Demons

[R_C]

@vames: your arguments are quite poor, as are the resources you rely upon (skeptoid?) You don’t seem to know much about the case of Anneliese Michel, either. Medical and psychiatric treatment did not help her, but rather made her condition worsen. Exorcism seemed to be the only thing left to try. It was later said in court that medicine could have done more and saved her. Suppositions, and not backed up by what doctors and the family had experienced during times of medical treatment. As for your remarks on Fr. Amorth: first, he is now quite old and still spends his days freely offering his services to as many as need it, and second, a patient with mental illness will not generally respond to the rite (meaning he may react, but no positive response will manifest itself) and this will be quite obvious to all present. So please, try to contribute more objectively.

Can you point me in the direction of empirical evidence online that could better help me understand?

Empirical evidence is the result of centuries of observation collected in the writings of many works on these matters, showing that the individual experiencing demonic disturbance always reacts in similar ways to similar prayers or sacramentals. For instance: it is no smoking gun if someone who is mentally ill snaps at the sight of a man holding a crucifix, but what about a non-Catholic man from a middle eastern country who snaps at a priest quietly reciting a certain deliverance prayer in Latin? In short, like I said, there is stuff being observed persistently, and some of it is described on books.

The very introduction present in the official rite of exorcism briefly mentions some of these observations. It is true that some of the phenomena persistently observed and believed to be supernatural (ex. objects moving, some degree of levitation, etc.) are now partially explained by the novel field of parapsychology as psi phenomena, and thus do not necessarily indicate demonic activity.

While it is a very delicate topic (even psi phenomena are easily laughed at by scientists), some dedicated scientists conduct research on the matter. Fr. Fortea has a section of his website dedicated to bring together some information on such research.

I would help more, but I don’t know much, and I am not directly involved in this ministry.

 

[edwest2]

There are many examples in Scripture of people having their demons casted out. These days we rarely hear of true posessions, though we do hear about lots of people suffering from mental illnesses.

1. Were these people in Biblical times really posessed by demons?
2. Is the Bible wrong by labeling their afflictions as demonic and were they, instead, suffering from mental illness?
3. If these people were suffering from mental illness instead of demons, can we trust the Bible as being true?
4. If the Bible is true and they did have mental illnesses, can someone please explaine?
5. If these people did suffer from demonic posession, why so many then compared to now? Did the posessed just gravitate toward Jesus and his Apostles or …what?

1. Yes.
2. The Bible is true and it is free from error.
3. and 4)The Bible recognized those with mental illness.

Matthew 4:24 “His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them.” NAB

1. It happens today.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101298.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[R_C]

So how is a person with psychological problems at any level from mild to extreme ; how is that person to know or come to an understanding if he or she , is or is not at some level being tormented or even possessed by a demon… ?

I imagine at some point a person would need to contact a priest, but how does one breach the subject, let alone even begin to discern such a thing as to not become scrupulous about it or even develop some sort of O.C.D over the issue ?

Is a person supposed to be referred to a priest over the matter ?

I mean there are of course the blatant and obvious signs that something in the realm of satan is taking place, I guess I am talking other than that .

Nonresponsiveness to medical treatment is the first sign. All others, even hearing voices or aversion to religious objects, can be the result of mental illness. Of course, if someone has no idea that the Catholic Church can help, not much can be done other than attempt to give some sort of palliative care.

Then I am also curious, at times on television there are programs of people who claim to be an exorcist , they are obviously not Catholic, or by any means involved with the Catholic Church, some programs are blatantly for entertainment others seems to suggest that the individual is truly doing something good for Christ and society;

why then for those who think they are helping others, and working on behalf of Christ, would those people be considered doing something wrong in the eyes of the RCC ?
It seems that some where in Scripture Christ said something in regards to those who are working In my name can not work against me… ( very rough paraphrasing ).

So if that is to some degree correct that is quoted in scripture some where, why then would the RCC be against anyone who is working to help those who are possessed and are not just selling snake oil ?

**The Church has been doing this for centuries, with prudence and discernment. We may question someone’s ability to exorcise who is not Catholic, simply because the authority to expel demons is linked to the keys, to “binding and loosing”. When someone is not in full communion with the Church, how can he command with the authority of the Church? Now, we do believe that “God is not tied by His Sacraments”, so it is possible that God may help people in need through non-Catholics and even non-Christians. In short: I wouldn’t say the Church is “against” those people (at least I am not sure what you mean by ‘against’) but she is acting in the manner of scientists who distrust imprudent, novel medical treatments even if they are given with good intentions and seem to work. **

If Catholic priests are over taxed by such an issue, then why not start training deacons ( if they are already not ) and grant a right to lay catholics, even nuns , an friars ; on this issue ? What would be the problem with that idea ?

