(Real) cases of exorcism.

[Loki]

Everything started from here:
http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/...-thread-6.html

Ok, I think we'd better talk about exorcism in its own thread. I think it might be an interesting topic.
We can talk about exorcism in general, and post some information about (real) cases.

The most famous one is maybe the case of Anneliese Michel, whose life (and death) inspired Requiem and The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Here's the wikipedia article:
Annaliese Michel.
Here's also some an audio file taken from Michel's exorcism:
Michel's Exorcism.
At the end of the Wikipedia page there are also some articles.

Shortly, this girl suffered from some unknown form of epilepsy, maybe, and she asked the Church for help. The exorcism was carried out, and after some months she died due to malnutrition. The parents and the priest were charged with murder.

So, what do you think? If you know other cases post them here.

[Bjorn]

I'll just repeat what I said on the other thread: I'd like to think that someday, maybe 10 years from now, maybe a thousand, anyone who suggests "Hey! This person who we know is suffering from a disease we're perfectly familiar with might be possessed by Satan! Let's torture them until they feel better!" will be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado. Sadly, we're obviously not there yet.

[miercuri]

Loki was saying in the other thread:

Medical treatment was useless, so what was the point in continuing?

The way I see is that the useless medical treatment was the best option for her. The family should have understood that, we're no longer living in the Middle Ages. Instead they forced her through a series of questionable rituals which ultimately lead to her death. She died of malnutrition and dehydration, not of demon possession. Taking her to the hospital wouldn't have cured her mental disorder but it would have prevented her death.

[saliotthomas]

Well there is Eric?
He might be possessed.
That would explain a lot.

[Omo]

I'll just repeat what I said on the other thread: I'd like to think that someday, maybe 10 years from now, maybe a thousand, anyone who suggests "Hey! This person who we know is suffering from a disease we're perfectly familiar with might be possessed by Satan! Let's torture them until they feel better!" will be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado. Sadly, we're obviously not there yet.

Seconded.

The only thing I can add to the topic is the name of Johann Joseph Ga?ner, a famous south-German 18th c. exorcist. 17th and 18th century seem to have been prime times for such nasty things like witch trials and excorcism, which seems to be very odd, because we nowadays associate these times (well, 18th century) with enlightment and classicism, but some of the greatest works have been written at times were tremendous torture was a - er - popular occupation? Strange how very bad times and wonderful art fall together.

[Loki]

I'll just repeat what I said on the other thread: I'd like to think that someday, maybe 10 years from now, maybe a thousand, anyone who suggests "Hey! This person who we know is suffering from a disease we're perfectly familiar with might be possessed by Satan! Let's torture them until they feel better!" will be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado. Sadly, we're obviously not there yet.

Then why they didn't cure her? We're not that familiar with cerebral diseases.

And in case you were wondering, I do not say that they did the right thing, that I would do it, but I was just trying to understand her parents' situation: I mean, it mustn't have been easy to see their daughter dying.

And, according to what you say, every Christian should be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado.

[Mirabell]

And, according to what you say, every Christian should be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado.

What??? I know lots of Christians and I talked to a lots of them about this topic and NONE of them think that exorcism is a great idea. ALL of them were appalled at cases like the Michel case.

Jesus. There are some mad Christians around (madder than yr usual Xtians, anyway), but they are the exception, not the rule, in First world countries anyway.

[Bjorn]

Then why they didn't cure her?

Not all diseases are curable. Not all patients survive. Sometimes, people even die! Roughly, more or less (and more and more), we know how epilepsy works; we know how cancer works; we know how depression works; we know how the heart works; we know how the nervous system works; we know how viruses work; etc etc etc. There are question marks, but there's no mystery. We can't cure everything, but we can understand and, often, cure more and more. If we start ascribing it to demons, we're right back in the dark ages. *buries potato, spits three times against the wind*

That said, not all diseases are a simple matter of cure or kill. Epilepsy and psychosis, for instance, are treatable; not necessarily curable, but treatable.

I mean, it mustn't have been easy to see their daughter dying.

And yet they're the ones who caused her to die. I'm not saying they meant to do it; I'm not saying their choice was easy; but exorcism isn't anymore of an alternative than burning the old woman next door at the stake. It. Doesn't. Work.

And, according to what you say, every Christian should be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic with no further ado.

I honestly think most Christians are connected enough to reality to know that epilepsy is a disease, not demonic possession. As proven by the fact that more people go to the doctor than bury potatoes.

Relevant youtube link:
YouTube - Mr. Show - The Limits of Science

[Galatea92]

Shortly, this girl suffered from some unknown form of epilepsy, maybe, and she asked the Church for help. The exorcism was carried out, and after some months she died due to malnutrition. The parents and the priest were charged with murder.

