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

[silentwitness]

Again there are so many examples. The article speaks of Black Lives Matter.

You have it all there, You have the splitting of people into victim groups who cannot be criticised, even when violent or speaking clear untruths, you have the using of this privileged position to push Marxist socialism under the cover of racial justice (lie) and you have the created narrative of systematic oppression and racism above truth for everything from police statistics to individual interactions with police.

 

[OneSheep]

Again there are so many examples. The article speaks of Black Lives Matter.

Okay, could you present an actual statement from BLM that we can address?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

I did not look at it much, but please find something that we could interpret.

If you have another source of statements, that is fine also.

 

[silentwitness]

You seem to be always after something written down. Why is that?

Reality is beyond words.

If you must try the BLM chants wanting dead cops.

Try the claims that America is built on oppression, slavery and white supremacy.

Try the claim that the police force is a relic of white supremacy linked to slavery and should be abolished.

Try the claim that there is widespread oppression and systematic racism.

Try the claim that every white person has unconscious racism and should undergo racism awareness training in the workforce (along Leftist ideology).

 

[OneSheep]

If you must try the BLM chants wanting dead cops.

Okay, that is not a statement by BLM, but by someone perhaps claiming to be part of BLM. So, to start with, are you saying that the person or persons speak for BLM?

 

[silentwitness]

I am saying that BLM follow the Leftist dogmas i outlined above.

I am not limiting myself to words written down as statements I am talking about a movement following the Leftist principles i outlined.

You wanted an example which pertained to this thread.

I have done more than met your request.

Are we going to talk intelligently about BLM the movement or are you going to try and limit the conversation to official statements by BLM?

 

[OneSheep]

You wanted an example which pertained to this thread.

I have done more than met your request.

Exactly, you have given me several possible statements, but they are not exact quotes or give perfect witness. CCC2478 is about truthful witness, and we must begin with an actual statement by someone before we find an interpretation.

We can start with this:

Protesters then chanted of the NYPD: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

https://www.miamiok.com/opinion/20200614/left8217s-coming-war-on-cops

I am going to assume that this was a true report.

Are you saying that the people chanting this represent the ideology, the “dogma” of BLM?

 

[silentwitness]

we must begin with an actual statement by someone before we find an interpretation.

No you want to begin with this and i say it is a way to curtail the greater discussion here which is the evil of Leftism.

Are you saying that the people chanting this represent the ideology, the “dogma” of BLM?

I am saying that this demonstrates the ideology of Leftism as i outlined, and as you asked for and it seems now you don’t want to talk about it.

The chanting for dead cops is an outworking of the philosophy of Leftism.

 

[OneSheep]

No you want to begin with this and i say it is a way to curtail the greater discussion here which is the evil of Leftism.

I am beginning with CCC2478, not assuming that people’s judgments are accurate. Indeed, you said yourself that you believe in truth. We are trying to find the truth.

I am saying that this demonstrates the ideology of Leftism as i outlined

So, you are saying that a call to kill police officers demonstrates a Leftist ideology? If this is true, then you must be able to put forth something from actual Leftist ideology that encourages such a statement. If you cannot come up with something, then it is simply a Straw Man that you are creating.

Please, let us begin with the truth, actual statements, not judgments. Jesus says very clearly that we are not to judge people, but we can judge statements. We are to do so if done within the guidelines of the CCC.

Are you saying that those chanters represent the ideology of BLM? If so, please present something from BLM ideology that proves the point.

 

[silentwitness]

I am beginning with CCC2478, not assuming that people’s judgments are accurate. Indeed, you said yourself that you believe in truth. We are trying to find the truth.

I am not beginning with this. You are wanting to begin with this.

So, you are saying that a call to kill police officers demonstrates a Leftist ideology?

No i am not saying this. I am saying that the chanting is the outworking of Leftist ideology. The two statements are slightly different.

A man shooting a gun is the outworking of someone with homicidal tendencies but someone shooting a gun does not demonstrate homicidal tendencies.

If this is true, then you must be able to put forth something from actual Leftist ideology that encourages such a statement. If you cannot come up with something, then it is simply a Straw Man that you are creating.

No this is not logical and constrains the discussion unnecessarily.

If i want to make a comment about or be critical of women i do not first need to find an agreed upon spokeswoman for all women and then quote her as a starting point. That prevents discussion rather than facilitates it.

Life is much more complex and varied than such constricted views.

ok i will reply when i return.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

I am beginning with CCC2478, not assuming that people’s judgments are accurate. Indeed, you said yourself that you believe in truth. We are trying to find the truth.

