Leading Catholic Exorcist Sees Signs of Demonic Oppression and Possession in Unhinged American Left

[Annie]

I think that @Onesheep did not understand that saying someone is unknowingly influenced by the devil is not an “unfavorable interpretation,” which was my point all along.

A person can have the very best of motives for what they do but still be unknowingly led astray. Czar Nicholas and Czarina Alexandra had great intentions but were led astray by their love for their son and the evil Rasputin, whom they believed to be good.

And perhaps this is the main point: to say someone is influenced by demons is not necessarily unfavorable to that person but to the demons.

If we say a little old lady was taken in by a conman, this is not an unfavorable interpretation of the lady but of the conman.

 

[OneSheep]

I think that @Onesheep did not understand that saying someone is unknowingly influenced by the devil is not an “unfavorable interpretation,” which was my point all along.

Okay, I have to address this!

I agree completely that saying a person unknowingly was influenced by the devil is more favorable than saying that someone was knowingly influenced. However, there are more favorable ways of saying what was going on, especially by leaving the devil out of the influence altogether.

I was thinking of this the other day when there was a program on Catholic Radio about influence of the devil. First of all, we are talking about sin, and when we talk about sin, we go to the person’s intent. If a person has good intent, wanting well-being of people, then this influence is not of the devil. And since we have already seen that the people of BLM are concerned about social justice and well-being, it is not charitable to say that they are under the influence of the devil, nor is it true. And indeed, such accused persons could turn around and say that the accuser him/herself is influenced by the devil in bad-mouthing their efforts to liberate the oppressed.

Do you see how we reap what we sow? Accusation reaps accusation. It goes nowhere. Jesus calls us to forgive, to understand, to be merciful and charitable. It is the way to end the cycle, to meet anger with love.

 

[Cathoholic]

And since we have already seen that the people of BLM are concerned about social justice and well-being, it is not charitable to say that they are under the influence of the devil, nor is it true.

I disagree with this because it is a partial truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, what part is true, and what not true?

 

[Cathoholic]

Well, what part is true, and what not true?

No. Please re-read my posts. You’ll be able to figure it out.

 

[Annie]

However, there are more favorable ways of saying what was going on, especially by leaving the devil out of the influence altogether.

The problem is that you are talking about interpretations, which are not facts but opinions.

So Mr and Mrs X have only one child. An unfavorable interpretation would be; Hmph, they are using ABC to keep from having more children. A favorable interpretation would be that they are not using ABC but have had difficulties in having more children.

Neither interpretation is a fact.

You and I have already agreed that good intentions do not protect people from falling into sin, and yet you say:

First of all, we are talking about sin, and when we talk about sin, we go to the person’s intent. If a person has good intent, wanting well-being of people, then this influence is not of the devil. And since we have already seen that the people of BLM are concerned about social justice and well-being,

And we agreed that the intentions of the BLM*org leaders are good, insofar as they relate to improving the situation of black people in the US.

And since we have already seen that the people of BLM are concerned about social justice and well-being, it is not charitable to say that they are under the influence of the devil,

This does not follow from that.

In fact, it is precisely those whose intentions are to do good whom the devil will attack, because a person intending to do bad needs no help, right?

Where the demons will attack is not with the intention per se but with the carrying out of the intention.

Now, Fr R has studied many aspects of demonology, and he has put forth evidence which he says indicates the possibility of demonic influence such as that at least one of the leaders talks with “spirits” and the divisiveness and destruction of some elements of the “BLM movement,” and the leaders’ condoning of which, the latter two I have read about in sources independent of the sources of this information, and the first of which is verified by her having said it on video. These and other more technical things are what lead him to be concerned about the possibility of demonic influence.

continued below

 

[Annie]

since we have already seen that the people of BLM are concerned about social justice and well-being, it is not charitable to say that they are under the influence of the devil, nor is it true.

We have already agreed that good intentions do not protect people from demonic influence, so it is not necessarily uncharitable to say that some people may be so influenced if there is evidence for that.

Now, as to your point, “nor is it true.” It may or may not be true that the BLM*org leaders are demonically influenced, but it is not untrue on the basis of their good intentions.

it is not charitable to say that they are under the influence of the devil,

Now, finally, imagine you live next door to a man who drinks and smokes. One day you notice a lot of smoke emerging from his bedroom window. Do you think to yourself, “It would be uncharitable of me to assume that he has gotten drunk and passed out while smoking and set his house on fire, so I will assume more favorable intentions on his part and figure he is barbecuing food for poor people,” and do nothing?