Deacons, nuns, and lay people cannot act in persona Christi because they are not ordained, meaning they have not received the Holy Orders and become successors of the apostles. The argument is quite complex. Friars and monks are religious. Some of them are priests, and indeed some of them do give such special blessings. The real problem is disbelief in the action of the fallen spirits even within the hierarchy of the Church. Often times bishops do not nominate exorcists and do not conduct exorcisms.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

There are many examples in Scripture of people having their demons casted out. These days we rarely hear of true posessions, though we do hear about lots of people suffering from mental illnesses.

1. Were these people in Biblical times really posessed by demons?
2. Is the Bible wrong by labeling their afflictions as demonic and were they, instead, suffering from mental illness?
3. If these people were suffering from mental illness instead of demons, can we trust the Bible as being true?
4. If the Bible is true and they did have mental illnesses, can someone please explaine?
5. If these people did suffer from demonic posession, why so many then compared to now? Did the posessed just gravitate toward Jesus and his Apostles or …what?

I don’t believe it’s either/or. I believe that when the devil possess someone the first thing he does is mess with their mind and give them a mental illness and then it progresses from there. It’s hard to possess and control someone who has a sound mind. First the devil has to either give someone a mental illness or pick someone who has a weakness in their mind(mental illness) and work from there. In biblical times they were not aware of mental illness but was only aware of the possession. Today we are aware of the mental illness part but people use that to ignore the possession. They think mental illness is all there is to it. I believe serial killers and people who do really horrible sick sick crimes could be suffering from possession as well as mental illness. They go hand in hand. But I think a person’s mind has to be teetering on the edge already for the devil to exploit a weakness in order to enter and possess someone. If someone with mental illness starts to take medicine to clear their mind, the medicine puts them in their right mind and makes it hard for the devil to control them that’s why it seems like it was only mental illness and not possession. All mentally ill people are not possessed, but I think a person has to be mentally ill for the devil to be able to enter and control them. There has to be a weakness in the mind. That’s what I think. Medicine doesn’t exercise a person it just makes the possession less apparent because the person’s mind is stronger, but the devil is still there. Once a priest exercises someone, the devil is gone but the mental illness may still be there and some may think it was just mental illness all along. The devil tries to hide behind mental illness. Once exercised the person may still have to take medicine for mental illness.

 

[Gricken]

The bible was written over the course of thousands of years. so even though it seems like there are a bunch of demons. If you put it in context, it was just as unusual to them as it is to us today

 

[vames]

You don’t seem to know much about the case of Anneliese Michel, either. Medical and psychiatric treatment did not help her, but rather made her condition worsen. Exorcism seemed to be the only thing left to try.

I don’t claim to know, but the commission convened by the German bishops who after her death decided that she wasn’t possessed surely knew more than us all. The same bishops petitioned the Vatican to change the ritual of exorcism, so as to avoid other such cases. This was an example of exorcism wrongly performed on a mentally ill person, based on the automatic and false assumption that if medication doesn’t help, then it must be demonic possession.

 

[Faith1960]

The bible was written over the course of thousands of years. so even though it seems like there are a bunch of demons. If you put it in context, it was just as unusual to them as it is to us today

Well, I was mostly referring to th NT.

 

[Cable]

Christ is not a “liar,” no, of course not. However doctors, and Christ Himself, knew little about medical matters in Biblical days. They knew even less about mental health issues. Heck, little was known about mental illness up until a few decades ago. And there is still so much for the doctors to learn.

So you’re saying you think Christ isn’t the same as God, who is all-knowing - …

I read People of the Lie (awhile back), by Scott Peck, who is a psychiatrist, and it seems to me, that as such, he had no explanation for what he witnessed during the exorcising sessions. I don’t recall that he was Catholic, but he could have converted any time.

 

[R_C]

I don’t claim to know, but the commission convened by the German bishops who after her death decided that she wasn’t possessed surely knew more than us all. The same bishops petitioned the Vatican to change the ritual of exorcism, so as to avoid other such cases. This was an example of exorcism wrongly performed on a mentally ill person, based on the automatic and false assumption that if medication doesn’t help, then it must be demonic possession.

