Pope A Flop As Exorcist
|
The rules under which the Roman Catholic Church operates are clear that, in normal circumstances, the process by which new Catholic gods and goddesses are generated cannot create a new saint until the candidate for deity has been dead for five years. Apparently, the circumstances concerning recent pope John Paul II are not normal, for his successor, Benedict XVI gave the okay to start the process only a month after JPII was entombed.
One normal requirement for confirmation of a former human's elevation to sainthood and admittance to the pantheon of Catholic gods and goddesses is that two honest-to-goodness miracles be attributed to the ghost of the former living person.
With Karol Wojtyla's body still on view, people began reporting alleged miracles they attributed to the intervention of the former pope. Unfortunately for the cause of JPII, all the reported incidents had allegedly taken place while he was still alive. These don't count. I suppose that the Emperor of Catholicism's failures to accomplish a miracle while still alive also won't count against him. Several years ago, I wrote about one such failure that made headlines all over the world. Shortly after posting the article on my Catholic Stuf website, I received an email from someone who took issue with what I had written. As might have been expected, the apparently Catholic writer attempted to make light of the now fast-tracking former Pope's public failure to exorcise a demon. The writer called upon Scripture to support his effort. His improper understanding of the passage he made reference to provided an opportunity for me to examine the Pope's failure in the light of Scripture. I re-post my original article here and follow it with the exchange between the Catholic apologist and myself. * * * * * An Exorcist He Isn't
Did you read about John Paul II's encounter with a "demon-possessed" young girl in the Vatican? I didn't see anything in my local newspaper, but a friend told me about articles carried in European newspapers today (September 11, 2000) The report in the London Telegraph appeared under the banner:
Devil defeats the Pope in Vatican Boy! That sure grabbed my attention. Think about it. Catholicism's Vicar of Christ locked in battle with Satan in the shadow of Peter's Throne. I can't wait to see the movie.
From what I can gather from the newspapers, the epic battle between John Paul II and the Devil took place last Wednesday, during the pope's weekly audience on the piazza in front of St. Peter's Basilica. According to reports, the pope was about to bless a 19-year-old woman when she began shouting obscenities and other things in Italian and unknown languages. In another newspaper, I read that:
Wow! All that was missing were head-spinning and torrents of split-pea soup vomit. Danzi reportedly claimed that he quickly "realized who was inside the girl" and informed the pope's personal secretary, Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, who passed the word to his boss.--Bruce Johnston, Op. cit. After being apprised of the situation, the Pope drove around the plaza in his popemobile before meeting with the girl. He spent about half an hour with her, during which time he exorcised her, talked with her and prayed for her. He also promised her he would say a Mass for her the following day "to obtain her liberation." The Vatican was reluctant to discuss the episode, which was brought to light by the Italian press. The Times' reporter cites an article, The Devil went to the Vatican, in Rome's news daily ll Messaggero. The Italian newspaper claimed to have heard of the incident from a priest, Gabriele Amorth, one of Catholicism's top gun exorcists. Amorth told the newspaper he and a colleague had made an unsuccessful attempt to exorcise the girl the previous day. He described the girl in glowing terms, lamenting her demonic possession:
That may have been the case earlier, but surely her situation was resolved by her encounter with the Pontifex Maximus of the Roman Catholic Church, the man it is claimed is Christ's Vicar on earth. Not so.
According to Amorth, last week's action had been John Paul II's third exorcism during his pontificate. Wonder if he had better success the other two times. Perhaps it would be good at this point to examine just what an exorcism is, particularly as understood by the Roman Catholic Church.
Exorcism is a sacramental, a blessing given by the Catholic Church:
The foregoing is old news, pre-Vatican II. So much in Roman Catholicism has changed in the aftermath of that general council that it seems unlikely exorcism was left untouched. So true. On January 26, 1999, an Italian news agency reported the public presentation of the new way of doing things.
Well, I reckon that means John Paul II can't blame his failure to exorcise the demon out of the young woman on unfamiliarity with the new procedure. Could it be that the man does not truly possess the power and authority Catholicism claims he received directly from Christ through an unbroken apostolic succession that began with Matthew 16:18? By golly. I bet that is precisely what it means. I ask my Catholic readers to consider the value of placing their hopes for eternity in a religious system that can't deliver. Look to the Lord God for mercy and forgiveness. Rome can't provide it. * * * End of original article * * * That's the article, now here's the challenge/response: The Challenge: funny thing is I remember something about some apostles who could not cast out devils either. The Response: I imagine that the above is meaningful to you. It is not meaningful to me, however. If you were referring to an article I wrote recalling John Paul II's failure to exorcise a demon from a young woman, then your argument is as weak as apparently is your comprehension of the Scriptures. I suspect your words are a poor attempt to rationalize the pope's failure by equating his lack of success with that of some of Jesus' disciples, as recorded in Matthew 17:14-21. If that were the case, let's examine briefly that passage. I use the KJV, but I will refer to the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible as appropriate:
The first thing to note is that the word "apostle" is not used in this passage. In the KJV, as in the NAB and Douay-Rheims, the man who approached Jesus said that Jesus' DISCIPLES could not cure his son and, in verse 19, it is DISCIPLES who approached Jesus in private. There is a significant difference in meaning between the words APOSTLE and DISCIPLE, as these definitions demonstrate:
We know, from the Scriptures, that Jesus at one time had a multitude of disciples. This number thinned considerably as Pharisaical opposition to Jesus and His ministry grew. Still, there were some 120 disciples, including the 11 remaining Apostles, gathered in the upper room after witnessing Jesus' Ascension.
So, how were you able to come up with the information about "some apostles who could not cast out devils either?" If the Scriptures do not identify which of Jesus' disciples were unable to cast out a demon, there is no reason to believe that those who failed were members of the Twelve. They might just as easily have been some followers of Jesus who had but recently joined the group that walked along with Him. They may have had no real understanding of who He was nor had true faith in Him as the promised Messiah. Do not we see, even today, a number of perhaps well-meaning people who wander about pronouncing oracles they believe to have come from God and attempting to heal the afflicted? And so, it would appear that the very first shot out of your apologetic cannon was a dud. But let us continue to examine the passage. Jesus offered two reasons why the effort of the disciples failed. They are to be found in verses 20 and 21: unbelief and the lack of prayer and fasting. In that you apparently seek to explain John Paul II's failed attempt at exorcism by calling up the account of a similar failure by some unidentified disciples of Jesus, let's take the comparison a bit farther. In that the disciples failed due to their unbelief and apparent failure to pray and fast, then by your comparison, one would imagine that the Pope failed for the same reasons. I can accept that. I don't know whether JP2 fasted before attempting his exorcism, but I do know that the Roman Ritual includes prayers. Yep, I can agree that John Paul II, ruler of the Catholic Church and self-declared Vicar of Christ, failed to exorcise the demon from that young woman because of his unbelief. More correctly, I suppose, one should say because of his misplaced belief in Mary as Supreme Being, rather than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. See? We're not so far apart after all |
