could find is that the Vatican, in reference to the picture at the top of the article, denied that this was any type of exorcism.

I think these stories come about because exorcism is such a fascinating subject, due in no small part to the movie (and with respect to that movie I have to point out, as a Catholic, that we won )

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. The Telegraph, a conservative, pro-Catholic newspaper:

Dioceses across Italy, as well as in countries such as Spain, are increasing the number of priests schooled in administering the rite of exorcism, fabled to rid people of possession by the Devil.

The rise in demonic cases is a result of more people dabbling in practices such as black magic, paganism, Satanic rites and Ouija boards, often exploring the dark arts with the help of information readily found on the internet, the Church said.

The increase in the number of priests being trained to tackle the phenomenon is also an effort by the Church to sideline unauthorised, self-proclaimed exorcists, and its tacit recognition that belief in Satan, once regarded by Catholic progressives as an embarrassment, is still very much alive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/10550800/Rise-of-the-exorcists-in-Catholic-Church.html

Why don't you regard interviews of Catholic priests by The Daily Beast, and a correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, as 'real reporting', by the way? Are you saying the pope has no control over churches, and the Roman priest is lying? If so, that puts the claims about what good Francis will do in a whole new light.

[goldent]

99. Yeah, I have become more skeptical of reported news

When an article claims the Pope, or the President, etc, supports something without him actually saying it, it becomes "hearsay" evidence to me. Maybe it is true, maybe not.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. You're not a catholic. Catholics believe in exorcism.

Does the actual belief in such things as real, concern you or not?

[cbayer]

56. No, it does not concern me unless there is some evidence that it is

a harmful practice.

Do you have any such evidence? Not anecdotal, because clearly it can be misused and can cause harm. I am looking for evidence of a consistent, repeatable harm caused by the practice.

That's science!

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Sure.

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/two-year-old-toddler-killed-in-exorcism-by-parents-relatives-1.121485
http://www.christianpost.com/news/exorcism-gone-wrong-woman-goes-into-cardiac-arrest-during-ritual-98393/
http://www.fox54.com/story/16943864/four-franklin-county-residents-arrested-in-exorcism-gone-wrong
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=247781
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2007/07/exorcism-gone-h.html


These people involved, earnestly believed in demonic possession. This is a harmful idea, with obvious and endless consequences. Based on obvious fiction.

[cbayer]

61. Those are anecdotes. I asked for data.

You know, science.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. There is zero scientific data showing ghosts or demons exist.

This is a site that tracks harm inflicted on people by believers in this practice.

http://whatstheharm.net/exorcisms.html

Point of fact, you asked for "evidence", not 'data', whatever you meant by data. That site tracks a lot of data on this issue, as well as other pseudoscience/beliefs injuring people.

[cbayer]

64. That's true. There is no data about ghosts and demons.

But exorcism is a known quantity that is practiced and has been practiced for centuries. If it caused harm, one would expect to see some cumulative data on this to support that hypothesis.

I specifically excluded anecdotes, as they do not provide evidence. Might want to check that logical fallacy chart.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

The site you link to is purely anecdotal. It is meaningless. The site doesn't track data, it has accumulated stories.

FWIW, I am no fan, but I think that the rules that require that someone be screened for a psychiatric illness if they are seeking an exorcism is a good one.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. An anecdote IS a piece of evidence.

You are conflating proof and evidence.

An anecdote is a singular piece of data. Insufficient by itself to prove anything.

"Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source"

You asked for evidence/data of harm. I supplied plenty.

If you ask for PROOF that exorcism is harmful, that would be something I couldn't do. I can only point to official exorcism by the church as reinforcing the idea that exorcism is a real thing, which others tend to cause harm outside the church by trying to replicate or do bad things based on.

I have no evidence that exorcism as performed by the church, has resulted in direct first-person harm.
I can supply (and have) plenty of evidence that the belief that exorcism is a real thing, has caused immense harm.

[cbayer]

67. It is a small, unverifiable, unrepeatable piece of information.

A group of anecdotes does not constitute anything, except something you might want to study using scientific method.