Or do you sound a warning? Call the fire department, maybe even go over and try to rouse him from his stupor so he can escape the danger? inform the neighbors so they can guard against sparks setting their houses on fire?

So, OneSheep, do you do the charitable assuming of good intentions, or the other charitable thing of sounding a warning?

 

[OneSheep]

We have already agreed that good intentions do not protect people from demonic influence, so it is not necessarily uncharitable to say that some people may be so influenced if there is evidence for that.

In the context of sin, however, saying that they were influenced by the devil is not true. Are you familiar with what it means to demonize people?

Now, finally, imagine you live next door to a man who drinks and smokes. One day you notice a lot of smoke emerging from his bedroom window. Do you think to yourself, “It would be uncharitable of me to assume that he has gotten drunk and passed out while smoking and set his house on fire, so I will assume more favorable intentions on his part and figure he is barbecuing food for poor people,” and do nothing?

Or do you sound a warning? Call the fire department, maybe even go over and try to rouse him from his stupor so he can escape the danger? inform the neighbors so they can guard against sparks setting their houses on fire?

Of course it is not charitable to assume that he is not in danger.

 

[Annie]

In the context of sin, however, saying that they were influenced by the devil is not true.

I do not understand what you mean by this. The part “in the context of sin” is throwing me off.

Are you familiar with what it means to demonize people?

to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame : VILIFY

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If a person has good intent, wanting well-being of people, then this influence is not of the devil.

The road to hell paved with good intentions, the saying goes.

 

[OneSheep]

The road to hell paved with good intentions, the saying goes.

There is a very earthy meaning to that. For example, the road to war is paved with good intentions.

In spite of those examples, the saying is not biblical.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

In spite of those examples, the saying is not biblical.

Saul of Tarsus comes to mind. His intents were to.protect God’s Law.

So while the saying isn’t in the Bible, the principle is there

 

[OneSheep]

I do not understand what you mean by this. The part “in the context of sin” is throwing me off.

If the intention is good, this is not a place to be blaming, but a place to be enlightening.

OneSheep:

Are you familiar with what it means to demonize people?

[to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame : VILIFY ]

Correct, it means to vilify or blame. Jesus calls us to first forgive, and understanding people is a big part of forgiveness, which brings us back to finding favorable interpretations. Generally speaking, vilifying people is not charitable.

Saul of Tarsus comes to mind. His intents were to.protect God’s Law.

He didn’t say it. Bernard of Clairvaux may have said something like it, but here is the meaning:

When we say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” we may mean that someone meant well, but the end result of his actions was disastrous. Good intentions do not guarantee good results. Or we may mean that one’s good intentions, by themselves, are worthless; to accomplish anything, one must follow through on one’s goals and objectives. Laziness and other enemies of success will drag one down.

Is “the road to hell is paved with good intentions†a true statement? | GotQuestions.org

So while the saying isn’t in the Bible, the principle is there

With the above definition, you may be right. What BLM is doing may backfire on them severely, even though they have very good intentions. For example, efforts to “defund the police” may end up hurting black communities the most. We don’t know.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He didn’t say it.

He said, while looking at his life in retrospect, “I am the worst of sinners.” So for all of Saul’s intent, he was on the path to hell prior to Damascus.

 

[Annie]

If the intention is good, this is not a place to be blaming, but a place to be enlightening.

If one has a good intention, but is (unknowingly) being led astray, wouldn’t charity dictate enlightening the person about being led astray?

For example, it is not unknown for a man to experience a reconversion (good) and want to really get close to God (also good), but to spend so much time in prayer that he neglects his wife and children, or gives away so much money that he is unable to provide properly for them.

But his friend, who saw this all unfold, kept repeating to himself, he has good intentions! He couldn’t possibly be led astray because he has good intentions! If I so much as think that he is being led astray, I am having less favorable interpretations, and that would be very wrong of me!

So, I am really sorry, you seem sincere but unwilling to grasp what I am saying even to argue against it properly, instead continually reverting to the irrelevant point of good intentions means it would be mean to say anything about the actions taken.

So I won’t bother you any more.