Vatican Officially Endorses Exorcism

[DonViejo]

By Irene Chidinma Nwoye

The Vatican has given official backing to exorcists by formally acknowledging the International Association of Exorcists, a group of 250 Catholic priests in 30 countries who claim to free demons from human bodies.

According to L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, this approval means that the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy has approved the IAE's statutes and recognized the group under canon law.

This move by the Holy See comes amid growing reports on the Catholic Church’s renewed interest in exorcism. Unlike his predecessors, Pope Francis makes frequent references to the devil. Last year, many saw his laying on of hands on a man allegedly possessed by demons as an act of purgation.

The church believes that demonic cases are on the rise because more people are exploring the dark arts (black magic and a host of other “satanic rituals”) with the help of information readily available on the Internet. Across Italy and Spain, dioceses are schooling more priests in administering exorcism rites. Training more priests in this field is also part of the church’s effort to sideline self-proclaimed exorcists.

more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/07/03/vatican_officially_backs_exorcism_catholic_church_backs_exorcists_with_canon.html?

[rug]

1. It's an inaccurate headline. They've endorsed an organization not exorcism.

The Church has always acknowledged exorcism. There are numerous instances of it in the New Testament.

[Brettongarcia]

5. Formal Logical error: "Distinction Without a Difference"

Could you support the National Rifle Association, without also supporting their ideas? Support a forest, without supporting the trees? Support the larger organization, without also supporting its main constituent elements?

The Pope is acknowledging an organization. But? The core value of the organization is belief in Exorcism. Therefore? By endorsing this organization, the Pope now gives fuller, more formal endorsement of the ideas of Exorcism. That there are invisible devils out there; and that they can be exorcised.

He might have chosen not to bolster this belief. But ... he previously served earlier in South America. That only very recently emerged from the Stone Age. Invisible spirits and devils are still deeply respected, there.

But just say a few prayers - magic words - and the evil spirits will leave. Of course.

No need for "Psychology" or any of that modern stuff.

[rug]

8. Formal Logical error: Argument from analogy

[Brettongarcia]

9. 1) Your main logical error has nothing to do with analogy

You are arguing that one can support the whole, without supporting the elements.

2) Arguing from analogy by the way, is not exact. But it is very, very often allowed in Philosophy. Analogies are constantly used even in philosophy, to illustrate a point.

[rug]

10. 1) That's because it's yours.

2) It is, If it's used skillfully. It wasn't.

[Brettongarcia]

21. I mean: my main critique of your position was not phrased as an analogy

You supposed someone could support a whole, without supporting the parts. This characterization of your error is not an analogy.

You are asserting that someone could support an organization that backs exorcism; without in effect, backing Exorcism itself. Obviously that is wrong.

[okasha]

25. South America only recently emerged from the Stone Age?

Too ignorant to require comment.

[Brettongarcia]

26. A useful metaphor from a Pre-Columbian specialist

[okasha]

32. Ah.

Another quote taken out of context and given a wacky interpretation by you. No PreColumbian specialist would apply your "metaphor" to a period any later than the rise of the Moche and other metal-working cultures.

Attempting to apply it to modrrn South America remains, as noted, too ignorant for words.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Moche culture dating from 100 AD; a relatively recent development historically speaking

For the West, Stone Age Culture was many thousands of years ago.

[cbayer]

2. This is really a distorted piece of crap journalism.

There is no endorsement here and the bottom line is that the vatican and the pope understand that exorcisms take place and that some people believe in demonic possession. Their formal acknowledgment of this group is an attempt to make sure that exorcism is not done or used very inappropriately as it has been the past.

The money quote in this article is this:

The church insists that many who claim to be possessed are suffering from psychological ailments like depression, and priests urge them to receive medical care.

Having a formal relationship with this group allows them to have some oversight and direction over the criteria so that people suffering from psychiatric illnesses get appropriate care.

[longship]

3. Tell that to Father Amorth.

Who apparently claims that he has cast out thousands of demons.

Gabriele Amorth

It's rather an astounding claim.

[cbayer]

4. The article is not about him, though, and there is certainly a lot of

room for critical analysis of his claims and his practices. The article is about the Vatican "officially endorsing" the practice, as if this were some big, new revelation.

IMHO, they are trying to reign in people like Father Amorth.

