(CNSNews.com) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) told a
recent gathering of the Women’s Political Committee that the spirits of
suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul
spoke to her at the White House.
Pelosi said she heard them say: “At last we have a seat at the table...”
Pelosi says, “He’s (Bush) saying something to the effect of we’re so
glad to welcome you here, congratulations and I know you’ll probably
have some different things to say about what is going on--which is
correct. But, as he was saying this, he was fading and this other thing
was happening to me."
“My chair was getting crowded in," said Pelosi. "I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since.
"My chair was getting crowded in and I couldn’t figure out what it was, it was like this," she said.
"And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all
in that chair, they were," said Pelosi. "More than I named and I could
hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were
gone..."
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were activists in the
women’s rights movement during the mid to late 1800’s. The Susan B.
Anthony List, which works for pro-life women’s leadership in government,
uses her as a namesake. The organization claims Anthony and Stanton were strong pro-life supporters.
(WND) Recently I heard a friend of mine echo the sentiment former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker expressed in an interview with WND:
“I would vote for the devil himself over Barack Obama.” People say
this to make clear how deeply they abhor Obama and all his works.
Sadly, for them and for America, their passionate hatred of Obama puts
them exactly where the devil wants them to be. The Father of Lies
chuckles with satisfaction. He gloats triumphantly at the fact that
their hatred of his appearance in one form has maneuvered them into
supporting his triumph in another.
I grieve deeply as I contemplate the fact that millions of Americans
are letting themselves be caught in this diabolical snare. As I tried
to point out in 2008, the lesser of evils is still evil. No matter how
such an election turns out, people content to choose between Satan and
Beelzebub have made clear their willingness to let things go to hell.
Moreover, the nature of their choice is so clear to them that they
practically boast of the passionate hatred that impels them to it. With
this practical boast they become the willing, proud accomplices of the
very evil they profess to hate.
I’m morally certain this is why Christ admonished his disciples to
make striving for God’s perfection the standard for their actions,
rather than their hatred of evil. He thought it better to fail reaching
for this standard than succeed by abandoning one’s life to the devil’s
dominion. He thought it better to fail in the world’s eyes while
commending one’s spirit to God (as he does on the cross) than succeed by
casting one’s lot with God’s adversary.
All this came to my mind this week as I read the excellent half-truths in David Limbaugh’s column on Obama’s intentional destruction of America. Some readers doubtless remember that I warned people of this destruction
on the heels of Obama’s putative inauguration. They are probably
wondering why I call them “half-truths.” The reason is simple. Then
as now I hold fast to the self-evident truths that are the foundation of
America’s constitutional republic. Starting in 2004 (when I accepted
the invitation of the Illinois GOP to run against him for a seat in the
U.S. Senate), the more I learned about Barack Obama the more clearly I
saw that throughout his life and especially in his political career he
has in word and deed demonstrated his rejection of those truths. On
account of that, I adamantly oppose him.
But I cannot ignore the fact that Obama’s abandonment of the
principles of the American Declaration of Independence is just an
instance of an apostasy now characteristic of elitist elements presently
in control of both of America’s so-called major political parties, as
well as important institutions in every other sector of America’s life.
In many articles over the past several years I have shared the facts and
reasoning that substantiate this conclusion. (See, for example, “Abandoning the Republic-a threat to Civil Peace” and the whole series of articles at my blog under the heading “Without Representation.”)
Recent events have confirmed it, from the GOP’s rigged choice of
stealth socialist Mitt Romney as their prospective nominee, to Chief
Justice John Roberts’ all too predictable hoisting of the
crypto-socialist “Jolly Roger.” (He abandoned reason, just principle and
the plain logic of constitutionally limited government to pen the
Supreme Court’s specious claim that the U.S. government is endowed, in
pirate fashion, with an inherently unlimited taxing power, unconstrained by Constitutional provisions.)
