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

[OneSheep]

If a priest, especially an exorcist, told me he thought my actions in a certain area were influenced by the devil, I would probably ask him why he thought that and discuss the situation with him. I do not want my actions to be influenced by the devil and would welcome the warning.

Well, it sounds like you would be respecting his position from the get-go. First of all, from what I have read, exorcists don’t go around pointing out people’s behaviors and telling them that they are influenced by the devil. If you read the guidelines for exorcism from the USCCB website, the exorcist begins with someone who claims to be possessed and then has to carefully rule out all other options:
In fact, here is an important guideline from the USCCB:

Moral certainty is classically understood as falling between the two poles of absolute certainty and probability.Bearing that in mind, moral certitude is achieved through the examination of proofs which are weighed in accordance with the conscience of the one passing judgment. Therefore, the exorcist must utilize whatever resources are available to him when investigating a claim of demonic possession along with (name removed by moderator)ut from medical and mental health professionals.
>
The exorcist is instructed to employ the “utmost circumspection and prudence” before proceeding to the rite (ERS, no. 14). Throughout his ministry, an exorcist must establish a balance within his own mind between not believing too easily that the devil is responsible for what is manifesting, and attributing all possible manifestations solely to a natural, organic source.

Exorcism | USCCB

So you see, all other sources of behaviors must be eliminated, which is also in keeping with CCC2478. It would be very interesting to know what other Bishop-supervised exorcists think of the words of Fr. R.

Given Catholic definitions, do you think an exorcist with many years of experience and study and prayer saying that person X or group of people X seem to be demonically influenced is ipso facto rash judgment?

Based on what I read on the USCCB website, an exorcist doing this is not allowed. Jesus asks us not to judge people.

Do you think a person or group of people can start a series of activities with good intentions and yet fall into doing bad things which should be condemned?

Yes, absolutely, but to say that they are influenced by the devil is not the most favorable interpretation.

You are judging Fr R’s statements…which entails thinking his statements are rash judgement and therefore unworthy of attention…

Actually, one can offer more favorable interpretations without putting down the interpretations of others. There are different uses of the word “judgment”. If “judgment” is used in place of “ascertain”, then yes, I judged. I ascertained that there are more favorable interpretations of the behaviors he was pointing to.

 

[OneSheep]

Your initial reaction was to ask if he was familiar with CCC2478

Yes, that was a question, not a judgment. It was the seeking of knowledge. I also wonder if he is familiar with the section on the USCCB website.

Sure… are we permitted to dialogue or attempt to dialogue with the dead? No

It’s not possible anyway. People imagine what the dead are saying.

What are the potential dangers involved in trying to communicate with the dead?

I see a potential problem with a person saying they have such access, and then others believing it and giving the person status as a source of revelation or insight. You see, any person can abuse their status and position, but as long as we are guided by the CCC and the Magisterium, the Church, then we can avoid such dangers. This brings us back to CCC2478.

Are you thinking that because of Fr. R.'s expertise that he is incapable of making the same mistakes that we all do, in failing to see the most favorable interpretation of others thoughts, words, or actions?

If your attempts to favorably interpret people’s actions favorably go to the extent of considering aspects for which there is not a shred of evidence, then I think you are going too far.

If there is not a shred of evidence either way, CCC2478 makes it very clear that we are still to go with the most favorable interpretation.

What does CCC2478 actually say?

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

Correct. And a best place to start is to ask the question, “What does this person, these people want?” Annie, what do they want? What do the leaders and followers of BLM want?

Look at the first part I bolded: insofar as possible. There is a boundary to this. If you see your married brother passionately kissing a shapely young woman not his wife, it is theoretically possible to think, Oh, how nice! He is saving her life by giving her artificial respiration!

Hmm. Are they on a movie set?

So I think this is a case of a man stepping out on his wife.