[Brettongarcia]

6. Possibly the title could have been better worded: "The New Pope Reaffirms Exorcism"

[Warren Stupidity]

19. reign in by officially endorsing the nuttery. Yes of course that must be it.

But wait, you've endorsed exorcism as good stuff in this thread, so what's to reign in?

[rug]

7. A curious bird.

From your link:

Amorth was also one of the voices that made public warnings to parents about J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, stating that the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when the distinction "does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil."

At a film festival in Umbria (where he was invited to introduce the 2011 film about exorcism called The Rite), he is quoted as saying that yoga is satanic because it leads to practice of Hinduism and "all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation" and "practising yoga is satanic, it leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter".

Father Francis X. Clooney S.J., of Boston College and Harvard Divinity School noted that, "First, mere recriminations against the religion of another are just about never acceptable or useful. ...Second, if one is a professional exorcist, one may indeed see everything in light of that profession, and so it is not surprising that Fr. Amorth sees the devil at work everywhere; perhaps it is his default explanation of the woes that afflict us."

http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/fr-amorths-yoga-and-devil

[nilesobek]

54. My former kung fu instructor has also denounced the practice, (martial arts) as evil,

and he's turned into a big rightwingdinger.

[rug]

57. That's a radical shift.

[nilesobek]

59. Yeah pretty radical. I don't mean to compare yoga to kung fu.

Except that both traditions are revered by 1+ billion peoples respectively and should be respected.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Father who? Amorth

Well, I wish he'd spend a little time and energy around here. We could do with a few exorcisms.

[longship]

28. For that, we have MIRT.

They are our Father Amorth, the caster out of demons. (No really, that's my job. No! No! Really!!!!)

[Starboard Tack]

30. Then get to work and cast out these pesky demons.

What's a demon worth if he has no sense of humor? I remember when I was in demon school, we never took ourselves as seriously as these new demons. I don't know what the world's coming to. Really!

[longship]

31. I'm right on it.

Let me get my goat testicles...

[edhopper]

11. So you think it's fine

for them to accept some possessions by demonic forces as real?

Make sure the ones suffering psychiatric illness get treatment and the ones who are actually possessed get exorcised? Right/

Just asking if you're agreeing with the possibility of demonic possession?

[cbayer]

13. I think there is a case to be made for the placebo effect, as there is for all kinds of

"alternative" treatments. As long as they don't do harm and the practitioners are very vigilant about making sure people do not have underlying medical or psychiatric conditions that would account for the complaints, I don't see it as much different than many of the therapies that are out there.

Whether they are possessed or have a build up of blocked chi or their four humors are out of balance or whatever, doesn't make much difference to me personally. I am a big skeptic when it comes to these things.

But I don't reject things that help people if they do not harm them.

Why would i?

[edhopper]

15. I think there is little evidence for a placebo effect

for psychological problems.
And I doubt not dealing with the real problem ever results in no harm.

[cbayer]

20. There most certainly is a great deal of evidence for the placebo effect

for psychological problems. It has to be taken into consideration with the study of each and every new proposed therapy.

You are assuming that there is a "real problem", but I have already made it clear that I strongly support that underlying medical and psychiatric conditions must be ruled out.

If one can show that harm is being done, then the practice should be banned. This is true for all kinds of alternative treatments, including religious, spiritual and non-religious.

One could mock all kinds of alternative treatments, but I see no point in doing so if they do no harm and some people report a benefit. Why would anyone?

[Brettongarcia]

22. How about a reverse-placebo effect: belief in demons encourages some to give in to wayward impulses

I hypothesize that belief in demons makes wayward impulses, insanity, feel less resistible. Since now the victim believes that his minor problems have an objective cause, and are really, fully real. A real entity - the demon - did it.

Once the believer is in this way more fully convinced of the full concrete reality of his problem, that there is a very real "demon" behind it, often he or she will often find it harder to resist. Since now the problem is more real than ever.

[skepticscott]

24. There is inherent potential for harm every time a bogus treatment is used

even if it doesn't exist in the particular case at hand. There is a great deal more to the placebo effect than old Doc Brown curing Aunt Bessie's migraine with a sugar pill, just to show how much more horse sense he has than them big city doctors. Some people in any treated group will tend to show improvement just by chance, because that's the way the world works. By giving general credence to the idea that the treatment is genuine (as you are advocating), you may encourage people who improve with a placebo to forego genuine treatment the next time they need it, until it's too late. Or their touting of such a treatment may encourage others to do so, rather than undergo a treatment which is objectively effective, but which may have side effects they don't like.

