The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist
Christian deliverance ministry expert Mike Signorelli in 2022 said, "I would really warn anyone listening against seeking out an exorcism from a priest because that [will] end up actually creating a worse condition that you come in...I have had to do many deliverances after somebody received an 'exorcism' from a Catholic priest".
It has been noticed that those who say Christians can be possessed have a shocking and remarkable high view of demonic power and cleverness. This produces great fear in those communities. Jesus seems to have said that his follower who he calls the strong man can handle Satan and tie him up (Matthew 12: 29). That could be taken as saying that the Christian cannot be possessed or demonised or worse that they won’t exorcise themselves and want Satan in. Jesus one time when he was accused of being possessed said he was not for he honoured God his father (John 8: 49). Thus he is clear that no possessed person truly honours God. Maybe they can do the motions but it is their own fault. This vision explains why there are no exorcisms in John’s gospel. Jesus is not going to come and put a demon out when you are the one keeping it in! The Catholic Church assumes possession victims are Christians. No wonder it is so hard and takes maybe years to get the demon out and if it goes it looks like it just never intended to stay in the person forever anyway. The Church is responsible for the possession by falsely assuring the victim that she or he is Christian. The exorcism amounts to superstition and abuse. The exorcism honours Satan by saying that he can get into a person who is a child of God as if he is stronger than God or a worthy opponent.
The book, The Rite, by Matt Baglio, has been approved by
Father Professor Basil Cole and Father Jose Antonio Fortea. It has been hailed
by the latter as one of the best books on the subject of exorcism and possession
ever written. The Catholics interestingly do not consider the New
Testament to be the best guide on the subject for it says nothing about how
Jesus or his apostles knew that somebody was possessed and needed a demon cast
out. They just thought they knew magically and thus their enterprise was
just irresponsible and about using vulnerable people to promote their religious
beliefs. This has led to untold damage and ultimately exorcists all
imagine that some "feeling" they have from God is a sign that the person truly
is possessed.
The first few pages (1-4) start with an exorcist trying to expel a demon from a
woman. The demon began having visions. The demon speaks of the one in black who
we are told was his code for Saint Gemma Galgani and then of the one from
Albania meaning Mother Teresa. Incredibly, the demon riled terribly at the sight
of Pope John Paul II.
Now Mother Teresa was no saint but a vile hypocrite. John Paul was no saint
either. He let the evil of clerical child abuse go out of hand and failed to
discipline evil Fr Maciel his close paedophile friend. The whole thing looks
like a demonic attempt to make these evil figures appear in a good light. Good
ammunition that for Christian evangelicals who regard the papacy and the
Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon invigorated by the hellish energies of
the pit.
The demon is ordered by the exorcist to say that God is his creator and he
adores him.
This shows that exorcism is an evil practice. There is no point in making a
demon pray. The demon is forced to pray so he cannot mean the prayer. The demon
cannot genuinely adore a God he hates. The exorcist goes down to the level of
the demon by trying to hurt another being. The exorcist blasphemes his evil God
by citing his approval.
Clearly, the exorcist is speaking to the woman herself. She is her demon. No
demon has possessed her. This is a woman being tormented and hurt by religion in
the name of releasing her from a demon's control.
Page 5 states that exorcisms that involve dramatics such as above are quite
rare. Most exorcisms are no more dramatic than visits to the dentist.
Page 7 tells us that according to the Association of Catholic Psychiatrists and
Psychologists, a half a million people annually go to see exorcists. In 2004,
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked every bishop in the world
to appoint an exorcist.
The admission that most exorcisms do not involve victims floating in midair and
speaking strange languages shows that this book is tame and a good authority on
the subject. It means there is not much evidence then that a demon is really
involved. The possessed person is probably mentally ill or just an
attention-seeker. If people do not respond to psychotherapy or medicine, the
exorcists are encouraging them to think they are possessed.
If a psychiatrist permits an exorcism, it will be only because he or she feels
it helps the victim if the victim believes in it. In other words, it is the
belief not the exorcism that gets the results. The Church accepts this
permission and may arrange an exorcism. However, the Church is abusing this
permission. The Church is really getting permission to manipulate the victim. It
denies exorcism is manipulation so it really gets no permission at all.
The psychiatrist does not believe there is a demon there and if there is, it
follows that the Church should not even care about his permission for he does
not know what he is talking about. It is all so hypocritical. It is just the
Church fabricating concern for the victims. It has to keep up appearances as it
fears a hostile media and society.
Page 29 quotes exorcist Father Pedro Barrajon stating that the Devil is present
anywhere evil happens - if a person rejects God's love Satan is there. And also
Satan is more dangerous when he hides so as to avoid the attention of the
exorcist.
