Psychologist Trains Exorcists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
justforme23 said:
Giving oneself to god is just a term used by many, but that is by our works, doing all the right things in the sight of god, that is not the way to overcome our sins. Scripture says of ourselves we can do nothing.

louise
Click to expand...
Of course, we need the Lord for the good we do. Without Him we can do nothing. He touches us with His Grace, and if we freely respond, He can do a great work in us.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
God doesn’t show off like the devil apparently does. Rather, the saints who are possessed by God work quietly and humbly to transform the world into something better.
Click to expand...
That could be completely true. But you said that it was interesting that skeptics were more impressed by evidence of demonic possessions, and I’m saying that it makes complete sense if the demonic possessions are more obviously supernatural than possession by God.
 
Dorothy said:
If some Christians have reached the state of union with the Lord (as taught by the Mystical Doctors of the Church) then their lives of virtue will be noticed, and if others do not know about them the Lord will cause their lives to be known in order to encourage others. (For example: St. Therese of Lisieux who was asked by her superior to write her life story “The Story of a Soul.”

There can be phenomena involved with a holy person’s life, but that is not the measure we use to show that the person is in total union with the Lord. Such phenomena can also be of the evil one, and there must be much investigation before it is said to be of the Lord.
Click to expand...
god must do that investigation, not man. If sins fall away and the persons thoughts are pure that is a sign that god is at work. If we do it by our works, we are being deceived.
louise
 
justforme23 said:
god must do that investigation, not man. If sins fall away and the persons thoughts are pure that is a sign that god is at work. If we do it by our works, we are being deceived.
louise
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I believe that the Lord grants me His grace through much prayer and the Sacraments which are encounters with Him.

I am aware that our good works flow out of our love for the Lord.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Psychiatrist Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled and *People of the Lie *,was invited to participate in several exorcisms. Like the psychologist in the article cited above, Peck was initially skeptical of the claims of exorcism, but after these experiences he became fully convinced of demonic posession. His account of his witness to these exorcisms may be found in People of the Lie if anybody is interested.

I do think it’s interesting that some skeptics can be more impressed by evidence of the devil than by evidence of God. After all, some people are possessed by God to the degree that they give themselves entirely over to God and to his works in the world. Yet I’ve never heard a psychologist marvel at divine possession, which is just as real as demonic possession.

After all, giving onself to God must be just as real as giving oneself to the devil.
Click to expand...
I think we are looking at it differently. You seem to think because he was skeptical and now believes as evidence of the diabolical. I am skeptical of Adam Blai. He seems to be a charlatan imo. His website. religiousdemonology.com/Introduction.htm

His a psychology Ph.D. candidate not a psychologist. He only refers to nameless church officials. Claims to be a member of International Association of Exorcists, a catholic organization, where only priests are allowed to do exorcisms. His claims are bunk and he’s strikes me as an egotistical nutjob.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
His a psychology Ph.D. candidate not a psychologist. He only refers to nameless church officials. Claims to be a member of International Association of Exorcists, a catholic organization, where only priests are allowed to do exorcisms. His claims are bunk and he’s strikes me as an egotistical nutjob.
Click to expand...
It’s possible you are right. I don’t know. But if he trains priests, and really doesn’t, that would seem to risk the end of his career and may stop him from getting his Ph.D.

That would certainly not be the case with Scott Peck, who did not claim to train priests, but was allowed to participate in exorcisms and was able to offer advice on how to deal with the obsessed, perhaps even to the point of detecting when the obsessed are real or faking it.

I should think open minded psychologists might be useful partners to an exorcist.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
It’s possible you are right. I don’t know. But if he trains priests, and really doesn’t, that would seem to risk the end of his career and may stop him from getting his Ph.D.

That would certainly not be the case with Scott Peck, who did not claim to train priests, but was allowed to participate in exorcisms and was able to offer advice on how to deal with the obsessed, perhaps even to the point of detecting when the obsessed are real or faking it.

I should think open minded psychologists might be useful partners to an exorcist.
Click to expand...
I think a closed minded one would be more useful. If they are looking for a “natural” cause and find it, great. If they don’t, the Priest takes over. Trying to straddle both makes for bad science and bad religion, imo.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
I think a closed minded one would be more useful. If they are looking for a “natural” cause and find it, great. If they don’t, the Priest takes over. Trying to straddle both makes for bad science and bad religion, imo.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. If the psychologist is closed-minded to the possibility of something supernatural going on, and something supernatural is going on, he will be useless in recognizing that because he will refuse to see any cause other than the natural one.