Yes, the “organic cause” is that the person was blinded by passion. If “blind passion” comes from the devil, then we run up against the problem of human nature being in part created by the devil, which goes against Catholic teaching. We don’t need to attribute the demonic here. He made a bad choice, and he did it himself, but he was blind. I think this is the most favorable interpretation, the most truthful interpretation. Are you thinking it is more favorable to say “the devil made him do it”?

 

[Annie]

If you read the guidelines for exorcism from the USCCB website, the exorcist begins with someone who claims to be possessed and then has to carefully rule out all other options:

all other sources of behaviors must be eliminated,

Big difference between being possessed by and being influenced by.

To perform a major exorcism on someone who is possessed requires permission from one’s bishop as well, but priests do minor exorcisms all the time without permission. This we can see that there is a difference between being possessed and being influenced by.

Fr Ripperger is not claiming any of those involved are actually possessed.

Jesus asks us not to judge people.

We are not to judge the states of people’s souls, but we must judge their actions.

Yes, absolutely, but to say that they are influenced by the devil is not the most favorable interpretation.

So you do believe that people can get involved in doing bad things despite their good intentions.

Actually, one can offer more favorable interpretations without putting down the interpretations of others.

This is not usually done by asking if they have read the section in rash judgement in the CCC.

Yes, that was a question, not a judgment. It was the seeking of knowledge.

Oh I see that you do not consider the asking of a question to be making a judgement.

A rhetorical question is one for which the questioner does not expect a direct answer: in many cases it may be intended to start a discourse, or as a means of displaying the speaker’s or author’s opinion on a topic.[1]

Seriously, the more you offer these defenses against your having jumped to the interpretation Fr R committed rash judgement, the more insincere you sound. I am not saying you are being insincere, only that that is the impression you are giving.

one can offer more favorable interpretations

Do you think it is possible that someone can offer more favorable interpretations than is reasonable? And do unreasonable interpretations need to be accepted just because someone came up with them?

to say that they are influenced by the devil is not the most favorable interpretation.

Why is this an unfavorable interpretation?

 

[OneSheep]

If a priest, especially an exorcist, told me he thought my actions in a certain area were influenced by the devil, I would probably ask him why he thought that and discuss the situation with him. I do not want my actions to be influenced by the devil and would welcome the warning.

I do hope that you see the enormous difference between your statement and what was presented in the OP. You start out, as a Catholic, respecting the priest’s opinion. Instead, the actual case here is about a Catholic priest pointing to non-Catholics and making evaluations. Can you imagine what it would be like to have, say, an “authority” from another religion pointing at what you are doing, and saying that you are influenced by the devil, when you know you have good intentions?

Would you be thinking that the “authority” is even considering your point of view?

Annie, what do the protesting people want?

Can you answer that question?

 

[Annie]

Annie, what do the protesting people want?

What is the relevance of what they want?

 

[OneSheep]

Big difference between being possessed by and being influenced by.

But the teaching still applies. Again, I asked you about the circumstances of unforgivable sin. Do you know the circumstances? It involved ascribing to the devil what comes from God.

Fr Ripperger is not claiming any of those involved are actually possessed.

Yes, he is very careful about that, but I hope you consider the questions on the last post I made.

So you do believe that people can get involved in doing bad things despite their good intentions.

Absolutely.

Oh I see that you do not consider the asking of a question to be making a judgement.

A rhetorical question

I would really like an answer to my question, it was not rhetorical. To say my question was rhetorical without actually asking me is not an attempt to find the most favorable in terms of methodology. It is important to consider what the other intends. For example, your designation of my question as “rhetorical” had no bad intent. You were focused on making a point.

Indeed, it is in CAF guidelines that we are to ask questions instead of making assumptions, such as in this case that my question was rhetorical.

Do you think it is possible that someone can offer more favorable interpretations than is reasonable?

Yes, but “reasonable” itself is a word subject to some interpretation.

And do unreasonable interpretations need to be accepted just because someone came up with them?