I am not beginning with this. You are wanting to begin with this.

I am wanting to begin with finding the truth, not with starting with the judgments that are expressed in our society. This is what is charitable, what is doing unto others as we would have done unto us.

OneSheep:

So, you are saying that a call to kill police officers demonstrates a Leftist ideology?

No i am not saying this. I am saying that the chanting is the outworking of Leftist ideology. two statements are slightly different.

I’m not understanding your use of the word “outworking”, but I will take as your word that you are not saying that the call for killing police is part of BLM ideology. However, we were talking about BLM ideology, not people who claim to be followers who make statements that are not BLM ideology.

So, can you come up with an actual statement from BLM or any Leftist ideology that you are saying the church is “submitting to” or that is in itself “evil”?

To witness something, we must begin with the truth, so please bring forth an actual statement, not an imagined statement from an imagined place.

OneSheep:

If this is true, then you must be able to put forth something from actual Leftist ideology that encourages such a statement. If you cannot come up with something, then it is simply a Straw Man that you are creating.

No this is not logical and constrains the discussion unnecessarily.

If i want to make a comment about or be critical of women i do not first need to find an agreed upon spokeswoman for all women and then quote her as a starting point. That prevents discussion rather than facilitates it.

Life is much more complex and varied than such constricted views.

Would you make a comment or criticize women as a whole based on the statements or actions of any single woman or group of women? No, you would not. So we are not to make comment or criticize BLM or any Leftist ideology based on the statements or actions of adherents. Instead, we can look at specific statements from actual sources and evaluate them according to CCC2478.

 

[Annie]

At what point do you think we can give up and assume from evidence that people are working on the side of evil, perhaps unknowingly?

I ask because what you are saying here is what has led so many Catholics (and non-Catholics) to put up with abuse in marriages and elsewhere.

Christ said Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

It is good to assume lack of knowledge on the part of others, but wrong to accept the evil they perpetrate.

If they do wrong and we try to talk with them and they refuse to listen, preferring to continue on the path of evil, at what point do we do as Christ told the Apostles and regarding those whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

 

[OneSheep]

At what point do you think we can give up and assume from evidence that people are working on the side of evil, perhaps unknowingly?

After we have exhausted the alternatives. After we have done exactly what CCC2478 asks of us.

And yes, when people are doing or saying what is evil, they do so unknowingly. I would have to prove this point though.

I ask because what you are saying here is what has led so many Catholics (and non-Catholics) to put up with abuse in marriages and elsewhere.

I don’t believe this is the case, not if the person is being truthful. The truth is that we are to care for ourselves, the Temple. Such care does not involve putting up with abuse, even if we forgive the abuser.

Christ said Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

It is good to assume lack of knowledge on the part of others, but wrong to accept the evil they perpetrate.

We are not to allow evil acts to continue, yes. Acceptance has several meanings though.

Christ said Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

Christians were persecuted, yes.

If they do wrong and we try to talk with them and they refuse to listen, preferring to continue on the path of evil, at what point do we do as Christ told the Apostles and regarding those whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Well, I’m not giving up yet. I am going to continue here to try to find the truth rather than jump to rash judgment. Some people want to stick with judging people, but that is against the Gospel. If a person is not able to let go of their judging, then I think I can eventually come to see that. Rash judgment, as addressed by CCC2478, is a path of untruth. Our society is plagued by discord and factionalism, described as part of a “spirit of death” by Saint Paul. Factions point at the other as demonic.

 

[Annie]

I wonder if Father Chad is familiar with CCC2478. There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the people he is criticizing.

I realized that I disagree with your original premise, which I have quoted here.

Saying that someone is involved with or oppressed by demons is not judging them, per se. Here we have someone who has been for many years a specialist spiritual doctor, so to speak, commenting on symptoms he sees of serious spiritual illness among our people today.

In what way is what he is saying an unfavorable way of interpreting the words and actions of people?

You cited CCC2478, which discusses rash judgement, the CCC earlier describing those guilty of rash judgment as those “who, even tacitly, [assume] as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.”

Now if I, a layperson with no particular knowledge of this area of theology were to say something like this, I would be guilty of rash judgement.

However, as Fr Ripperger is very well-versed in this area, I would suggest 1) that he has a sufficient foundation and 2) that he is in a position to be describing an illness rather than “exposing a person’s moral fault.”

If I said someone was very fat, he just eats continually, that would be exposing a moral fault. If a doctor were to say that some people are suffering from obesity, that would be describing a situation rather than exposing a moral fault.