Well, that the Holy See revised the Rite after the case of Anneliese is only someone’s supposition. Many things were subject to revision, not just the Rite. It took longer to revise it because people were uncomfortable with the very idea that exorcism was still being practiced in the Church. Those were very confusing days.

Even if we believe that there was negligence, it would be sheer nonsense to change a Rite that has been shown to be effective for hundreds of years solely because one priest applied it in the wrong situation. If there was negligence, it was not the Rite that brought death to the patient, but the absence of medical treatment. Any prayer, even reading the Bible, would have had the same result.

Furthermore, the Rite is not a magical formula: the basic steps are delineated, but the rest is up to the minister, and it involves a direct confrontation with the entity possessing the body lead to determining its name, why the possession occurred, and if will it spontaneously leave on a specific date. Changing the Rite did nothing other than weakening its effectiveness, and in fact it took a handful of years for many exorcists to complain that their ministry was hindered by the revised version and for the Holy See to issue an authorization to keep using the old Rite.

If we really want to speak about such changes, I shall mention that even the rite of blessing of water was changed in such a way that many (including cardinals) complained it was rendered in fact ineffective, and that the result was not holy water but blessed water - and again, the Holy See issued an authorization to keep using the old rite. And what was missing in the new rite? Guess. The prayers of exorcism! Namely, the exorcised salt (an important sacramental, also employed in Baptism, deriving its origin to the prophet Elisha) was no longer added to the water, and the priest would no longer direct that the holy water “may put to flight all the power of the enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that enemy with his apostate angels, through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

So there was a tendency at some point to not speak much of the devil, as if it was sort of embarrassing in the modern era to hold on to that which the Church had done for centuries (forgetting that a key element of the Gospels was the power of Christ overcoming and casting out the prince of this world - a prominent figure in the Gospels, that Christ had spoken “if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you” and “these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons”, and that in the New Testament the apostles warn us that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the principalities of the world of darkness).

This helped me remember about another element from Acts: when people who believed in Christ but were not members of the Church started practicing exorcisms, a possessing spirit replied to them: “Jesus I know [as He is God] and Paul I know [as he was a bishop of the early Church] but who are you?” and despite their commanding him in the name of Jesus and the Church, they were all overpowered by the man who displayed one element typical of true possession: extraordinary and inexplicable strength.

 

[edwest2]

The bible was written over the course of thousands of years. so even though it seems like there are a bunch of demons. If you put it in context, it was just as unusual to them as it is to us today

Not true.

amazon.com/Interview-With-Exorcist-Antonio-Fortea/dp/1932645969

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Yes possession was real in the bible, there was the time Jesus cast the spirits out of someone and they went into the herd of pigs and made all of the pigs commit suicide by jumping off a cliff. And those possessed show inhuman amount of strength. There was also a time where a possessed man tried to reveal who Jesus was before it was time for Him to be revealed and Jesus cast them out. The ones who asked Him if he came to torment them before their time. Meaning before their judgement and sentence to hell. That shows it’s more than just mental illness going on in those cases. People who don’t believe in God or the Bible tried to say biblical possession was just the misunderstanding of mental illness, but it was more than mental illness back then.

 

[Faith1960]

Can anyone point to some Church authorized information that explains if it’s required that a possibly possessed person is evaluated for mental illnes before an exorcism is performed?
I’ve read some things that say this and others that seem rather vague.
I did read something that said that the APA considers demonic possession nothing other than mental illness, so how could mental illness be ruled out and an exorcism performed?

 

[R_C]

Can anyone point to some Church authorized information that explains if it’s required that a possibly posessed person is evaluated for mental illnes before an exorcism is performed?

An answer by Fr. Mark J. Gantley, JCL:

Before determining that a possession has taken place, other explanations should be excluded from possibilities, such as the effects of drug use, psychological or physical illness, or even an attempt to feign possession. Various experts should first be consulted to rule out these other explanations. One should not be quick to jump to the conclusion of possession.

Official traditional rite “De Exorcizandis Obsessi A Daemonio” (translation to English vernacular by Philip T. Weller).