It is stupid to think that Satan needs to be present when evil happens. What
does he have demons and armies for? And Satan or a demon hiding his presence in
a person makes sense. But getting the attention of an exorcist by doing strange
things does not. It makes the possessions look like Satan is taking the Church
for fools.
Page 31 says that an exorcism is only valid if performed with the authority and
permission of the Church and in the name of God.
This insults those who are non-Catholics and say that they have performed
successful exorcisms.
Page 32 says that Jesus didn't bother with exorcism rituals but simply ordered
the demon to leave and this shocked his contemporaries. They were not used to
exorcists who cast demons out without a ceremony.
Surely an indication that Catholic exorcism is occult for it involves a pile of
ritual. If priests really could cast demons out just an order would do. The
exorcisms of priests are not like those of Jesus. Warning bells ring!
Page 33 says that the early Church believed that any demon told to go out of a
person in the name of Jesus would go. All the early Christian writers spoke of
and promoted exorcism as a good way to get converts.
At the very least, Jesus if he had been really as good and wise as he claimed to
be, would have left some warnings about exorcism. The damage done to the
impressionable and mentally ill by the early Church over his example must have
been indescribable. And the claim that the demons always left at the use of the
name of the Son of God - a claim made by Justin Martyr for one - can only be
understood as a bare-faced lie. If Jesus really did any good with his exorcisms
- and no evidence is given in the New Testament that those people fared okay
afterwards in the long-term - then it's eclipsed by the harm done. The New
Testament simply only cares about the seeming wonder of the demon going. It is not
about what it did for the person and how the person might have been a holy
person after. It's about the show not the spiritual lessons. So fond was the
early Church of exorcism, that you had to undergo the casting out of demons from
you for days before your baptism. This was using fear to force people into the
Church.
The book deals with the notion that Jesus was dumbing down. Some have said that
Jesus had to say he believed in real demons though he did not and it was about
going down to the level of the stupid society he was part of in order to get a
point across. The book correctly observes that it is clear that Jesus DID
believe in demons. A man who did not use his exorcisms for teaching purposes is
definitely not dumbing down.
Page 33 Exorcism was central to Jesus ministry.
True - he stressed that Satan could not have a kingdom if Satan casts out
demons. He spoke of the evil generation under the power of the Devil. The Devil
offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. This tempted Jesus meaning he knew
Satan really could give him all that power. You cannot believe in Jesus without
believing in his role as an exorcist.
Page 33, demons and their influence over people and things and their power to
possess were universally accepted by Catholics until sceptics emerged in the
Church in the 60's and this was a central doctrine.
It is Catholic teaching that doctrine so well accepted that it is a part of
Catholic teaching is to be seen as infallible for Jesus promised that his Church
would never be overcome by the gates of Hades. The sceptics are not true
Catholics.
Page 43 says that God rejects none of his creatures so he let Satan keep his
powers as an archangel after he left heaven. It says that since a miracle is an
event that cannot be explained by anything created but only explained by God
that Satan cannot do real miracles. He can only do pretend ones. Satan cannot
see into your heart but he can like a psychologist work out what is in your mind
by observing from the outside. He cannot predict the future but he knows and
sees more than we do so he can make very clever guesses about what will happen
which will be right.
The Bible says that if a prophet predicts the future without error he is from
God. But what good is that criteria if Satan could be telling him things?
If God lets Satan help people to be accurate at predicting the future or
revealing hidden knowledge he might as well give him the power of doing
miracles. That is because accurate prophecy is the ultimate miracle.
Page 45 says that when demons are present in a place or thing that is
infestation. It speaks of the testimony of an exorcist that he blessed a house
and saw specks of blood appearing on different things and spoke of rosary beads
being found crushed up.
Contradicts the doctrine of the exorcists that demons can't do miracles.
Page 44 says that God only lets the Devil hurt us because he wishes to use his
evil to bring good out of it.
Then he must force Satan to hurt us for Satan would not hurt us if it would mean
hurting himself. It is really God we should have cast out of us not Satan.
Page 46 speaks of oppression by demons where they actually beat people up and
hurt them. Examples of people who endured this include Job in the Bible, the
woman Jesus said had the spirit of infirmity, St Gemma Galgani and Padre Pio.
Contradicts the view that demons can't do miracles.
Page 47 speaks of demonic obsession. It can be described as demonic temptation.
It is when a person for example may experience a fixation that keeps trying to
draw her or him to profane the Eucharist or whatever. It is tormenting and
victims can feel they are going insane.