In light of this pervasive elite abandonment of the vision of
constitutional self-government essential to America’s national identity,
recognizing Obama’s intentionally destructive work admits only half
(and perhaps not the most fatal half) of the threat we face. On every
issue of fundamental importance to the future of the republic, Mitt
Romney did, as governor in Massachusetts, what, against strong and
intensifying opposition, Obama is still only struggling to do.
Logically, the only people who should support Romney are those who
embrace Obama’s goals, but resent Obama’s failure to achieve them. They
want to replace his clumsy, bluntly socialist incompetence with
Romney’s more engaging and sweetly deceptive method of attaining the
same end. Moreover, they know from past experience that they can count
on his GOP label to compel efforts from party-first GOP partisans to
defend and explain away President Romney’s pursuit of the elitist
socialist agenda. Thus his election will help to thwart and defuse the
strong opposition it would otherwise continue to arouse.
I know many people who adamantly oppose Obama because he is steering
us toward an elitist, totalitarian “island paradise” that lies well
within the shark-infested waters of hell. Yet they’ll vote to replace
him at the helm with someone whose only factual claim to prowess is a
record that promises a smoother voyage, through calmer seas, toward the
same destination. In what twisted realm of existential despair does
this make sense?
As I think on it, I realize why America’s founding generation refused
the path of atheistic delusion that misled the first French republic to
violence and ravenous Napoleonic tyranny. People who put their trust
in God need never accept the devil’s choice, fighting evil with evil.
Because the kingdom of God is within them, a better choice is always
near at hand. Many Americans pray and profess to believe that His
kingdom is near. But in their sovereign duty as citizens they now
propose to abandon their profession. It is what has made
self-government possible for them. It can do so again, even now, but
only if they remember it in time. As for the choice between Obama and
Romney, it’s the devil’s choice either way. Only evil can come of it.
Hello everyone and welcome to The Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Trent Italy .. home of the Council of Trent in the middle of the 16th century.
So .. say you are devil and you want to deliver a massive body blow to the Church. And lets say further you are operating in the 16th century at a low point in the Church’s history when many of her leaders are corrupt and unscrupulous. Hmmm … what could you do?
Well .. one thing you could do is to step up your efforts you have been trying since the days of the Apostles .. do whatever you can to create division among the followers of Christ. And what better way to create confusion .. to manufacture chaos than to come up with a way to have all kinds of different people interpreting the scriptures in all kinds of different ways.
Pretty clever huh? Well that’s exactly what the destroyer did .. using Martin Luther .. a priest no less. He seems to have a special relish for using clergy .. the ordained .. to get the ball rolling.
Martin Luther came up with the craziest notion in Christianity up to that point .. that the scriptures were the only thing necessary .. the only authority when it came to salvation. He did this .. actually HAD to arrive at this conclusion because he had spent some considerable investment of energies saying the Church was a sham .. the Pope the anti-Christ .. the Mass an abomination and so on.
After all his fulminating against anything and everything Catholic .. the only thing left to him was the Bible. So having destroyed every other access to truth .. he had nothing left except the bible.
The phrase that became associated with this insanity and spiritual suicide was Sola Scriptura .. Scriptures Alone. Luther concluded that the Scriptures alone could be the source of authority when dealing with matters spiritual.
His idea has gained wide currency among most protestants today .. prompting the ignorant question whenever Church teachings come up .. Where’s That in the Bible?
But before we get into the theological nuttiness of that position .. let’s look at what else Luther said and DID with the Bible.
Now .. its important to remember that before Luther arrives on the scene FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS .. ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS .. 15 CENTURIES after the Catholic Church was established .. the Church already had a complete canon of scripture.
It was that canon of Scripture that St. Jerome translated from Greek into Latin around the year 400 .. ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS before Luther appeared on the scene.
It was this canon of scripture that monks faithfully transcribed for centuries before Luther was ever heard of. That Bible was called The Vulgate .. meaning common tongue and it was used in Mass and for the psalms and preaching by saints all over Europe for over a THOUSAND YEARS before Luther was ever heard of.