That you would speak in favor of something like this while claiming (dubiously) to be a trained scientist is truly shameful.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Right, and your qualifications in the field are what?

Some people speak from professional experience and knowledge and some speak from the top of their tiny heads. Wonder where you fit.
Best stick to shit you know something about.

[skepticscott]

34. If you would care to dispute any of the factual points I made

have at it. I doubt you can, or you would have done so, instead of being a Mahoney and resorting to an ad hom attack.

The truth is, nothing that I said is even remotely controversial in the field of medicine, and none of it takes years of scientific training (which I've had, btw) to grasp. The dangers of unproven treatment, even when harmless in itself (like homeopathy), are well known among intelligent people, as are the dangers of trying to treat conditions that don't even exist with measures that may injure or kill. I suspect you know that, but feel the need to promote the family agenda at all costs, even if it means looking foolish and abandoning any pretense of critical thought.

[Starboard Tack]

41. So, no psychiatric or medical training that might qualify you to talk about the placebo effect.

I'll defer to those who actually know what they're talking about. Sorry, old son, but using a microscope as an avatar doesn't quite do it. Your expertise is in what precisely?

[skepticscott]

43. Poor Tack..I hope you didn't you stay up late

trying to come up with a response that would make you look less foolish. Because those are hours of your life you'll never get back. Take you own advice, and stick to subjects that you have a minimal grasp of. Critical thinking ain't one of them.

[Starboard Tack]

45. I go to bed early and rise early.

It is currently 2pm where I am. Guess your critical thinking couldn't figure that one out. I can live with looking foolish in the eyes of fools. I talk about things I understand, and when I don't understand I turn to those who do. You might try that next time you decide to challenge qualified professionals. Ask Nurse Betty. I'm sure she's highly qualified to change your bandages, but not so much at diagnosing mental illness and the validity of the placebo effect.

[skepticscott]

48. I get it dude

You're pissed that your family is being made to look foolish here, and you're flailing around trying to rehabilitate you and your wife cbayer (who seems incapable of defending her own nonsense...what a shock). But even people who normally defer to your wife at every opportunity are telling you the same thing I am here. The reasons that giving general placebo treatments is dangerous and inappropriate are well publicized and not complex. They certainly don't require years of medical training to understand or enunciate, as you've rather ridiculously tried to imply. If you ever care to educate yourself, they are available in any number of places, at least one of which has already been supplied to you.

Follow the advice of wise men through the ages, dude. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[rug]

58. Putting you on ignore is hardly being "incapable of defending her own nonsense (sic)".

And you are fully aware that she has you on ignore, and why.

[rug]

35. Note, it doesn't years of scientific training (which he's had, btw).

[Starboard Tack]

42. What a maroon!

Talk about delusional

[okasha]

60. Oi.

Your post just made me realixe that we have two of that ilk, not one.

[Brettongarcia]

52. In support of Skeptic, here's a medical discussion of ethical and practical problems with placebos

The problem came up in Helsinki. In connection with the ethical problem of administering just placebos in medical trials, vs. more effective treatment. In effect, people were being denied more effective treatment that they needed.

The result was the famous Helsinki Declaration; the one that outlawed placebo use in Finland's clinical trials.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11305332&site=ehost-live

[Starboard Tack]

55. Interesting, but nothing to do with anything discussed here?

Scott, in post #24 completely distorts what cbayer says in post #13, for the sole purpose of discrediting her. This is something he spends a lot of time doing and gets offended when he is called out on it. His behavior in this group has only served to marginalize him from most of those who participate. Apparently I am one of the few, apart from his little band of followers, who don't have him on ignore. He knows full well that she has had him on ignore since Noah didn't build the ark. This makes him feel safe to distort her posts.

In this particular instance he tries to give the impression that she endorses exorcism, which she doesn't. She makes a valid observation about the placebo effect, not an endorsement of placebos or exorcism, and certainly not a combination of the two.
He constantly attempts to trash anyone who is not in lockstep with his intolerant views on religion and people of faith. Ironically, he has only succeeded in trashing his own credibility.
I understand that there are many atheists who have suffered and continue to suffer from RW fundie prejudice in certain parts of the US, and there are those who prey on them by posing as their supporters and voice of reason on boards like this. In reality, they are as self serving as the RW fundies they profess to hate. They are similarly intolerant individuals, interested in little else beyond their own self aggrandizement.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. she clearly stated that exorcism might be beneficial because "placebo".

