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

[OneSheep]

What do the BLM protesters want?

Annie, I was so looking forward to you actually answering this question. This is the one question that I think is the most important, and I have asked it more than any other, but it remains unanswered.

So, please, if you are going to respond again, please try to answer the question, Annie. Does the question hit a sore spot? Maybe what you “want” is to not answer the question, but what you truly “need” is to give it a shot? Does that possibly follow the examples you are presenting about doctors and patients? Note: these are not rhetorical or leading questions.

What do the BLM protesters want?

 

[Annie]

Annie, I was so looking forward to you actually answering this question. This is the one question that I think is the most important, and I have asked it more than any other, but it remains unanswered.

So, please, if you are going to respond again, please try to answer the question, Annie. Does the question hit a sore spot? Maybe what you “want” is to not answer the question, but what you truly “need” is to give it a shot? Does that possibly follow the examples you are presenting about doctors and patients? Note: these are not rhetorical or leading questions.

I am asking you a generic, theoretical question that has nothing to do with a specific situation. You have repeatedly said that Fr R’s saying that the BLM*org leaders’ actions indicate a possible demonic influence is rash judgement.

Thus, you are saying that you think generically that an experienced exorcist’s saying that someone may be being influenced by demons is a bad statement that could be considered rash judgement.

I do not understand why you think that it is a bad statement that could indicate rash judgement.

What do the BLM protesters want?

Since you are refusing to answer that question until I answer your question of what I think the BLM*org leaders want, I assume they want what they have written on their pages as their goals. First they wrote one set of goals, then another, so it is hard to tell what their true goals are, and it is also hard to tell given their actions, lack of actions, and other statements.

The BLM movement, as I understand it, is driven by a desire to see the government apply the same standards to the police as they expect others to adhere to inasmuch as that is possible given the nature of police work. I think that the BLM movement sees unfairness in police treatment of non-police civilians, especially when those civilians are black, and they would like to see a system that is more responsive to the needs of civilians and not so weighted to police needs or desires.

As I understand it, the BLM movement would also like to see changes in the justice system to make that more fair as well.

(I actually agree with these goals and have seen unfairness and other serious issues with the justice system.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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??

Even if that were true (which is doubtful), that does not mean Father should be free to see demonic possession everywhere he fancies.

 

[Annie]

This seems to be the video in question,in which the BLM*org leaders outline their spiritual beliefs and practices.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This seems to be the video in question,in which the BLM*org leaders outline their spiritual beliefs and practices.

It is a 54-minute video. Can you tell me exactly where in that video a BLM leader admits to being possessed by anything other than a desire to see just treatment for blacks?

 

[OneSheep]

You have repeatedly said that Fr R’s saying that the BLM*org leaders’ actions indicate a possible demonic influence is rash judgement.

I have said nothing of the sort. I ask that you make more of an attempt to characterize my statements as I state them:

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.

You will not find a single post here on this thread where I accuse Fr. R. of rash judgment, and to say otherwise is simply untrue. Please be a true witness.

The BLM movement, as I understand it, is driven by a desire to see the government apply the same standards to the police as they expect others to adhere to inasmuch as that is possible given the nature of police work. I think that the BLM movement sees unfairness in police treatment of non-police civilians, especially when those civilians are black, and they would like to see a system that is more responsive to the needs of civilians and not so weighted to police needs or desires.

As I understand it, the BLM movement would also like to see changes in the justice system to make that more fair as well.

(I actually agree with these goals and have seen unfairness and other serious issues with the justice system.)

Thanks for answering the question! I think they are also wanting mental health professionals to have more of a role in addressing behaviors, and I think that they want an end to economic discrimination as well as mitigation of other grievances.

Now, do you see “demonic influence” in anything that BLM protesters want? If not, let’s go to the behavior level; is there something else they are doing or saying that seems to be of such influence?

 

[FrankFletcher]

I hope this priest is censured for his irresponsible comments. Who is his bishop?

 

[Annie]

I have said nothing of the sort.

Great, then we are in agreement that Fr. Ripperger did not fall into the sin of rash judgement and that neither is an expert suggesting someone may be demonically influenced

Now, do you see “demonic influence” in anything that BLM protesters want?