So .. in the early part of the 16th century .. along comes this German priest who decides ALL BY HIMSELF .. something that had never before been heard of in 1500 years of Christian Faith .. that ONE .. the BIBLE in use for over a thousand years was WRONG .. AND TWO .. it was the only authority for the faithful.
First .. he threw out seven books from the Old Testament .. declaring on nothing but his own authority .. that they were not inspired .. despite the fact that some of them contain prophecies about Our Lord’s Passion.
But he wasn’t about to stop there .. he also wanted to pitch quite a few New Testament books as well .. including the Book of Revelation.
As a quick aside .. imagine the pitiful state Protestant preachers who talk non stop aboutthe end of the world and have made a career de-coding the Book of Revelation .. imagine where they would be if Luther had gotten his way and tossed Revelation into the trash.
It was only his friends who convinced him to keep it .. along with at least half a dozen
other books of the New Testament.
By the way .. if you want to know some of this more in depth .. we’ve created awonderful video collection called Where Did The Bible Come From? It’s an excellent video set if we say so ourselves and information no Catholic should be without .. we’ve attached a link with more info.
But back to the point .. Luther’s new Bible was not only a fraud totally manufactured out of thin air and rejecting of over a thousand years of accepted understanding an settled practice among ALL the faithful .. but even more damaging was his ridiculous notion that the Bible is or could ever be the Sole Authority.
The reason? Because no book can interpret itself. No book. When disputes come up about what this passage or that passage means .. there has to be an authority OUTSIDE the book itself to settle it.
Since Luther had said the Pope and the Catholic Church are frauds and had no authority .. it fell to whoever was reading the Bible to decide for themselves. He said .. the Holy Spirit would guide them. That’s not only stupid .. its laughable .. as history has proved.
If he Holy Spirit guided everyone to correctly interpret the Bible .. then why are there so many COMPETING interpretations .. even among Protestants. Evangelicals say such and such a passage mans one thing .. Methodists say it means something else and Fundamentalists say something entirely different from the others.
What Luther set in motion was the loss of faith by tens of millions and total confusion among tens of others of millions who cant possibly be certain if there personal opinion of Scripture is right or wrong. How could they ever know?
So what we have is millions of people deciding for themselves if divorce and remarriage is good or sinful .. homosexual acts .. contraception .. sex before marriage and a hundred other things .. like did Jesus really rise from the dead .. did he perform miracles and on and on.
Looking down the road and seeing the chaos that would result from this .. the bishops scholars and theologians at the Council of Trent .. right in this cathedral .. solemnly declared Luther’s understanding of Scripture totally wrong and condemned his and any other Bibles that were not the original Bible.
They denounced and condemned the idea that the Bible was the sole authority for determining the truth of Christ and re-asserted that only the Catholic Church could authentically interpret the Scriptures.
It was in direct response to Luther’s multiple heresies and the others that had popped up in their wake that the Council of Trent was called. By the time that the Council closed .. John Calvin’s craziness had spread through central Europe .. Elizabeth had launched her campaign of terror against the Church in England and heretical fires had blazed up all over the continent.
Trent became the clarion call for the Church to begin to fight back and launch what became known as the Counter-Reformation .. and as we witness first hand the pit into which the Church has fallen these past fifty years .. perhaps we can hope for another Trent-like event to fight the Protestantism which has seeped into the Church .. this time under the name of Modernism.
We get the powerful theology of its use in the older ritual in the prayers for exorcism of the water and salt used and then the blessing itself. I wrote about this in an article for the WDTPRS series and it is on this blog. I’ll come back to it soon.
The rite of blessing holy water, in the older ritual, is powerful stuff. It sounds odd, nearly foreign to our modern ears, especially after decades of being force fed ICEL pabulum.
Holy Water is a power weapon of the spiritual life against the attacks of the devil.
You do believe in the existence of the Enemy, … right?
You know you are a soldier and pilgrim in a dangerous world, … right?
So why… why… why would these liturgists and priests REMOVE a tool of spiritual warfare precisely during the season of LENT when we need it the most??
Holy water is a sacramental.
It is for our benefit.
It is not a toy, or something to be abstained from, like chocolate or television.
