In one of the rare instances where Hollywood actually got it right, Roger "Verbal" Kint, played by Kevin Spacey in the movie The Usual Suspects, tells a police interrogator: "The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world that he didn't exist."
With that in mind, I went back and reread a 2000 interview that appeared in the Italian Catholic magazine 30 Days with Fr. Gabriele Amorth, who as an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome and author of two bestselling books on the subject, is probably the most famous real-life exorcist in the world today. The subject of the interview was the 2000 revision of the Ritual for Exorcists, a revision Fr. Amorth wastes no time in denouncing as counterproductive to the work of the exorcist. The interview is also of interest because it addresses the problems in the world and within the Church's hierarchy in failing to take seriously the spiritual threat the devil poses to our immortal souls. The link to the interview can be found here, and I strongly encourage you to read it. In the meantime, I wanted to post this excerpt from the interview, which I found of particular interest:
"30 Days: Is it down to the bishop to appoint exorcists?
Fr. Amorth: Yes. When a priest is appointed bishop, he is faced with an article in the Code of Canon Law which gives him absolute authority to appoint exorcists. The minimum one can ask of a bishop is that he has taken part in at least one exorcism, given that he has to make such an important decision. Unfortunately, this is almost never the case. But if a bishop finds himself before a serious request for an exorcism - that is to say one that has not been made by someone deranged - and he does nothing, he commits a mortal sin. And he is then responsible for the terrible sufferings endured by this person. Sufferings which sometimes last for years or even an entire lifetime, and which he could have prevented.
30 Days: Do you mean to say that the majority of the bishops in the Catholic Church are in a state of mortal sin?
Fr. Amorth: When I was a child, my old parish priest taught me that there are eight sacraments: the eighth is ignorance. And the eighth saves more than all the others together. To commit a mortal sin, there must exist grave matter, but also full awareness and deliberate consent. To fail to give one's aid is, for bishops, a grave matter. But these bishops are ignorant: there is therefore no deliberate consent and full awareness.
30 Days: But if one does not believe in the existence of Satan, does one's faith remain intact, is it still the Catholic faith?
Fr. Amorth: No. I will tell you a story. When I met Don Pellegrino Ernetti for the first time, a celebrated exorcist who had practiced in Venice for forty years, I said to him, "If I could speak to the Pope, I would tell him that I meet too many bishops who do not believe in the devil." The following afternoon, Father Ernetti came back to see me to tell me that that same morning he had been received by John Paul II. "Holiness," he had said to him, "there is an exorcist here in Rome, Father Amorth who, if he met you, would tell you that he knows too many bishops who do not believe in the devil." The Pope answered him briefly: "He who does not believe in the devil does not believe in the Gospel." That is the reply which was given to him and which I repeat.
30 Days: Explain to me if you would: does this mean that there are many bishops and priests who are no longer Catholic?
Fr. Amorth: Let us say that they do not believe in a Gospel truth. Therefore, I would possibly accuse them of propagating a heresy. But let us understand: someone is only formally heretical if he is accused of committing an error and he persists in it. But because of the situation in the Church today, no one would ever accuse a bishop of not believing in the devil or in demonic possession and of not appointing exorcists because he has no belief in these things. I could mention a great number of bishops and cardinals who, as soon as they had been appointed to a diocese, withdrew from all exorcists the faculty of exercising their powers. Or of bishops who openly maintain: "For myself, I do not believe in these things. They are beliefs of the past." Why is this? Because unfortunately there has been an extremely pernicious influence exerted by certain biblical experts, and I could mention the names of some very well-known people. We who every day come into close contact with the world beyond, we know that this influence has had a hand in many of the liturgical reforms."
To wit: no one this side of Heaven is fully safe from the wickedness and snares of the devil. This is especially true in an age when those entrusted with the task of protecting us from such wickedness and snares become hopelessly entangled themselves.