I thought that we had both agreed that wanting good things does not protect from falling into bad spiritual locations?

If not, let’s go to the behavior level; is there something else they are doing or saying that seems to be of such influence?

It would seem that their attempts to communicate with those who have died does open a door to demonic influence.

Further than that, I can not go. Fr Ripperger is someone with a lot of experience in that sort of thing and I am not. I do not have sufficient knowledge of any aspect of this situation to be able to assess his comments.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

Now, do you see “demonic influence” in anything that BLM protesters want?

I thought that we had both agreed that wanting good things does not protect from falling into bad spiritual locations?

Ah, now you have taken another step. What I have agreed to is that people with good intent can end up doing bad things, hurtful things. I don’t know what “spiritual location” you are talking about, but if you are assuming that they actually have gone to a “bad spiritual location” then that is an evaluation that is based on something, and I would like to know what it is, specifically, that you have based that evaluation.

So, what have they said or done that you have interpreted as “falling into a bad spiritual location”?

It would seem that their attempts to communicate with those who have died does open a door to demonic influence.

Or, it could be that the woman wants to ask something of a saint. Do you know more about this? If not, we are, according to CCC2478, to stay with the most favorable interpretation, assume the best.
Would you not want people to assume this of you, that you prefer to appeal to a saint rather than a demon?
Is this not the most charitable position?
These are not rhetorical questions.

It would seem that their attempts to communicate with those who have died does open a door to demonic influence.

It may also open the door to some serious self-reflection that involves relationship with God. Indeed, if she does attempt to talk to a merciful part of herself (thinking she is talking to, say, Harriet Tubman) then the “response” may come from the Spirit, guiding her away from that which escalates the violence, for example.

Again, the problems with the practice lie more in presenting herself as an authority figure because she has special access to God or revelation. So far, from what I’ve read, this is not the case.

 

[OneSheep]

I hope this priest is censured for his irresponsible comments. Who is his bishop?

If you go to the Archdiocese of Denver website, they suggest that you contact the priest directly, which I think you can do by this means:

info@dolorans.org

According to the gospel, if we have a grievance against someone, we are to go to that person directly. The Denver Archdiocese is absolutely correct in encouraging direct contact. Once one has done this, one next goes to other witnesses, and then the Church. It makes sense. We are to treat people charitably.

 

[Annie]

So, what have they said or done that you have interpreted as “falling into a bad spiritual location”?

What did you and I agree to? That as a general principle, a good motive or desire will not protect someone from falling into sin. Right?

And that is what I was referring to. The general principle that “good things does not protect from falling into bad spiritual locations.”

And what I mean by bad spiritual location is simply mortal sin, demonic influence, whatever.

Would you not want people to assume this of you, that you prefer to appeal to a saint rather than a demon?
Is this not the most charitable position?
These are not rhetorical questions.

I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.

And here we are back again: is suggesting that someone may have fallen under demonic influence a less favorable interpretation and if so why?

And if it is, why did you deny that it was earlier?

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . . .

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??

.

Even if that were true (which is doubtful), . . .

Good grief. It is NOT “doubtful”.

Have you read the thread LeafByNiggle?

 

[silentwitness]

I think the whole concept of hate crime is an attemot to fashoon a new religion. There is right and wrong
. Hate crimes by definition are concepts that cement the idea of group identity and because the whole concept is vague and constantly changing and because it is usually directed only one way it is a very bsd and damaging religion that can only bring division.

 

[OneSheep]

mortal sin, demonic influence

We must remember that none of us have the right or position to say that someone else has fallen into mortal sin. Secondly, “mortal sin” does not rely on demonic influence, so these are two different things. We also do not have the position to say whether or not someone has “rashly judged”. That is between Fr. R. and God.

The question is this:

So, what have they said or done that you have interpreted as “falling into a bad spiritual location”?

What have they done? We have already examined their statements and have found no basis for “demonic influence”, correct? Now we turn to what they have done. Once we see what they have done that may lead a person to assume “demonic influence”, then we can see if there is a more favorable interpretation, i.e. that the person was trying to do something good.

I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.