This is a response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments about this question. Enjoy.
The emphases are mine:
Prot. N. 569/00/L
March 14, 2000
Dear Father:
This Congregation for Divine Worship has received your letter sent by fax in which you ask whether it is in accord with liturgical law to remove the Holy Water from the fonts for the duration of the season of Lent.
This Dicastery is able to respond that the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted, in particular, for two reasons:... (continued)
Today's Edition of Catholic News Roundup! DOMA Repeal hits the Senate ... "Occupy the Vatican" attacks Canadian cathedral during Mass ... German Bishops' porn publisher corrects the media; "It's erotica."
"The proposed law would essentially allow the federal government to issue the same benefits to homosexual couples that truly married couples receive for the sake of bringing children into the world."
"Bishop Cordileone of Oakland, Chairman of the USCCB's Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, says the law violates justice and basic human rights because it 'transforms marriage from a child-centered to an adult-centered status to the detriment of children."
Devil in the DNA: A USCCB staff member's article that says homosexuality originates with Satan is being pulled from publication...
The SSPX is squashing any rumors regarding their answer to the Vatican's offer of reunion made in September...
It's not porn. It's erotica. So says the German media company recently exposed in the media as completely owned by the country's Catholic bishops. And they're serious...
A merely human exorcist is always going to fallible in a thousand different ways. My stupidities would cripple me even more than I was crippled by a run-away-tourist-bus in Rome, as you see in the picture. That picture was taken in the mid-1990s by an exorcist, now deceased. The fellow I cut out of the picture was an exorcist in the making, whom I was helping to train. That was in Piazza Farnese, just off Campo dei Fiori…
Now, I should hope that there is no exorcist in training or any other exorcists who take what I present in these series without a critical eye. If not, I’d be tempted to give him a black eye. Jesus was an exorcist, and is, of course, the only exorcist still today. If anyone is ever successful in an exorcism, it is because Jesus is there. If an exorcist should pay attention to anyone, it is Jesus, not necessarily to any other exorcist. Jesus and the Church! Don’t make heroes of anyone except Jesus.
I must say that it is frustrating when priests over-romanticize exorcism, putting it in the too hard category to learn something about in a serious way, instead claiming breathlessly that all they need to know is what Father X said (because Father X is famous and they once assisted him). Exorcism is just a sacramental which needs a lot of common sense. The first thing to kill off common sense is breathlessly claiming an authority who is not Jesus or the Church, and this so as to rationalize some stupid thing one is doing.
The most pastoral, reasonable perspective one can have is not to have any special exciting bubbly insight. There’s no time for fluff in exorcism. No time for heroes. Satan will be sure to crush any exorcist if that exorcist has any supposed talents or tricks or insights or heroes. Depending on such things is to invite Satan to find fault with them. He will.
Now, I’m sure Father Amorth will forgive me for what I’m going to do now, for it makes for a great point not taking on any heroes without a grain of salt. I’m sure he would be the first to agree. I don’t think he wants to be anyone’s hero, but thre are countless budding exorcists who take him as a hero. I’m going to make just a little, gentle criticism of Father Amorth. The occasion for this is that Father Cameron, O.P., has included something Father Amorth wrote in the Meditation of the Day in the American liturgical publication called the “Magnificat” (401-402, on 30 August, 2011). Father Candido is cited. That caught my eye, since, for a time, he was my spiritual director way back in the 1980s. I’ve known Father Amorth for about that long as well... (continued...)