Do you have any numbers on how many exorcisms were performed during that period? Does it constitute 50% of all exorcisms? 0.00001%? Wouldn't that be a critical piece of information when looking at anecdotal information?

Where is the evidence that it has caused immense harm? It's not there and probably has never really been studied.

I have tons of anecdotal evidence that immunizations cause autism. The internet is full of it. I could pull up an amazing number of reports.

But there is no science to back it up.

So have they caused "immense harm"? By your definitions, they certainly have.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Vaccines have caused immense harm

But that is offset by many multiples of harm reduction from actual measurable diseases. That's why the vaccines have warning labels that warn the user of things like seizures and death.

That's why this exists:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

All good stuff.

We have no injury fund for victims of botched exorcisms. We have no data of economic or personal health harm from 'demonic possession' to show a beneficial counter-effect to via vaccines.

So equating vaccines to exorcisms is a highly problematic idea for your position.

"Where is the evidence that it has caused immense harm?"
Again, I linked you many, many instances of it causing immense harm. Things like; death. Pretty sure death counts as immense harm. Instances that were criminally prosecuted, I might add. Evidence is not peer reviewed research or data. An anecdote can be a singular piece of evidence. Stop asking me for evidence if you don't want evidence. (Some of those cases had the people/places/effect verified as findings of fact, and people were prosecuted for the act. On the flipside, no court has, to my knowledge, ever accepted any direct link/causal claim of autism injury by a vaccine.)

Let's examine the manner of evidence you wanted to dismiss. Two claims:

1. Jenny McCarthy claims her son was given Autism by the MMR vaccine.
2. In Paris, four former seventh day Adventist members force exorcised a woman for 7 days.

In case 1: No damage was awarded, or found, by any court. There is no causal link for the claim. Done.
In case 2: The woman was harmed, her four captors were found guilty of Kidnapping, Torture, and ancillary crimes and each participant was sentenced between 3 and 6 years. Predicated on their belief that A)Exorcism was real, B)Demonic possession was real and C) that the victim was, in their eyes, possessed.

Are you suggesting that these four people would have tied her to a cross and fed her oil and water for 7 days if they didn't believe in exorcism?

None of the courts involved, have ever, to my knowledge, accepted a legitimate medical purpose to an exorcism, that might be offset by positive outcomes anywhere else. The only researcher to ever claim such an effect had placebo effect in one hand, and the tatters of his credibility in the other.


But the failure of your analogy goes much deeper than simple head to head comparison of vaccines to exorcism. Exorcism is an unverified, unprovable claim, JUST LIKE your mention of the claimed and unproven link between vaccines and autism.

The parallel is perfect.

tl;dr: Stop asking for evidence if you want proof.

[cbayer]

70. Oopsie. Didn't realize your position on this.

Not going anywhere near it.

Have a nice evening.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Just in case there was a misunderstanding, let me summarize in parting.

1. Demons are not real.
2. Exorcism is not real. (May have a placebo effect, possibly correlated with a belief that exorcism is real by the person being exorcised)
3. Exorcism has a very real track record of causing harm, when performed by entities outside the RCC.
4. My allegation of this belief by the RCC being harmful is only limited to supporting the idea that these are real things, as there are no known cases of the RCC itself causing harm, only in that people tangentially connected to the RCC or disconnected/unaffiliated with the RCC took the idea and ran with it in a harmful manner.


So, I deplore the belief, even in the case of the RCC, in that people accepting that belief outside the church, have acted on the belief and caused immense harm.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. This thread would be amazing, stunning, instead it is normal.

[hrmjustin]

75. I haven't really read it. What is stunning?

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Exorcism being defended? Seriously?

[hrmjustin]

77. I see no one has ever levitated in front of you or puked green stuff on you.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. I think it is charlatanism preying on desperate people.

And that it is shameful that people here are defending this medieval bullshit.

[hrmjustin]

80. What if they are getting medical attention and the doctors say an exorcism can't hurt?

[Warren Stupidity]

81. What if the doctor is a Vatican approved exorcism friendly shithead?

Isn't what if fun?