But I’m inclined to agree that most psychologists have a closed mind to the possibility of the supernatural, if that’s your opinion as well. Then again, lots of people have a closed-mind to the opinions of psychologists. 😉
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I don’t agree. If the psychologist is closed-minded to the possibility of something supernatural going on, and something supernatural is going on, he will be useless in recognizing that because he will refuse to see any cause other than the natural one.

But I’m inclined to agree that most psychologists have a closed mind to the possibility of the supernatural, if that’s your opinion as well. Then again, lots of people have a closed-mind to the opinions of psychologists. 😉
Click to expand...
That is the point as I see it. The expert in one field psychology would look for a psychological cause. An exorcist would look to see if the supernatural was the reason. You have the bases covered there. I wouldn’t trust a psychologist to make a supernatural diagnosys, it’s out of his field. I wouldn’t ask a priest about a medical problem.
 
Roscoe_Turner said:
I wouldn’t trust a psychologist to make a supernatural diagnosys, it’s out of his field. I wouldn’t ask a priest about a medical problem.
Click to expand...
Here’s where we differ. Priests have been psychiatrists, astronomers, mathematicians, you name it. Some psychologists (the open-minded ones) may be sensitive to certain aspects of possession that the priest might miss. The psychologist might also be sensitive to the effect of possession not only on the possessed, but also on the exorcist. This is not to say that the pschologist has more knowledge about possession, or more knowledge about exorcism itself. That is certainly the specialty of the exorcist.

The fact that Scott Peck was asked to be a witness to several exorcisms ought to tell us that maybe the exorcists felt a psychiatrist might have some insight to offer … especially with respect to distinguishing a fake possession from an authentic one.

Looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. 😉
 
justforme23 said:
I never heard of a priest needing help from a shrink. No way, no how.
Exorcisms happen by themselves, I know of this happening.
louise
Click to expand...
Before the priest gets in to an exorcism, his bishop needs to give his approval. Prior to that, the priest needs to verify that the patient is not suffering from mental problems. A psychologist can help in the diagnosis. Also due to past problems where a rushed job in misdiagnosing a mental problem for a demonic problem, the preliminaries are important to established if there is a true demonic possession.
 
ericc said:
Also due to past problems where a rushed job in misdiagnosing a mental problem for a demonic problem, the preliminaries are important to established if there is a true demonic possession.
Click to expand...
And it is difficult to establish true demonic possession if the psychologist is not open-minded to that possibility.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
And it is difficult to establish true demonic possession if the psychologist is not open-minded to that possibility.
Click to expand...
Not if the patient’s acts are spectacular beyond doubt!😃 And also when the patient start revealing dark secrets of the psychologist only he would have known. Of course you are right if the psychologist is closed -minded, even if all the evidence of demonic possession is there, the psychologist may still refuse to believe. But why would one have a dishonest person on the team in the first place even faced with facts? The shrink should see another shrink?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
And it is difficult to establish true demonic possession if the psychologist is not open-minded to that possibility.
Click to expand...
a shrink is not necessary to be present.
a prieist knows the symptons.
they are easy to recognize.
the thoughts and behavior are obvious…
you are looking at this from a human mind with, no experience.
 
justforme23 said:
a shrink is not necessary to be present.
a prieist knows the symptons.
they are easy to recognize.
the thoughts and behavior are obvious…
you are looking at this from a human mind with, no experience.
Click to expand...
It used to be that way. But in a very litigious society, it is wise to cover your bases. I remembered years ago in Singapore, one woman claimed to be possessed and wanted the priest to exorcise her. The priest prayed over her with a few other laypeople, but not an exorcism. This woman later claimed to be traumatised by the exorcism and sued the Church. She didn’t prevail of course.

wwrn.org/articles/22561/?&place=singapore

Naive pastors and small churches without a large legal fund could easily be bankrupted by a few scams. Aren’t we told to be wise like serpents?
 
ericc said:
It used to be that way. But in a very litigious society, it is wise to cover your bases. I remembered years ago in Singapore, one woman claimed to be possessed and wanted the priest to exorcise her. The priest prayed over her with a few other laypeople, but not an exorcism. This woman later claimed to be traumatised by the exorcism and sued the Church. She didn’t prevail of course.

wwrn.org/articles/22561/?&place=singapore

Naive pastors and small churches without a large legal fund could easily be bankrupted by a few scams. Aren’t we told to be wise like serpents?
Click to expand...
Did you that when a person is in the presence of the holy spirit that the exorsiscm can take place naturally and the person is healed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top