Absolutely not. And we have to consider “authorities” in the matter.

OneSheep:

to say that they are influenced by the devil is not the most favorable interpretation.

Why is this an unfavorable interpretation?

If you could answer the questions in my last post, that will suffice for this. The guiding word is “favorable”. Consider the circumstances I described, and let me know if you think what the “authority” said sounds like the favorable interpretation.

Can you think of a less favorable interpretation without actually committing the sin of judging others?

If I said that your participation on the CAF was influenced by the devil, would that be a favorable interpretation?

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

Annie, what do the protesting people want?

What is the relevance of what they want?

Annie, how can one possibly make any interpretation about thoughts, words, and actions without knowing what they want?

Don’t you consider what people want when you are serving them? So would you not consider what people want when you are evaluating their motives?

We are to “do unto others as we would have others do unto us”. Wouldn’t you rather that people consider what you want?

What do the BLM protesters want?

 

[Annie]

I would really like an answer to my question,

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 wonder if OneSheep is familiar with CCC2478. There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the priest she is criticizing.

Maybe he wants to warn the people involved. Maybe he wants to warn their followers. Maybe he wants to warn those who are interested in the group.

Three ways of more favorably interpreting Fr Ripperger’s words and actions than your interpretation.

 

[Cathoholic]

I wonder if OneSheep is familiar with CCC2478. There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the priest she is criticizing.

Maybe he wants to warn the people involved. Maybe he wants to warn their followers. Maybe he wants to warn those who are interested in the group.

Three ways of more favorably interpreting Fr Ripperger’s words and actions than your interpretation.

Well said Annie.

 

[OneSheep]

Maybe he wants to warn the people involved.

Yes, that is a good intention, a favorable look at his motives.

Maybe he wants to warn their followers.

Yes, another likely intent.

Maybe he wants to warn those who are interested in the group.

Yes, that is also a very reasonable conclusion. I agree with all of these. And like I said, I did not judge (speak negatively of) his intentions. His words are counterproductive for the reasons I have stated above, but he has very good intentions.

However, there are still more favorable interpretations of the motives and thoughts of BLM leaders and others than to say that they are influenced by the devil.

You have not answered these questions:

Annie, how can one possibly make any interpretation about thoughts, words, and actions without knowing what they want?

Don’t you consider what people want when you are serving them? So would you not consider what people want when you are evaluating their motives?

We are to “do unto others as we would have others do unto us”. Wouldn’t you rather that people consider what you want?

Now, why is it that you don’t answer this question?:

What do the BLM protesters want?

Annie, none of these questions are rhetorical. Have you considered the answers to these?

Indeed, you have considered what Fr. R wanted, and so have I. Such consideration is exactly what is called for in “doing unto others”. So, do you hesitate to do the same for BLM and others?

 

[Annie]

You have not answered these questions:

I have lots to say! I just made that quick comment during a short break, and now again, but I have to get some work done before replying more fully!

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep . . .

And like I said, I did not judge (speak negatively of) his intentions.

Actually you did OneSheep.

OneSheep here . . .

There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the people he is criticizing.

They are all well-intended, even though there is plenty of ignorance. We are all capable of such.

 

[OneSheep]

And like I said, I did not judge (speak negatively of) his intentions.

Okay, let’s check:

There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the people he is criticizing.

This says nothing about his intentions. I said that there are more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the others. Fr. R’s intentions are good. What he wants is good.

They are all well-intended, even though there is plenty of ignorance. We are all capable of such.

This was concerning the people Fr. R was criticizing, not Fr. R, so this is not applicable. People thinking that destruction of property is going to help their cause is simply ignorance. It does the opposite.

Do you have anything else?

In the mean time, could you answer my question?

What do the people of BLM and other groups being addressed by Fr. R want?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep once again judging in the sense of speaking negatively of Fr. Ripperger’s intentions.

OneSheep here . . .

There are many more favorable ways of interpreting the words and actions of the people he is criticizing.