[hrmjustin]

82. Vatican doctors usually are good. They can pay for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. What other bullshit "medicine" are you a fan of?

How about laying on hands? Good stuff, huh?

[hrmjustin]

84. Laying on hands in my church is a priest saying healing prayers over a sick person.

It is not designed to be medicine. I never said I believe or don't believe in exorcism.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. "The study also found that patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse"

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

[hrmjustin]

94. So.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. I thought it was self-explanatory.

[hrmjustin]

96. It was. ut what does it have to do with laying on of hands?

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Saying "saying healing prayers over a sick person" sounds a lot like

making a patient aware of intercessory prayer.

Which has been shown, at least in one peer reviewed study of open-heart surgery patients to be counter-productive.

You didn't specify what sort of sick person. Perhaps you meant comforting the dying, for whom there is no possible worse outcome to worry about. But I offered it as a word of caution. There is reason to think that at least for some illnesses, it might actually harm someone.

[hrmjustin]

98. People who get laying on hands askfor it or the families ask for it because the person would have

wanted it for the most part.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Understood. I think that probably refers to the

'worst scenario' folks, wherein it's more of a comfort type thing. I understand.

[hrmjustin]

101. Not always but most of the time.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. There are no people who understand what it 'is'.

Well, there are, but they are people who wouldn't participate.

[PassingFair]

103. I would be extremely worried if I found out they believed in demonic possession.

I know a woman who had her son "exorcised" TWICE.
She should have been arrested for child abuse.

[cbayer]

104. Do you know what happened during the exorcism?

[PassingFair]

107. No.

But I know that the kid was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his early twenties.
He believes himself to be possessed by demons.

Wonder where THAT idea came from?

He has been hospitalized his entire adult life.

[cbayer]

108. One of the guidelines is that people have to have

a psychiatric evaluation prior to an exorcism.

There is serious concern that this step is skipped.

Clearly there is the potential for serious harm if a person, particularly a child, with a serious psychiatric illness is "treated" with exorcism.

I am sorry he did not get the medical attention he needed.

[edhopper]

109. How could any exorcism

with or without the "medical evaluation" be anything but harmful to a child.
I can't see how leading a child to believe they are possessed by demons is anything but child abuse.

[PassingFair]

110. Also...any adult that believes themselves to be "possessed"...

is mentally ill by definition and obviously needs psychiatric help.

So are the "exorcists" who would treat him.

[cbayer]

112. No, they are not mentally ill by definition.

They may be mentally ill and that is why they are required to have an exam.

[trotsky]

113. So are you claiming that it's possible to be possessed?

By a demon/spirit/whatever?

Whoa.

[PassingFair]

114. There it is.

[cbayer]

115. There is what?

[cleanhippie]

116. No, she is not. She doesnt make claims, remember?

[Warren Stupidity]

117. Well, there was a recent claim that science promotes genocide, because hitler.

[cleanhippie]

118. Well, yeah. Everyone knows that.

[cbayer]

111. Frankly, I've met more than a few "therapists" in my day that I think

have much more potential for harm than what is generally done during a benign exorcism.

But I would agree that telling a child they are possessed by demons is a bad thing. I don't think it constitutes child abuse, but I don't' think exorcism should be performed on someone who is unable to consent.

And I think the institution of a the requirement for a medical exam is really important as well.

When living in New Orleans, I knew lots of people who did what seemed like very strange, but generally harmless, things.

I even asked the advice of one once and did exactly what she said. I didn't really believe it, but I was willing to try it.

No harm done.

[hedgehog]

27. Call me when they send the exorcists to Wall Street.

[Cleita]

28. ++++

[Lint Head]

79. Yeah. All the "old" exorcists don't have the whole Skyping exorcism thing down.

[Evoman]

85. That's so fucking idiotic.

How a grown man could believe in bullshit like exorcism in this age when we have so much knowledge and information available to us is astounding. Seriously...you watch The Exorcist and it's a documentary......gods. How can people be so fucking dumb?

[Arugula Latte]

89. Well, I'm so happy to see that this church has moved on from its medieval mindset.