A priest–one who is expressly and particularly authorized by the Ordinary–when he intends to perform an exorcism over persons tormented by the devil, must be properly distinguished for his piety, prudence, and integrity of life. …] he ought to be of mature years, and revered not alone for his office but for his moral qualities. …] In order to exercise his ministry rightly, he should resort to a great deal more study of the matter …]

Especially, he should not believe too readily that a person is possessed by an evil spirit; but he ought to ascertain the signs by which a person possessed can be distinguished from one who is suffering from some illness, especially one of a psychological nature. …]

The exorcist should guard against giving or recommending any medicine to the patient, but should leave this care to physicians.

Official revised rite, “De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam”, decree Prot. N. 1499/01/L of September 21, 2001. Unfortunately I only have access to the Italian typical edition so the translation to English is unofficial.

Il sacerdote esorcista procederà alla celebrazione dell’esorcismo nella forma imperativa solo dopo aver raggiunto la certezza morale sulla reale possessione diabolica del soggetto.

The exorcist priest will proceed to the celebration of the exorcism in the imperative form solely after having reached moral certainty about the real diabolic possession of the subject.

Nel discernimento si servirà innanzitutto di criteri tradizionalmente seguiti per individuare i casi di possessione diabolica, e potrà avvalersi del confronto con sacerdoti esorcisti di consolidata esperienza e, in alcuni casi, della consulenza di persone esperte di medicina e di psichiatria.

In the discernment he shall employ above all else the traditionally followed criteria to determine cases of diabolic possession, and he shall also avail himself of confrontation with exorcist priests of consolidated experience and in some cases of the consultation of persons expert in medicine and psychiatry.

Di fronte a disturbi psichi ci o fisici di difficile interpretazione il sacerdote non procederà al Rito dell’esorcismo maggiore, ma accoglierà ugualmente le persone sofferenti con carità, le raccomanderà al Signore e le inviterà a servirsi delle preghiere previste dal «Rito degli esorcismi» per l’uso privato.

Before psychical or physical disturbances of difficult interpretation, the priest will not proceed with the Rite of major exorcism, but will still embrace the suffering person with charity, recommend them to the Lord, and invite them to make use of the prayers included in the Rite of exorcism for private use.

Nel caso di un intervento che viene ritenuto diabolico, l’ esorcista usi in primo luogo la necessaria e massima cautela e prudenza. Anzitutto non creda subito di trovarsi di fronte a una persona posseduta dal demonio, perché potrebbe trattarsi di un caso di malattia soprattutto di natura psichica. Allo stesso modo non creda subito di essere in presenza di una possessione diabolica quando il soggetto dice di essere in modo speciale tentato o depresso o anche tormentato, potendo si trattare di frutto di immaginazione.

In the case of an intervention considered diabolical, the exorcist will use in first place the necessary and highest care and prudence. To begin with, he will not immediately believe to be facing a person possessed by the devil, because it could be a case of illness, especially of a psychical nature. At the same time he will not believe to be in the presence of diabolic possession when the subject says to be in a special way tempted or depressed or even tormented, given that it can all be the fruit of imagination.

L’esorcista non proceda alla celebrazione dell’ esorcismo nella forma imperativa se non è moralmente certo che la persona da esorcizzare è veramente posseduta dal demonio e, per quanto è possibile, non proceda senza il suo consenso.

The exorcist will not proceed to the celebration of the exorcism in the imperative form if he is not morally certain that the person to be exorcised is truly possessed by the devil and, as much as possible, will not proceed without the consent of the person.

Della necessità di ricorrere al Rito dell’ esorcismo l’ esorcista deciderà con prudenza dopo attento esame, salvo sempre il segreto della Confessione, e dopo aver consultato, per quanto è possibile, persone esperte in questioni di vita spirituale e, se necessario, persone esperte in medicina e psichiatria, competenti anche nelle realtà spirituali.

About the necessity to recur to the Rite of exorcism, the exorcist will decide with prudence after careful examination, being saved the secret of Confession, and after having consulted, as possible, persons who are expert in matters of spiritual life and, if needed, persons expert in medicine and psychiatry, competent in the spiritual realities as well.