They are all well-intended, even though there is plenty of ignorance. We are all capable of such.

OneSheep . . .

And like I said, I did not judge (speak negatively of) his intentions.

Your ipse dixit here just isn’t going to be persuasive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fr. Ripperger is entitled to his own personal opinion, which to me appears unhinged, but that is just my personal opinion.

 

[Annie]

Annie, how can one possibly make any interpretation about thoughts, words, and actions without knowing what they want?

We have agreed that good intentions or desires do not protect from committing, even unknowingly, bad acts.

Given that fact, what relevance do their intentions and desires have to whether or not they are being influenced by demons?

Don’t you consider what people want when you are serving them?

No, Why would I do that?

I consider what would be good for them.

What is the definition of love? To will the good of the other.

So would you not consider what people want when you are evaluating their motives?

Sure, but evaluating motives is not what we are doing here, is it? We are considering the issue of whether it is ipso facto rash judgement for an experienced exorcist to suggest certain people are being influenced by demons.

We are to “do unto others as we would have others do unto us”. Wouldn’t you rather that people consider what you want?

Yes! Yes, I do want that! I want my doctor to tell me I can eat all the chocolate I want, I want my pastor to tell me I can do whatever I want, and I would really like it if my mechanic (and the police) would let me drive however I want!

But for some reason, they all completely disregard what I want and persist in telling me what is good for me!

What do the BLM protesters want?

So I ask again—Why is being influenced by the devil an unfavorable interpretation?

 

[Annie]

OneSheep,
Since our posts had become very tangled, I tried to re-sort the comments into topics and respond accordingly. It is not well done, but I don’t have time to improve it. I also skipped some topics, thinking they might be otherwise adequately addressed; if you think I erred in this regard, please just bring it up again; I am not trying to avoid anything, just straighten things up!

Annie:

Do you think it is possible that someone can offer more favorable interpretations than is reasonable?

Yes, but “reasonable” itself is a word subject to some interpretation

Good, we agree that some actions go beyond the limits of “more favorable interpretations."

Annie:

Why is this an unfavorable interpretation?

If you could answer the questions in my last post, that will suffice for this. The guiding word is “favorable”. Consider the circumstances I described, and let me know if you think what the “authority” said sounds like the favorable interpretation.

I am sorry, what I mean is, Why do you think that saying someone seems to be influenced by the devil is a “less favorable interpretation?”

A pulmonologist hears a heavy smoker coughing and tells him it sounds like emphysema. Would you suggest the doctor does not understand rash judgement, that her suggestion is less favorable and that she needs to find and go with a more favorable interpretation?

However, there are still more favorable interpretations of the motives and thoughts of BLM leaders and others than to say that they are influenced by the devil.

As we agreed, their motives could be good and they could still be influenced by demons, right?

Because if demons are coming after a person, they are not going to tempt him to do stuff he would immediately consider to be evil— the demons will make evil look good to the “victim.”

Even a desire to pray can be used to tempt a person away from performing his or her duties of the state of life.

It’s not possible anyway. People imagine what the dead are saying.

Not necessarily. When people attempt to communicate with the dead, they are metaphorically opening a door through which anything might enter. A person may think he is speaking with a deceased loved one or a spirit guides, but it may be a demon.

I see a potential problem with a person saying they have such access, and then others believing it and giving the person status as a source of revelation or insight.

And do you not think it would be much worse if the person saying they have such access is actually accessing demons and others are "believing in and giving the person status, etc.”?

 

[Annie]

If there is not a shred of evidence either way, CCC2478 makes it very clear that we are still to go with the most favorable interpretation.

What I was saying was that there is not a shred of evidence for your suggestion that those whom the BLM*org leaders claim to be contacting are saints.

OneSheep:

(a person who may be a saint?)

Do we have any evidence whatsoever that the person she is attempting to communicate with is a saint?

No?