Acts 19,13-17 — Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those with evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” When the seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, tried to do this, the evil spirit said to them in reply, “Jesus I recognize, Paul I know, but who are you?” The person with the evil spirit then sprang at them and subdued them all. He so overpowered them that they fled naked and wounded from that house. When this became known to all the Jews and Greeks who lived in Ephesus, fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in great esteem. [nab]
That’s in Scripture, right? Yes. That’s an inspired account, right? Yes. Surely the Holy Spirit is instructing us about how Satan will always act when one lacks a mandate to exorcize, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Makes rules of conduct for yourself, such as obeying the Church no matter. However, don’t make rules for Satan. Did he not say rather emphatically: “Non serviam! I will not serve!” ? Satan may very well not react this way every time. In fact, he may want one without authority over himself, one who is not an exorcist expressly mandated by the local Ordinary, to think he has such power. This creates a culture of seeming legitimacy of disobedience, whereby people rejoice not that their names are written in heaven, but that they have “power” over demons. Satan is better at arrogance than we are. He will win, every time, if this is the kind of thing people are doing. And many, many souls fall into this trap. Time and again. Belligerently... (continued...)
From time to time you’ll see the terms “major” and “minor” thrown about by major or minor ecclesiastics regarding exorcism. There has been a great deal of confusion about this for the past 150 years or so. Clarity is a good thing when dealing with Satan. Some don’t want clarity because they want to break the law of the Church and just do what they want. This is common in the field of exorcism. Disobedience is exactly what is not needed for exorcism, but this is where one will find plenty of disobedience, real belligerence.
In summary: If it is a direct command to Satan in the name of Jesus, it is a true imprecatory exorcism for which an express mandate is needed from the local ordinary. If it is not a direct command to Satan in the name of Jesus, it is not an exorcism per se, though it can be called a deprecatory exorcism or intercessory exorcism, though that is not very precise language and only confuses the issues. One doesn’t need any permission to prayer to God for someone.
Those who want to muddy the waters almost always want to do true exorcisms even though they have no permission from the local Ordinary, even though they are not priests. These disobedient souls insist that only a “major”, “public”, “ancient”, “lengthy”, “printed and therefore official”, “Latin as opposed to ‘mere’ vernacular”, “‘serious’ as opposed to what happens in the prayer group” kind of exorcism is what is forbidden to them. They say that they can give direct commands to Satan, holding their hands over all and sundry, as long as, in their opinion, what they are doing is “minor”, “private”, “modern, even of their own composition”, “short”, “oral or at least unofficial in that it has not been put through a process of approval”, “vernacular”, “not so serious, just in a prayer group” kind of thing. This is ludicrous and plays right into the hands of Satan... (continued...)
In Latin, the only word that’s ever been used for being harassed by a fallen angel is ossessione. English speakers have a difficult time with this word, and pedantically transliterate os-sessione (ob-sessione) as obsession, and then, getting rid of the preposition “ob-”, we add “pos-” to get possession, as if that made things all the more serious.
Now, in Latin, “ossessione” has nothing to do with our post-Freudian psychologized perspective on obsessive-compulsive disorder. No. Instead, in Latin, “ossessione” refers to being held hostage, to being under siege. It is quite an exact fit, that. As in the picture of Massada under siege by the Romans, where those inside the walled fortress were safe and self-willed, as least for a while, just so is the soul of the person who is under attack from a fallen angel. They have their free will intact, and cannot be forced to agree to what Satan is doing against them. Of course, such souls, like those in Massada, are under a great deal of pressure. Some, like those at Massada, commit suicide if they are without help, or if they are treated like a nuisance. Not good. Always be good and kind, ever so gentle with those vulnerable people who have come to you for help, who are often on their way to committing suicide, but decided to come see you first. Think long and hard on that. See things from their perspective.
It is very true, of course, that many of those who will ask for your help are merely psychologically obsessed with the devil, that is, even though Satan has never once bothered them, they are convinced that he is after them all the time and in every way. These people do not need an exorcist for exorcism, but it would be good to give them words of encouragement and to know how to send them on their way for the help they need. But, again, you may be the last stop also for them before they go off and commit suicide. Always be gentle with such vulnerable people who come to you for help. It’s good to know yourself, what bothers you. For instance, I know that I dislike it when people say they are harassed by the devil, but are saying that only to make themselves seem important, to get attention for themselves. They are plenty of such people. But, again, always be good and kind. This disarms even such people as this.
At any rate, the Church has never admitted of various categories of harassment by the devil. Instead, it just has to be serious enough whereby you judge that such a case is appropriately treated by exorcism.... (continued...)