Then again your half of the cbayer tag team has already come out as a believer in demonic possession, along with being an alleged atheist.

[Starboard Tack]

72. LOL Do you really think atheism and demonic possession are incompatible?

Look around you Warren. Don't you see those little demons scurrying here and there? Taunting you as they scurry by, clutching their pitchforks.
"Tag team"? You are a hoot.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. In your case no.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Yes but that isn't going to stop the torrent of inane bullshit in support of exorcism.

See below where exorcism is made analogous to abortion and the RCC is doing the world a service by providing quality exorcisms. It is un fucking believable.

[Brettongarcia]

76. This point by Skeptic seems correct: exorcism or placebo might be bad, compared to real medicine

That was the whole point of Helsinki. So if exorcism might be said to have a "placebo" effect, still it might fall seriously short compared to competent psychiatric treatment.

Why Psychology? I see ancient ideas of "demonic possession" and "evil spirits," as being in effect (at best) early, imperfect metaphors for psychological disorders. "Spirit" might well be an early word for "thoughts" or "moods," as in our modern "high spirits," and so forth. Likewise "demons."

Anyone might get fixated on some obsessive idea, or some destructive mood or such. These in ancient times might be called "evil spirits" or demons.

But my point: if there is thereby any reality to these ancient myths, if "possession" was an old term for "obsessions" say; if these are old terms for psychiatric disorders? Then they would be much better dealt with not by exorcism; but by modern Psychology.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Wow, so not only have you endorsed exorcism, you've also given a thumbs up to homeopathy

and all sorts of other medical woo. Congratulations!

[longship]

33. I can't go along with you my friend.

What's the harm?

This is the harm!

No placebo effect when one is dead, or maimed.

No can go with support of exorcism. No way, no how. It's medieval thinking. Pure and simple. And the extent to which the Catholic Church gives comfort to it is the extent to which they promote abject ignorance.

This on top of the fact of the outright abuse, but there's that, too. And one cannot ignore that to speak about placebos.

I respectfully disagree.

[cbayer]

36. Yes, there is serious potential for harm and I acknowledge that.

That is why I think it's critical that a strict protocol which includes evaluation to rule out medial and psychiatric illness be in place.

If this is followed, the actual practice would diminish to practically zero.

[longship]

37. Well, yes.

But when the church authorizes it at such a high level it gives cover for those would abuse it. (In my opinion it is all abusive at some level because it's not true, but no matter.)

What some of the churches in Africa are doing is horrific.

And Father Amorth claims he's done tens of thousands of them. A very busy man, apparently. (Or an exaggerator.)


Hope you are well. Are you back in the Western Hemisphere?

[cbayer]

39. Well, I disagree. I think the vatican is acknowledging this group precisely

to try and keep some control over what has become an abusive practice.

However, I understand how it could be interpreted as an endorsement, but I think they want to rein in people like Father Amorth.

I am in Italy for 3 months and loving it. We have rented a farmhouse in a very isolated and beautiful region. I am one of the luckiest people in the world, I think.

Hope you are well and that you are enjoying the warm summer weather.

[longship]

40. It'm well. It's very nice here, cool evenings.

Weather's been fair, always good for Michigan. Lots of wild flowers in bloom. Had a porcupine rumbling around my porch the other night, late. Woke me up. Cute little guy (or gal -- I wasn't about to check). Left it alone. They're curious, but basically harmless.

[skepticscott]

44. Exorcism is an abusive and dangerous practice

no matter who is doing it or how it's done.

If the Vatican wanted to "control" the process, they would have disavowed it long ago. Instead, they continue to endorse it, and you and your family seem to want to join them in promoting the idea that demonic possession really occurs. After all, we can't be giving religious believers the teensiest bit of offense, no matter how fucked up their practices and beliefs are, can we?

[trotsky]

74. Well we can if they are in a belief system that's OK to mock.

Like Scientology, or Mormonism, or biblical creationism.

[skepticscott]

12. This from the group's most frequent poster

of crap "journalism" on all subjects religious, particularly atheism. Richly ironic, to say the least.