 

[vames]

If we really want to speak about such changes, I shall mention that even the rite of blessing of water was changed in such a way that many (including cardinals) complained it was rendered in fact ineffective, and that the result was not holy water but blessed water - and again, the Holy See issued an authorization to keep using the old rite. And what was missing in the new rite? Guess. The prayers of exorcism! Namely, the exorcised salt (an important sacramental, also employed in Baptism, deriving its origin to the prophet Elisha) was no longer added to the water, and the priest would no longer direct that the holy water “may put to flight all the power of the enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that enemy with his apostate angels, through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Maybe I’m wrong, but the reason for this could have been the that the Church wanted to combat the real tendency to attribute the devil much more power than he actually has and to distrust God’s power, as long as people were focused on fearing the devil and on using various sacramentals as purely magical weapons. I think we all know people who still have this tendency, inherited from their parents and grandparents.
Here’s how a traditionalist priest explains the old rite of exorcizing-and-blessing the water: “In the exorcism of the salt and the water, the two elements are addressed directly, personally, in the second person. By this exorcism they are entirely and without question ripped from the domination of the “Prince of this World”, as our Lord calls the our Enemy.” Now what is he saying? That all the nature is in fact helpless under the heel of the devil and it needs to be freed by exorcizing it? Did the pre-VII priests also exorcize rosaries, crucifixes, medals, icons to free them from this almighty devil? Did they exorcize the land where they built a church or the stones, glass, wood etc used to build it? Do we need to fear the normal water or salt that we consume and implicitly own bodies, knowing that these natural elements weren’t “ripped from the domination of the devil”?

 

[vames]

And those possessed show inhuman amount of strength.

Intense fear, anger, frustration, grief, desperation can naturally trigger defensive violence or the tendency to run away and escape in all of us (the fight-or-flight response), but we choose to control ourselves. We are sometimes surprised by our physical strength when we happen to act in self-defence, although we still control ourselves. But have you ever seen a violent, agitated mental patient? Some of them can’t or don’t repress these emotions at all, so their physical reactions are much more intense and their energy seems “inhumane” or “extraordinary” to a stranger. When a close relative of such a mental patient knows the triggers (old emotional scars, a long history of being subjected to abuse, side effects of drugs, fear of some people, places, objects, words perceived as dangerous), he or she isn’t surprised anymore by the intensity of the uncontrolled physical reactions of the patient. Psychiatrists have always been aware of this phenomenon.
emedicine.medscape.com/article/1941454-overview#showall

 

[R_C]

I did read something that said that the APA considers demonic possession nothing other than mental illness, so how could mental illness be ruled out and an exorcism performed?

If you visit that page from Fr. Fortea’s website you will see that there are several psychopatological disturbances in which the subject believes to be possessed, or others that will present characteristics similar to those of true possession. For instance, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, Tourette Syndrome. That is what APA may be referring to. However, mental illness will be ruled out when true possession is present.

Now we must state that demonic possession is not very common (as far as we know, or in the experience of exorcists who spoke about these things publicly). Much more common are demonic disturbances that do not require the rite of exorcism. Also it is not too simple to have the Church agree to perform an exorcism. Nobody is as skeptical about demons and about miracles more than the Catholic clergy

 

[R_C]

Maybe I’m wrong, but the reason for this could have been the that the Church wanted to combat the real tendency to attribute the devil much more power than he actually has and to distrust God’s power, as long as people were focused on fearing the devil and on using various sacramentals as purely magical weapons. I think we all know people who still have this tendency, inherited from their parents and grandparents. …] Now what is he saying? That all the nature is in fact helpless under the heel of the devil and it needs to be freed by exorcizing it? Did the pre-VII priests also exorcize rosaries, crucifixes, medals, icons to free them from this almighty devil? Did they exorcize the land where they built a church or the stones, glass, wood etc used to build it? Do we need to fear the normal water or salt that we consume and implicitly own bodies, knowing that these natural elements weren’t “ripped from the domination of the devil”?

Superstition needs to be fought. I agree. But superstition is not a religious factor, rather it is something psychological. The usage of sacramentals actually benefits people from not falling into superstition, for they do not attribute magical powers to objects, but they are aware that the grace of God flows through them, as the blind man did not attribute a curative power to the mud and spit that the Lord put on his eyes, but to God’s love.