The devil doesn’t at all like when a priest becomes an exorcist officially mandated by the local Ordinary. If this is becoming a statement which you can make by way of experience, then you probably don’t have to be reminded about what our Lord says in the Beatitudes:
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5,10-12).
Rejoice and be glad!
I love that.
I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that such beatitudes cannot ever apply to me. Imagine that!
That’s one of the pictures I took of the gargantuan images of the saints in the underground basilica of Saint Pius X in Lourdes when I was a chaplain there for a couple of years. Remember, he was a civil lawyer and a canon lawyer and a moral theologian and a saint. Probably he wants to do what the Church wants. We give him the benefit of any doubt!
In our times, the seal of confession is quite absolute, including indirect revelation of what went on in the confessional. If you were to begin a true imprecatory exorcism during confession, do you not think that the exercise of this sacrament would be interrupted or ended for the sake of a sacramental? The devil will have won, even in the confessional, or outside of it if the possessed person goes into antics and bursts out of the confessional because you have started an exorcism in the wrong place at the wrong time. That poor person will have no one to care for them, to hold them down if necessary, so that they don’t hurt themselves.
Some insist that Saint Alphonsus recommended an exorcism of certain penitents during confession. I’d like to see that passage, and I’d like to see, if that is true, if he is speaking of an imprecatory or “merely” deprecatory exorcism. I would assume the latter if there is no distinction. If it is “merely” the latter – with no commands being given to the devil, as at the end of the Lord’s Prayer: “but deliver us from the Evil One”, a request to our Lord – then go for it! But don’t make an imprecatory direct command to Satan during confession.
The sacrament of confession is infinitely more valuable to a soul than the sacramental of exorcism. Get the confession done, and then, if need be, move on to the exorcism.
Protecting the seal of confession does not admit of loopholes and excuses. It’s an absolute.
One of the greatest Dominican exorcists, a Consultor for I don’t know how many dicasteries of the Roman Curia, a brilliant professor and theologian – who once gave me excellent, incisive advice for a thesis I was thinking about writing at the time with the then Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and now Cardinal, A.V. – told me that he once neglected to say terce on the day he was to do an exorcism. He said that upon beginning the exorcism, the devil immediately taunted him about this. His reaction was to, then and then, drop to his knees and go to confession to the priest with him. All went well after that.
On another occasion – and this goes back some decades in Rome – there was a young priest who could do nothing except scoff at even the idea of exorcism. Being invited to go to an exorcism, he went, only this time to make a show of his scoffing, crossing his arms, shrugging his shoulders, scowling his disapproval, almost mocking the goings on, certainly not praying in his contempt. As the exorcism became intense, the devil turned to this unbelieving sorry excuse for a priest, and started describing the time that the priest had had the night before in a hotel room with a prostitute, naming the hotel, the works. This priest ran out of the room and kept on running, hopefully right to a confessional... (continued)
"The Rite" takes exorcism more seriously than I expected it to. It begins with the supposition that Satan is “alive and active in the world” and assumes that satanic possession takes place and that the rite of exorcism works. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a movie, would we? In metaphysical terms, I must immediately jump on the word “alive.” In what sense can a being that exists outside of time and space be said to be alive? Active, yes.
The movie is based on the actual experiences of Father Gary Thomas, a California priest who was assigned by his bishop to study exorcism at the Vatican. In "The Rite," he becomes Father Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue) from Chicago, and the closing credits tell us he's now working in a Western suburb. That's a fib. The director, Mikael Hafstrom, should say three “Hail Marys” and make a good act of contrition.
Father Michael is not a saint. He enters the seminary as a way to get a four-year college education before taking his vows, and then tries to leave the novitiate. Discovering the cost of his education would then roll over into a $100,000 student loan, he reconsiders and agrees to attend a monthlong course in Rome. This sort of detail is more refreshing than shots of him silhouetted against ancient desert structures while monks intone Gregorian chants.