And you have proof of this? Or, is there a more favorable interpretation of what happened?

Much of this also depends on what you mean by the word “demon”.

And here we are back again: is suggesting that someone may have fallen under demonic influence a less favorable interpretation and if so why?

Already answered:

As Christians, we do not think of the devil as having the well-being of people in mind.

So, to say they are being influenced by the devil at the very least does not honor people’s good intentions, those intentions that have the well-being of others in mind.

If by “devil’s influence” you mean that we are subject to lack of awareness or ignorance, then we are all subjected to this, and then it would be rather silly to be pointing at someone else and claiming “devil influence!” because when we do this, there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves (like a pistol hand). Indeed, we need to take a careful look at this verse, as I am convinced that it probably applies here many levels:

Judging Others Matthew 7:

1“Do not judge, or you will be judged. 2For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

 

[OneSheep]

I think the whole concept of hate crime is an attemot to fashoon a new religion.

So you are thinking that the lawmakers are trying to fashion a new religion?

There is right and wrong

Yes, I agree. Hate is wrong.

Hate crimes by definition are concepts that cement the idea of group identity

There are group identities; it is a fact driven by human desire to belong to a tribe. Saying that it should not be so does not stop it from being so.

it is a very bsd [bad?] and damaging religion that can only bring division.

Yes, tribalism is factionism, and it is division. Our Church is also divided by factions. This divisiveness is called part of the “spirit of death” by St. Paul.

 

[OneSheep]

Some additional relevant sections from the CCC:

III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH

2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275

**2476 False witness and perjury . When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

 

[silentwitness]

I think lawmakers like the rest of us are influenced by many different factors.

What we have seen over preceding decades is the removal of Christian thought from law, government controlled bodies and popular media. By necessity a new religion is needed to ensure community cohesion even if that religion is not recognised as a religion.

Group identities exist, i agree with you there. But when a new religion which is driving law seeks to distinguish between group identities and support narratives of favouring one group over another then there is a problem which will lead (and has led) to divisiveness which feeds back into a lack of social cohesion and then the desire for the new religion to be more authoritarian.

I think Christianity is incompatible with Leftism and families that go that way end up becoming less Christian in subsequent generations and more Leftist to the point that at some point Christianity is put aside.

Back tomorrow.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I don’t even know what to say.

 

[Annie]

I think I answered very clearly and that you have, taking the most favorable interpretation, misunderstood me. I cannot make myself any clearer when writing in plain English, and I think that anyone reading what I have written and how you have responded will have about as much trouble as I do to think that you are simply misunderstanding what I write.

 

[OneSheep]

What we have seen over preceding decades is the removal of Christian thought from law, government controlled bodies and popular media

Yes, I believe this is true. I especially see it when media demonizes people rather than fosters understanding and forgiveness. There is so much demonization of the “other side”, which is contrary to the Gospel. It is the worst of factionism.

But when a new religion which is driving law seeks to distinguish between group identities and support narratives of favouring one group over another then there is a problem which will lead (and has led) to divisiveness which feeds back into a lack of social cohesion and then the desire for the new religion to be more authoritarian.

Divisiveness is a big problem.

Group identities exist, i agree with you there. But when a new religion which is driving law seeks to distinguish between group identities and support narratives of favouring one group over another then there is a problem which will lead (and has led) to divisiveness which feeds back into a lack of social cohesion and then the desire for the new religion to be more authoritarian.

When it comes to people of color, one can observe that in many venues their group does not experience the “favor” that whites do. While I truly believe that this is much less the case now than 10 years ago, we still have a long way to go. We have the simple fact, for example, that bosses hire workers that look like, and have other similar characteristics, as themselves. So, given that most businesses are owned by white people, they inadvertently hire people that are not of the same “group”. Then there is the added layer of actual racial prejudice.

I think Christianity is incompatible with Leftism

I agree that many aspects that we commonly associate with “Leftism” may be incompatible with Christianity, but there are aspects of “Conservatism” that also do. I think it is best, however, to be bridge-builders, otherwise, we end up participating in the divisiveness that you accurately see as problematic. Demonizing people is divisive, it is counterproductive.