And no, the Vatican and the pope are not just acknowledging that exorcisms take place. They are acknowledging (for all of the world's billion or so Catholics to see) that there is actually such a thing as demonic possession of humans and that a real need for exorcisms exists. Implicit in your argument that the Vatican is trying to ensure that exorcisms are not used inappropriately is the fact that they believe there actually are appropriate ways to use exorcism, which is, as has been pointed out many, many times on this board, very dangerous misinformation. Of course, every time someone does point that fact out, you and your fellow religionistas have a meltdown.

The only appropriate thing for a sensible and rational organization to say publicly on this issue is that there is no credible evidence for demonic possession of humans, and that the practice of exorcism should never be engaged in. By anyone. The Vatican, of course, will never say that. Nor will you or any member of your family (at least one of which actively endorses the idea).

[Warren Stupidity]

17. It is stunning. The defense of the demonic possession delusion here is unbelievable.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. There is no 'appropriate use' for 'exorcism'.

It's complete hogwash.

[cbayer]

62. This author explains it quite well and I share his position.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/07/05/after-hobby-lobby-time-face-real-war-religion/9kJVpa1aeb0p5AX26V4v5J/story.html

Quality control in exorcism

It never ceases to amaze some people that the Catholic Church persists in taking exorcism seriously. The latest round of perplexity was stoked this week when the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy announced that it has extended formal recognition to the International Association of Exorcists, a group founded in 1990.

For the record, this is not a case of the old guard striking back at Francis. The Congregation for Clergy is led by a prelate hand-picked by the current pope, Italian Cardinal Beniamino Stella, and Francis himself famously invokes the devil more openly than his recent predecessors.

Few media storylines about Catholicism sell as reliably as exorcism, making it possible that last week’s news may stoke a new round of reports about an alleged “revival” or “resurgence” in the practice.

My take is that what is really going on here is an attempt by the church at quality control.

more at link

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Which is why I called it hogwash.

"At the end of the day, Catholicism does include the belief that demonic possession happens, and that exorcism is at times the appropriate remedy."

That's hogwash right there. No one has ever been able to demonstrate any such thing in a controlled environment. Not the possession. Not the power to 'drive out' such a supernatural force. It's nonsense. And it causes very real harm and suffering, today, in a world with enough damn real problems of it's own.

[cbayer]

64. Of course, no one has ever been able to demonstrate it in a controlled

environment.

There is also no question that the practice has caused real harm and suffering.

I think you are missing the point, but that's ok.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. No, I'm not missing the point. These assholes are going to keep the idea alive

so as not to challenge their precious doctrine and the lies that have bolstered it for centuries, rather than just admit the truth and be done with it once and for all.

You're not buying their 'if we outlaw it, people will get their exorcisms in back alleys' argument, are you? Really? Think real hard on that one for a second. What other issue... what exact parallel could we compare it to? Hmm. I wonder.

Oh right, doesn't matter, we'll play games with imaginary enemies, while women die in back alley abortions due primarily to catholic opposition to legal abortion.

"• The estimated annual number of deaths from unsafe abortion declined from 56,000 in 2003 to 47,000 in 2008. Complications from unsafe abortion accounted for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in both years. [4]"

Granted, Catholicism is only partially to blame in Africa, but factors enormously in Latin America.

[cbayer]

66. The fact is that people have been getting their exorcisms in back alleys.

The practice has been without any controls or oversight. This has meant that people with serious medical and psychiatric conditions have not gotten appropriate evaluation or treatment. If it takes recognizing this organization to make a change in that, I'm all for it.

I don't give a shit about imaginary enemies. If people believe something to be true, they believe it. If something can be done to mitigate the risks that may be associated with that belief, then I support that.

Just stamping our little feet and saying, "But they just should stop believing in that" is not going to change a thing.

I have no idea what this has to do with abortion. If I am reading this twisted analogy correctly, then my interpretation would be that this is like saying the following:

We believe that life begins at conception and are against abortion. However, we recognize that women are going to get abortions so we are going to do what we can to make sure those abortions are done safely. That does not mean that we endorse abortions and would like to do whatever we can to reduce them.

Now, wouldn't that be a rather refreshing attitude? Substitute exorcism and that is why I support the current move.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. It's not a twisted analogy, it's a word-substitution copy of the access-to-abortion advocates positi

position for those that might have moral compunctions against it, but compare the issue on cost-benefit for the outcome of banning it.
It's the same damn argument, word for word. They didn't even paraphrase.

