As I noted, I have found a few of his books interesting. Yet, with all due respect to Fr. Amorth he is known to make few sensational claims over the years. It’s possible he utilizes exaggeration to make his point(s)? The claim, “Latin prayers are more effective in driving away the demonic” is questionable. Why? The revised “Rite of Exorcism” (1999) has translations of the ritual into the languages spoken in the various regions. Thus, if Latin was more effective I’d trust the Church would make certain of it’s exclusive use.
So because the Church permits an option you believe it is therefore automatically the equivalent and just as beneficial and effective as the traditional practice? There are a host of other modern indults and permissions that clearly demonstrate otherwise. Do you believe that receiving Communion in the hand is just as good or the same as on the tongue? That altar girls are just as good as having altar boys (think priesthood!)? Or that the priest praying facing the people (
versus populum) is the equivalent as the priest praying facing east (
ad orientem)? For the latter, Pope Benedict himself (while still a Cardinal) wrote extensively explaining the problems with
versus populum worship saying that the people then become the focus of the priest, and the priest becomes the focus of the people, thereby creating–in his words–“a self-enclosed circle” that no longer looks out towards the transcendent Lord (
Spirit of the Liturgy).
Interestingly, the new rite of exorcism was composed by a group that had no experience with exorcisms at all. Here is Fr Amorth’s explanation in an interview:
“-Amorth: The statements contained in the new Rite … are the fruit of ignorance and inexperience.
-Paci: But wasn’t it compiled by experts?
-Amorth: By no means, no. In these past ten years, two commissions have worked on the Rite … I can say with certainty that no member of either commission has ever performed an exorcism or witnessed one. No member has even the faintest idea of what an exorcism is. There lies the error, the original sin of this Rite. No one who assisted with it was an expert on exorcism.”
As always I suggest reading the full context of the interview, which will help you get an even clearer idea of what he is saying:
vaticans.org/index.php?/archives/61-An-interview-with-the-Vaticans-chief-excorcist,-Father-Gabriele.html
Had the authors of this new (much more ecumenically friendly) rite of exorcism consulted with the exorcists themselves, the experts in the field, they would have then been much more informed and likely would not have dropped that Latin at all. The commission that revised the rite did not make it in a way that no longer works at all, and certainly demons can still be cast out through use of the new rite in the vernacular tongue; however, the point is that the priest with the most experience performing this rite in the entire world has determined that Latin is more effective.
The point of all this that just because the Church permits something does not
de facto make it the most effective means of doing it or invariably equal in all respects to all other options.