Moreover, this article is paired with another article in which some of the people involved are describing their own involvement with (evil) spiritual practices.

 

[JanR]

I would hardly consider trying to take over the country and destroy America as being “well intended”. I look at it as being power hungry and self-serving.

 

[Cathoholic]

silentwitness . . . .

I believe in truth, especially against a movement that wishes to do the church harm. As a church we have submitted to the Leftist dogma by downgrading truth below that of not hurting Leftist feelings which has done us no good as the millions of empty pews attest.

There is a place and a time to see the best in others. This is not it. That is submission.

Excellent post silentwitness.

The earlier criticism of Fr. Ripperger pretending
Fr. Ripperger is somehow committing rash judgement against “his neighbor” was bogus.
At least that was my opinion.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

Fr. Ripperger critiqued an ideology. Not a person.

Fr. Ripperger was smeared by
this smear ignoring a logical criticism (in attacking Father).

In an argument here Fr. Ripperger had a first premise, a second premise, and a conclusion.

The first premise deals with the the IDEOLOGY of the leftist/communist (not all leftists are communists).

His second premise talks of consorting with demons implicitly and now even in some cases explicitly.

The conclusion is, this is hurtful.

• First Premise
• Second Premise
• Conclusion

(Father’s First Premise was CHANGED
from an IDEOLOGY
to a PERSON
in the criticism against the Conclusion.
This is logically fallacious argumentation).

Far from Fr. Ripperger committing the sin of detraction or committing rash judgment,
it was the criticism of Fr. Ripperger here
(that illustrated rash judgment).

At least that is my opinion.

In so doing Father’s first premise . . .

The first premise deals with the the IDEOLOGY of the leftist/communist (not all leftists are communists).

Was CHANGED to . . . .

The first premise deals with the the SPECIFIC PEOPLE (“his neighbor”) of the leftist/communist (not all leftists are communists).

But Father doesn’t do that except where necessary (not all revealing of fault is a sin. The Holy Spirit & the Gospel writers revealing Judas’ faults are not sinful for example).

Fr. Ripperger’s critique is excellent!

Here it is from the primary source.
Here is Fr. Ripperger’s excellent video series about the communist ideology. . . .

Sensus Traditionis - YouTube

I would recommend watching all of these videos.

 

[OneSheep]

In what way is what he is saying an unfavorable way of interpreting the words and actions of people?

I think that there are more favorable ways of interpreting what he is seeing in people’s actions and words.

The only way to address this is to start from the original acts or statements. Without these, and the subsequent interpretations, what is presented are merely judgments.

Part of “ad hominem” is not just to criticize a statement as coming from a specific person, but to elevate a statement coming from a specific person, especially if they are not representing the Magisterium. I’m sure that the priest is doing what he thinks is best, but he may not be sufficiently investigating all the possible interpretations of people’s words and actions.

After all, how would you like someone interpreting what you think as doing good or saying something good as coming from the devil? Is that charitable? Is it the most favorable interpretation?

 

[Annie]

elevate a statement coming from a specific person,

It is absurd to refuse to consider that words from an expert in the area under discussion carry more weight than words of someone who has no particular qualifications in that area.

I am not arguing that what he said is correct because he is an expert and he said it; I am arguing that this is not a case of rash judgement on his part.

(And I am doing this while ignoring your rash judgement of him.)

 

[Cathoholic]

Annie . . .

It is absurd to refuse to consider that words from an expert in the area under discussion carry more weight than words of someone who has no particular qualifications in that area.

I am not arguing that what he said is correct because he is an expert and he said it; I am arguing that this is not a case of rash judgement on his part.

Excellent insights Annie!

 

[OneSheep]

It is absurd to refuse to consider that words from an expert in the area under discussion carry more weight than words of someone who has no particular qualifications in that area.

His statement does not represent the Church, the Magisterium.

I am arguing that this is not a case of rash judgement on his part.

And I am not arguing that it is. What I am asking readers is if there is a more favorable way of interpreting what it is that he is seeing.

(And I am doing this while ignoring your rash judgement of him.)

If you do find that I have rashly judged him, please let me know. Everyone is capable of error. I have made no accusations against him; I have simply asked for favorable interpretations, as called for by CCC2478.

Do you find something said or done by Leftists that leads you to agree that they are demonically oppressed?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep . . . .

If you do find that I have rashly judged him, please let me know.

Is that for all of us too? Or just Annie?