"However, we recognize that women are going to get abortions so we are going to do what we can to make sure those abortions are done safely."
That's not the RCC's position on that issue, and you fucking know it. The RCC actively opposes legal access, period.


"If people believe something to be true, they believe it."

Wouldn't that fall under clinical use of 'delusion', and as such, wouldn't it call for actual mental health evaluation/treatment?
Given that the issue is non-real?

[cbayer]

68. I never said it was the RCC's position. I said it would be refreshing

if it were and suggested that the same might be said for the exorcism issue.

No, it wouldn't fall under the clinical use of delusion (why the scare quotes, lol?). Beliefs are not delusions unless they meet certain criteria. One of these criteria is that there is strong evidence that the belief is not true.

And with most things religious, there just isn't that evidence.

You can call it non-real, but you have no evidence to support that. Just the lack of evidence.

And, FWIW, the RCC has very clear guidelines concerning medical/psychiatric evaluations for those seeking exorcism. In fact, they are aware that in almost all cases, there is a need for treatment of an underlying condition and not an exorcism. They do leave that little crack in the door, though.

So, if it is, in fact, a delusion, then the screenings should provide an opportunity for appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

[trotsky]

75. "They do leave that little crack in the door, though."

Which is the problem, cbayer. There is no such thing as demonic possession. The RCC causes harm by perpetuating the lie that there is - even IF it's only in some tiny number of cases.

[rug]

78. If you're affirmatively stating that, prove it.

You can't weasel out of that statement by calling it simple nonbelief.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. what other bullshit woo medical procedures are you in favor of cbayer?

[Small Accumulates]

14. Just an attempt to stifle the competition

All part of the business plan.

"Training more priests in this field is also part of the church’s effort to sideline self-proclaimed exorcists. "

As if the 250 clerics are not, themselves, self-proclaimed exorcists.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. The head nutjob of the exorcism office claims one of his demon possesed clients vomited rose petals.

Also satan is in the Vatican. Now, actually that bit I could almost believe. It explains a lot.

[Brettongarcia]

23. And of course, the exorcist did not gather the rose petals, to scientifically verify them.

No science in the exorcism office at all.

Shouldn't this raise some red flags?

Claiming too many things directly contrary to or unsupported by any scientific evidence, is a problem.

Though for that matter? If there is a devil, or say Satan, then no doubt he is in the Vatican. Running it. The Bible itself tells us that Satan's favorite ruse is to come to mankind disguised as our holy men: "Satan comes to us disguised as the angel of light."

Possibly there are, if not "devils," at least evil people and destructive thoughts. And in my opinion, the Vatican and religious tradition is chock full of those.

[Ilsa]

53. SCOTUS has a few, too. nt

[Brettongarcia]

77. The Supreme Court went back-and-forth on whether to honor religious practices that were destructive

This was in the news recently, regarding Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College.

The earlier relevant case was on religious peyote use (by Mescalero Apaches? etc.). At first the court said that was simply illegal. Then congress went out of its way to pass the Religious Restoration Act. Which reversed that. So now, you can get seriously, dangerously stoned; talk to Mescalito. And it's legal.

But the issue is still there: how many illegal things must we allow, just because they are religion? The court earlier outlawed LDS polygamy, for example. Likewise it would probably not allow a religion that demanded human sacrifice; even if that was a religious practice.

The main thing I'd consider in such cases: often religious practices of one group, harm others. So that's one principle we need to look at. This might be relevant in the case of Exorcisms; which could be seen as psychiatric malpractice, or some such.

[longship]

38. Would that be Father Amorth?

He claims some tens of thousands of exorcisms.

I think I would have lost count, but he has a number... Which he cites.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Yes. That would be the nutjob in charge

Of the now officially sanctioned exorcism gang. Although when the pope chimed in to bless this mess it becomes difficult to determine exactly who is the chief nutjob. Sorry about the ambiguity.

[longship]

47. No prob. I mentioned him up thread.

Just kind of wanted to connect the dots here.

As I said, I think he claim some 50,000 exorcisms or something like that, which is nuts. That's too damned many for belief.

He's 88 years old. Could be exaggerating or just forgetful. I wouldn't attribute a lie. I don't know what's going on in his brain. But it sure the hell is a strange claim.

Regards.

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. Maybe it's a groovier, hipper version of exorcism. n/t

[HockeyMom]

56. Where was it?

A while ago some Bishop did an exorcism of the entire state because the people voted to pass Marriage Equality? More to come now?