Nature is as subject to spiritual corruption as man is. Man is baptized, but nature is not baptized. When something is consecrated, it needs indeed to be exorcised. This has been done since apostolic days. But the threshold between exorcism and blessing is short, inasmuch as exorcism is also a blessing. Light displaces darkness, so when the grounds on which a Church is to be built is blessed, or the building itself is consecrated, this has the effect of ripping off the whole from the dominion of evil. One needs not say “Depart, Satan, from this building” if he can say “may God bless and keep this building” (especially because evil is not a thing, and demons are not omnipresent, so there is a major difference between a building to be blessed and a building subject to demonic infestation that needs to be exorcised). However in certain particular occasions, direct exorcism is needed. Holy water is more than a sacramental, it is a means to drive away evil itself, an instrument of blessing. Thus it mustn’t just be blessed, but it must be consecrated - so to speak - in such a way that its presence can directly drive away evil. Exorcised salt carries this property, which is why it is mixed with exorcised water to produce holy water. For us this is normal, it is what we have done for centuries. It is orthodox Christian teaching. For many today, even amidst Catholics, even amidst clergy, there is so much disbelief that the only direct means given to fight the spiritual warfare are slowly disappearing. This leads to two things: on one side, a spark of evil driving people away from God. On the other side, a spark of superstition driving people towards hocus-pocus.

Intense fear, anger, frustration, grief, desperation can naturally trigger defensive violence or the tendency to run away and escape in all of us (the fight-or-flight response), but we choose to control ourselves. Psychiatrists have always been aware of this phenomenon.

True. No sign present commonly in possession is to be taken as a clear indication of possession, for many can be the result of natural phenomena. Many signs must be considered together.

As for strength, I don’t mean exceptional strength for a short time, but a persistent might that is physically unexplainable, or, as the rite mentions it, “display of powers which are beyond the subject’s age and natural condition” (ex. a child or a feeble individual overpowering several strong adults and insensible to all medical sedation). Look, even levitation and motion of objects have been ruled out as potentially psychical phenomena, but some signs are just beyond explanation. Consider the faculty of divulging future and
hidden events, or knowledge of past events (especially sins) of the exorcist or people present. It is easier to disbelieve that this actually happens than to even attempt to explain it scientifically.

 

[GodCommands]

Oh my, my…
I’ve been in the unique position of having suffered from a traumatic brain injury, which to this day keeps me from working, due to poor memory and low stamina. But… I can tell you all this much: I have been “mentally ill” from my injury and locked up because of it. I have also been oppressed by a demon. They are two VERY different things. I have the feeling that Christ, of all people, would know the difference between the two! To say otherwise is to not believe in Christ. Period. Of course, this is my opinion (uh-huh). Do you believe the Bible as the inerrant Word of God… or not? I can, in detail, testify to my experiences, but that also means that not one other has to believe me. Trust me on this: Trust the Word on this!

P.S. You are so much better off reckoning with this with faith than with experience.

 

[Faith1960]

An answer by Fr. Mark J. Gantley, JCL:

Official traditional rite “De Exorcizandis Obsessi A Daemonio” (translation to English vernacular by Philip T. Weller).

Official revised rite, “De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam”, decree Prot. N. 1499/01/L of September 21, 2001. Unfortunately I only have access to the Italian typical edition so the translation to English is unofficial.

I know that medical evaluations should be done prior to an exorcism, but does the CC require medical evaluations or do some clergy perform them without following that?

 

[vames]

Holy water is more than a sacramental, it is a means to drive away evil itself, an instrument of blessing. Thus it mustn’t just be blessed, but it must be consecrated - so to speak - in such a way that its presence can directly drive away evil. Exorcised salt carries this property, which is why it is mixed with exorcised water to produce holy water. For us this is normal, it is what we have done for centuries. It is orthodox Christian teaching. For many today, even amidst Catholics, even amidst clergy, there is so much disbelief that the only direct means given to fight the spiritual warfare are slowly disappearing. This leads to two things: on one side, a spark of evil driving people away from God. On the other side, a spark of superstition driving people towards hocus-pocus.

Well, then what about the Eucharist? If “holy water is more than a sacramental, it is a means to drive away evil itself” and if it’s “the only direct means given to fight the spiritual warfare”, then why didn’t the Church make the aspersion a sacrament? A person is in the state of grace only after being baptized (when the parents or the catechumens explicitly “reject Satan and all his works” - and if a child is in danger of death, anyone can validly administer the baptism, using simple unblessed water) and regains the state of grace only after receiving the Eucharist. Can anything else be more powerful against evil than being in the state of grace? So IMO it must be a correct reason why holy water is in the same category as crucifixes and medals, not above them. And superstition based on various hocus-pocus doesn’t exclude the use of holy water (or other sacramentals) perceived as one more magic tool - on the contrary