Please read the full interview and post your comments. I am very interested to hear your take on this. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is very scary. I am glad, however, that they put in the provision that priests could use the older Ritual. It's interesting the parallel that Father makes regarding the exorcism ritual and the liturgical revisions. The council did not call for a destruction of the Roman Rite. It called for some minor changes, some vernacular here and there... but the gall of liturgists today. "The Mass is so much better now!!! Everyone is happy!! Happy, happy, Gloria (clap, clap)" Bleh.
Catholics need to be aware of the presence of evil, sin, and Satan. How can we help achieve this? Solid catechesis on the part of priests, and a restoration of the prayer to St. Michael after Mass.
Thanks again for posting this, Gerald. Good to see you in Gainesville, btw.
Thanks, Jonathan. It was good to be in town.
The "revisions" of the last 40+ years were not put in with the best interests of the Church at heart, but have rather followed the Peter Principle: namely, they reached their highest level of incompetence (i.e. the late 60's) and stayed there. Indeed, the liturgical "reforms" of today seem more directed towards recapturing the nostalgia of Woodstock than they are in justifying the red herring of encouraging lay participation in the Mass (which isn't bad in and of itself, so long as a clear and inviolate line exists between that which is proper to the priest and that which is proper to the laity).
On a more serious note, though, I have met many people who claim to believe in God, but who do not believe in the devil. Not a single one of them bears a remote resemblance to a devout, morally upright Christian because without an acknowledgment of the evil one, there is no acknowledgment of the evil he perpetuates in the heart of man, and therefore no acknowledgment of the need to refrain from that evil or to repent and seek forgiveness when such evil is committed.
While many claim to believe in God and not in the devil, the opposite, is never true. I have never met a single person who believes in the devil without at the same time believing in God. Even devil worshipers acknowledge the existence of God, albeit as an enemy.
It is possible - and oftentimes convenient - to believe in a powerful source of good without believing in a powerful source of evil. Indeed, many subscribe to this view in order to convince themselves that evil - especially of the variety that results from their actions - does not exist.
But while the human mind can engage in that seemingly pleasant self-deception, it could never - no matter how warped or twisted its aim - function in the belief that an evil of the magnitude of Lucifer could exist without the corresponding presence of a good that is of equal or greater power. The level of despair needed to believe in such a reality is far, far beyond the capacity of even the most suicidal human beings.
Thus, to believe in the devil is to believe in God; and to believe in the need to lead a life of holiness in order to be reconciled with the Father is to believe in the existence of hell and the possibility of ending up there - not as a punishment, but as a choice, since to reject God (the one who gives life) is to choose spiritual death.
Very true. If you don't believe in the devil, then it follows that hell (the place made for the devil and his angels) does not exist. Therefore, you can do whatever "the hell" you want and nothing bad will happen.
This is interesting: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/121/story_12197_1.html
If Gallup is to be believed, belief in the devil is at a relative high point. Though what that means is another story. A 1978 poll showed that only 34% of Americans believed in the devil as a personal being, as opposed to an impersonal force or not at all. The statistics are sad.
Belief in the devil is one thing; understanding his nature and his evil machinations is quite another. If the greatest trick the devil has ever played is convincing the world he doesn't exist, then the next-greatest trick he played is creating this caricature of a mischievous red-robed creature with horns and a pitchfork who engages in harmless pranks. The devil is a creature of perpetual hatred. He is the most miserable creature in existence, living in the constant agony of being forever deprived of the Beatific Vision; and every moment of his everlasting existence is directed towards the destruction of God's creation: namely, man. He wishes to deceive us into voluntarily rejecting the ultimate good that is God, so that he can then have the rest of eternity to visit upon us the pain that he and his minions feel. He wishes to inspire everlasting horror in those who submit themselves to his control by rejecting God's merciful embrace, a horror that is always novel, that the tortured soul never grows accustomed to. And this is only what limited human dialect can describe. The reality is such that man simply could not endure the truth of it.
So a majority believe in the devil, or a concept similar to it. But can they handle the reality of where such a belief logically leads? Do they even want to try?
It is extremely dangerous to become overly fascinated with Satan and his evil works; but it is deadly to pretend that such things do not exist. After all, how can we defend ourselves against an enemy we do not allow ourselves to see?
Post a Comment