If your attempts to favorably interpret people’s actions favorably go to the extent of considering aspects for which there is not a shred of evidence, then I think you are going too far. Making this type of evidence-free assumption in order to pursue the favorable interpretation is going beyond the bounds of reality.

to which you responded: If there is not a shred of evidence either way, CCC2478 makes it very clear that we are still to go with the most favorable interpretation.

Are you seriously suggesting that since we have no evidence of the identity of the entity with whom the BLM*org leaders claim to be communicating that we must therefore take “the most favorable interpretation” that the entity is a saint?!?!

---

---

---

---

Yes, the “organic cause” is that the person was blinded by passion. If “blind passion” comes from the devil, then we run up against the problem of human nature being in part created by the devil, which goes against Catholic teaching. We don’t need to attribute the demonic here. He made a bad choice, and he did it himself, but he was blind. I think this is the most favorable interpretation, the most truthful interpretation. Are you thinking it is more favorable to say “the devil made him do it”?

OK, so you think it is “a more favorable interpretation” to say someone is blinded by lust than to say he is blinded by a supernaturally intelligent being he may not even be aware of?

Yes, the “organic cause” is that the person was blinded by passion. If “blind passion” comes from the devil, then we run up against the problem of human nature being in part created by the devil, which goes against Catholic teaching. We don’t need to attribute the demonic here. He made a bad choice, and he did it himself, but he was blind. I think this is the most favorable interpretation, the most truthful interpretation. Are you thinking it is more favorable to say “the devil made him do it”?

What do you mean by “’organic cause’”?

You wrote: “If ‘blind passion’ comes from the devil, then we run up against the problem of human nature being in part created by the devil…"

First, I assume by “'blind passion’” that you mean lust.

Second, lust does not have its source in the devil. The devil can only tempt, not create. The source of the lust the tempted person falls into is his own concupiscence.

 

[Cathoholic]

Fr. Ripperger is entitled to his own personal opinion, which to me appears unhinged, but that is just my personal opinion.

What is so “unhinged” about Father’s statement about seeing signs of the demonic when at least some of these people ADMIT to spirit channelling??

That seems pretty “hinged” to me.

 

[OneSheep]

We have agreed that good intentions or desires do not protect from committing, even unknowingly, bad acts.

Given that fact, what relevance do their intentions and desires have to whether or not they are being influenced by demons?

It has the same relevance as surmising that Fr. R. has in mind the well-being of those he is addressing. As Christians, we do not think of the devil as having the well-being of people in mind.

Don’t you consider what people want when you are serving them?

Their “good” according to you? Would you give a starving man the Bible? Would you give an abused woman a bag of corn chips? :crazy_face:

Of course we start with what people want and need. We give people the benefit of the doubt by at least giving them the voice to say what it is that they think they want, even though sometimes they may be mistaken. This is a matter of “respecting people from where they are” rather than from where we want them to be or where we think they should be, as if we are smarter or more spiritual than they are, or something like that.

Sure, but evaluating motives is not what we are doing here, is it? We are considering the issue of whether it is ipso facto rash judgement for an experienced exorcist to suggest certain people are being influenced by demons.

No it is not what I am doing, and that is not the intent of CCC2478. What the section is doing is giving us sort of an insurance policy against rash judgment. “Do this, and you can be sure that you are avoiding rash judgment”. It clearly does not say “if you don’t do this, you are committing rash judgment”. If it were to do this, it would be setting up new criteria for people to judge one another, which is counterproductive to the aim of the 8th commandment. The commandment is about avoiding false statements, not about judging people.

Yes! Yes, I do want that! I want my doctor to tell me I can eat all the chocolate I want…

I addressed this above. The respectful doctor begins by hearing what you want, not what he thinks you need. The doctor may be ultimately right, but it is extremely important for her to find out first what you want. If nothing else, if you were already having a weight problem, he might learn that you have some kind of bad relationship with food, rather than a thyroid disorder.