In Rome, he attends classes, debates scripture, and then is advised to spent some time with an experienced exorcist, Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins). This too is from the book by Matt Baglio, although in the book, this priest is Italian. As Hopkins appears onscreen, "The Rite" slips into gear and grows solemn and effective. Hopkins finds a good note for Father Trevant: friendly, chatty, offhand, self-effacing, realistic about demonic possession but not a ranter. He takes the kid along while treating the apparent possession of a pregnant young woman.
That something happens to make people seem possessed I have no doubt. Diagnosing whether Satan is involved is above my pay grade. What I must observe is that demonic possession seems very rare, and the Church rejects the majority of such reports. Yet it approaches epidemic proportions in "The Rite," almost as if it were a virus. The film is like one of those war movies where everybody gets wounded but John Wayne.
Still, I found myself drawn in. It is sincere. It is not exploitative; a certain amount of screaming, frothing and thrashing comes with the territory. My own guess is that people get the demons they deserve. While true believers go into frenzies, the Masters of Wall Street more cruelly lose joy in their wives and homes.
In Rome, Father Lucas meets a journalist named Angeline (Alice Braga), who like most women in the movies, even journalists, lacks a second name. She follows them on assignment, but it is one of the film's virtues that she does not get romantically involved. In a correct casting decision, Braga is attractive but not a sexpot. This movie was filmed largely in Hungary. In Hollywood, the role would have had Megan Fox written all over it.
Hafstrom uses what I assume are some Hungarian interiors to go with his exteriors in Rome. A centuries-old library is especially impressive. The ancient presence of the Vatican is evoked to great effect; a reminder that although Satan is in fashion in many denominations, when you want to exorcise, you call in the experienced professionals. The priests are not blind believers. Father Kovak argues at one point that a psychiatrist might be more appropriate. When they get into the trenches with the demons, there is spiritual hand-to-hand fighting, but Father Trevant, Father Kovak and Angeline are as realistic as probably possible.
This is I suspect a more realistic film than "The Exorcist," although not its equal. The real Father Gary Thomas has cited "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" (2005) as more accurate. I admire "The Rite" because while it delivers what I suppose should be called horror, it is atmospheric, its cinematography is eerie and evocative, and the actors enrich it. It has given some thought to exorcism. Grant its assumptions, and it has something to say.
Hardcopy Issue Date: March 2011
Online Publication Date: Mar 1, 2011, 14:26
Starring Anthony Hopkins, Colin O’Donoghue, Ciarán Hinds
Warner Brother Enterprise presents a film directed by Mikael Håfström
based loosely on a book by Matt Baglio, The Rite: The making of a modern exorcist, 2009
rated: PG-13 for disturbing thematic material, violence, frightening images, and language including sexual references.
The biggest difference between the film The Rite and the book on which it is loosely based is the character of the man called to Rome to be trained as an exorcist. In the film, this man is the fictional Michael Kovak, an affable seminarian who doubts his vocation and suffers from weak faith. In the book, this man is a real person, Father Gary Thomas, a well-educated 57-year-old American priest who was requested by his bishop in 2005 to train for the position of exorcist for his diocese. People who have read the book may find this difference distracting. However, it ends up being unimportant. Taken as a whole, the film is surprisingly accurate about the phenomenon of diabolical possession.
The film deals with three exorcisms. The first case is that of a young pregnant woman. The exorcist helping her is Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins), an intense, charismatic priest originally from Wales but living alone in Italy in a suitably spooky house. Seminarian Michael Kovak is sent to train under Father Lucas. His training is hands-on. During a series of exorcisms on the young woman, Michael sees her exhibit disturbing behaviours, such as speaking a variety of languages in different voices, displaying superhuman strength, uttering obscenities, writhing, choking, spitting, and convulsing when touched by a Crucifix or sprinkled with holy water. All these phenomena are consistently documented by reputable exorcists, which means the filmmakers did their homework. Oddly, Michael remains unconvinced of any supernatural explanation and insists the woman needs a psychiatrist.