People cause their own temptations. When one blames one's demons, one is
refusing to admit that the temptation is his or her own work.
Page 47 states that possession is when a demon starts controlling the victims
body without the victim's knowledge. It cannot however take over a person's
spirit unless the person willingly invites the demon and its influence in and
the result is a person who is a walking demon on earth (page 49). Also, it
states that almost all exorcists believe that more people are suffering
possession today than in the past.
The possessed person could go on a shoplifting spree and convince themselves
afterwards that it was the demon that did it.
Page 56 and 57 and 58 and 59 list the ways you can be possessed. Involvement in
the occult. A curse in which somebody sends you a demon to hurt you. Dedication
to a demon or Satan. A life of stubborn sin. The book says the sin of idolatry
open the door. Today, most Catholics are idolatrous for they pick and choose
what they want to believe out of what God has said. In other words, they are
inventing a God for themselves who bears only some resemblance to the God of
Catholicism. The book says that possession is not contagious and can happen if a
person has been involved in the occult or if a curse has been put on her or him.
It seems that once off involvement in the occult may not result in possession
but if one uses the occult often enough problems will happen.
Possession might take place if a demon was invited in. But it is madness to
suggest that a curse on an innocent person can put a demon in them. That is
magic.
Page 63 quotes Father John Nicola's book, Diabolical Possession and Exorcism, as
stating that exorcists should listen to religion and science and only proceed to
exorcism as a last resort.
When they consider a person possessed without any supernatural indication that
they are, this is a blatant lie. Science is imperfect. There are mental
disorders we can't diagnose correctly. What about in the past when less was
known from science? Belief in exorcism then must have led to people being
treated as possessed when by current and modern standards we would know they
were mentally ill.
FINALLY
You need proof not faith that a demon is possessing someone. To say a demon is
possessing someone places the burden of proof on you. We are not getting that
proof. We get just contradictions and nonsense and barbarism and credulity from
the exorcists. The law needs to outlaw exorcism. It is an abusive practice. If
exorcism seems to cure someone, the Church assumes that it was the reason for
the person's recovery. This can never be proven. And if the exorcism does not
work, the Church assumes that the victim is actually inviting the demon in
meaning it is not the exorcism's fault if the demon is still there. Or the
Church will assume that it is God's will for the possession to continue. With
these excuses for its failure, it is obvious that exorcists are among the quacks
of the worst kind. You might as well believe that cough medicine can eject
demons from you. The belief of many that a person can be tormented both by
mental illness and a demon makes it all the worse. It will lead to many
disturbed people being treated as possessed. Exorcism is meant to hurt the demon
but if there is no demon it will hurt the victim. Catholic belief urges the
exorcist to ignore any evidence that the entity is some supernatural being but
not necessarily a demon. The entity has to be pre-judged and classed as an evil
spirit. It is all very uncharitable. Even if a supernatural entity were
possessing the victim, the Church has no right to say that entity is a demon who
is damned in Hell and pure evil. It might not be that evil and besides to tell
the victim he is possessed by evil is not helping him or her. Exorcism is really
evil hypocritically pretending to cast evil out. If someone is suffering from
schizophrenia, that is a natural disorder and it needs to be treated by doctors
and medicines. It does not help to pretend that a demon is behind it. You will
exorcise the person for the next fifty years and they will be worse not better
for they didn't get the proper help. The Roman Catholic Church is not as
responsible as it pretends to be in relation to prescribing exorcism. Its
example only encourages Charismatic and Pentecostal and Evangelical Sects who
have little concern for what psychologists or psychiatrists have to say about
people these sects suspect may be possessed. And tragedy and hurt results. These
sects report enough seeming success to encourage them to keep going on harming
mentally ill people.
NOTE: The movie and book, The Exorcist, by William Peter Blatty, is based on a
true story. It is the story of Douglass Deen. The original transcripts about
Douglass's phenomena, are every interesting. Blatty over-dramatised possession
and exorcism in his book. The book was so florid that clearly the Deen story was
not the basis for The Exorcist at all. Blatty was lying about his tale being
based on a true story. The Deen case gave no indication of anything
supernatural. If there was anything not of this world going on, it was really
poltergeist at work. A writer called Thomas Allen got the original diaries and
records and lied about what was in them to make the story sound supernatural and
more terrifying. He lied that Deen was able to speak in Latin without knowing
the language and levitated and exercised clairvoyance. Father Hughes
nevertheless decided that the child was possessed and tried to exorcised.
Read Chapter 9, Demonic Possession in The Sceptical Occultist, Terry White,
Century, London, 1994.
The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist, Matt Baglio, Pocket Books, London,
2010