The second case is that of a young boy who has been bitten ferociously by an evil “mule” and displays knowledge of things he cannot know through natural means. Father Lucas asks pointed questions to determine whether or not the boy is suffering from child abuse. He becomes convinced it is a genuine case of extraordinary diabolic activity. As part of the exorcism, he demands to see the boy’s pillow, tears it apart, and finds inside the confirmation of his diagnosis. Again, the filmmakers did their homework. Exorcists emphasize the importance of correct diagnosis, and do indeed report the discovery of strange hidden objects as a sign of demonic activity in some cases. At this stage in the film, the seminarian Michael begins to believe.
The third case is that of Father Lucas himself. This part of the film is the most sensationalistic and the least catechetical. Accurate reflection of Church teaching breaks down because the seminarian Michael successfully performs the exorcism on Father Lucas with the aid of a female journalist. The Catholic Church does not allow seminarians to perform exorcisms. If they attempt to do so, they are unlikely to be successful. An exorcism is to be performed only by a faithful priest appointed by his bishop. Also, experienced exorcists discourage the popular idea that the devil normally attacks the exorcist as revenge for the exorcism ritual.
When asked why he portrayed Satan—an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano—the way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.
"That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman … That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."
But what about the ugly baby?
"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."
TV and radio spots will feature the devil as an "anti-spokesperson"
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/3/2008 4:47:00 PM
A campaign debuting Wednesday will use the devil to pitch the rebranding of a New York religous cable service, The Prayer Channel, into NET (New Evangelism Television).
According to a spokesman for LA-based agency Cesario Migliozzi, which is handling the rebranding campaign, TV and radio spots featuring the devil as an "anti-spokesperson" will begin running Dec. 3 and will include MySpace and Facebook pages, a web site www.StopGoodTV.com and NYC bus advertising (the channel is on Time Warner Cable and Cablevision). The spots feature a "vertically challenged" devil trying to warn viewers off the channel.
NET, which is affiliated with the Catholic Archdioses of Brooklyn, programs religious news, lifestyle, entertainment, and kids programming 24/7 to approximately 850,000.
"The Church has used the good vs. evil conflict to promote religion for two centuries,” he added. “In our campaign, the Devil urges viewers to avoid good TV and stick with ‘crappy, pointless, bad television,’ said Ad Agency parnter Michael Migliozzi in announcing the new campaign/ "There is even an online petition fronted by the Devil, in which viewers pledge not to tune into NET."
The Archdiocese's TV arm approved the campaign, according to agency spokesman Ted Faraone.
Rome, Jun 6, 2008 / 11:10 am (CNA).- In an interview with the magazine “Maria Mensajera,” famous Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth said, “Everybody is vulnerable to the work of Satan” and that “the devil loves to take over those who hold political office.”
The Spanish daily “La Razon” published the interview in an article by Alexander Smoltczyk in which the 82 year-old priest describes what happens in an exorcism. He said he has performed more than 70,000.
“Evil exists in politics, quite often in fact,” Father Amorth said. “The devil loves to take over business leaders and those who hold political office. Hitler and Stalin were possessed. How do I know? Because they killed millions of people. The Gospel says: ‘By their fruits you will know them.’ Unfortunately, an exorcism on them would not have been enough, since they were convinced of what they were doing. We can’t say it was a possession in the strict sense of the word, but rather a total and voluntary acceptance of the suggestions of the devil.”
“I tell those who come to see me to first go to a doctor or a psychologist,” the priest continued. “Most of the time there is a physical or psychological basis for explaining their suffering. The psychiatrists send me the incurable cases. There is no rivalry. The psychiatrist determines if it is an illness, the exorcist if it is a curse,” Father Amorth explained.
Nobody, he went on, not even himself, is “safe from the devil. Everyone is vulnerable.” “The devil is very intelligent. He retains the intelligence of the angel that he was.”
“The Pope supports exorcists,” he explained, but “satanic sects are proliferating,” and for this reason Father Amorth said his calendar for the next two months is full. “I work seven days a week, from morning until night, including Christmas Eve and Holy Week,” he said.