So, what do you think? If you know other cases post them here.

On the subject of exorcism I agree with Bjorn and everyone else here. But having seen what psychiatric treatment was like in the 70s and 80s I can understand why she didn't want to continue with it. The use of drugs for psychiatric disorders was a bit of a blunt instrument in those days (it's more sophisticated now), and it seems she was treated with quite a variety of drugs, several of which would have made her condition worse.

For her to have been treated she would have had to be forcibly incarcerated. She would have been drugged to the eyeballs, shuffling around the courtyard of a psychiatric institution for the rest of her life. Today she would have a better chance, but not then.

Not that any of that justifies the exorcisms - it just makes her situation more complicated and more tragic.

[Loki]

Since you can't seem my point, there's no point in discussing further.
You talked about Michel's disease as something curable simply: but obviously it was not the case.
Anyway, I'll say it differently: I am not defending their parents. They did wrong. They killed their daughter.

[Bjorn]

You talked about Michel's disease as something curable simply: but obviously it was not the case.

I never said that. But happy to let it lie.

[titania7]

The comments that have been made on this thread about those who define themselves as "Christians" simply astound me. But then, I am always surprised at the sweeping, judgemental generalizations that those who are seemingly well-educated, well-informed and who claim to be open-minded make about other people based on race, gender, sexuality, and religious orientation.

I have said this many times, yet I will say it again.

When we judge others, we are only presenting the world with a reflection of ourselves. We are telling the world that our sense of security in our own beliefs, views, and opinions is so threatened by those who do not share our same vantage point that we must judge, criticize, denigrate, and ridicule them. When we label others with misused, overused, and thoroughly sensationalistic adjectives such "mad", "crazy," or "dangerous," we are only revealing our own deeply held inadequacies. Rather than thinking human beings engaging in effective and meaningful conversations, we seem more like tabloid reporters announcing the latest celebrity scandal. How sad it is to see so much fear, self-doubt, and insecurity.

~Alexis

[Colette Jones]

Alexis, there is only one sweeping statement about Christians that I can see on this thread (Loki, post number 6), and it seems to have been a misunderstanding of what others were saying, and it has been refuted by those whose view was misunderstood. I don't know about the Michel case - I will go and read it now, but I don't think anyone was making "sweeping, judgemental generalizations" here about anyone.

[titania7]

I notice the following words in Mirabell's post:

"madder than your usual Xtians, anyway."

This is a sweeping and very judgemental generalization.

I am a Christian, and I am not "mad" nor do I believe that all Christians are mad. . .nor would I call anyone "mad" simply because he/she has religious beliefs contrary to my own.

Best,
Alexis

[titania7]

Alexis, there is only one sweeping statement about Christians that I can see on this thread (Loki, post number 6), and it seems to have been a misunderstanding of what others were saying, and it has been refuted by those whose view was misunderstood. I don't know about the Michel case - I will go and read it now, but I don't think anyone was making "sweeping, judgemental generalizations" here about anyone.

And my goodness, ain't it wondrous that I have you around, Colette, to always reprimand moi when I do something that you don't perceive to be acceptable . The last time my hand was slapped so hard was when I was a child and Mum caught me raiding the cookie jar!

Most sincerely,
Alexis

[Colette Jones]

I am not a Christian, but I am quite happy to be labeled mad on occasion.

I read Mirabell's quip as just that, a quip. If you wish to take it literally then so be it.

Edit: To answer the post added at the same time as mine: Reprimand? I think not. Just pointing out that I thought you were wrong. Don't judge me!

[Colette Jones]

I've now read the Wikipedia article. I haven't seen either of the films mentioned, but I do get annoyed with films which skew the facts but say "based on a true story".

I think that regardless of what the law says about the priests and parents, they will feel that is not their true judgement. If they feel they were justified by their faith, they will think that God disagrees with the law.

In this case, they did a very bad thing in my opinion, but probably not in theirs, and probably not by the opinion of quite a few fervent Catholics.

Without knowing much about the actual case, I suspect that no one responsible thought they were doing the wrong thing, which is what I think Loki is getting at.

A lot is done in the name of Christianity and some purporters know they are wrong, but depend on the blind faith of those who listen to them to get what they want. I do find it frightening.

(Alexis, this is not about you).

[Jayaprakash]

The concept and practice of exorcism is not limited to Christianity. Several forms of schizophrenia and various other mental conditions are usually held to be some kind of demonic possession and treated by rituals intended to drive the spirits out in parts of India.

It's a question of whether people want to belong to the reality-based community, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[Colette Jones]

Good point, Jayaprakash, and I think it is also about some people thinking they are above the law if they follow their faith.

[Jayaprakash]

What I disliked about the movie, The Exorcism Of Emily Rose was that it tried to maintain an 'on the fence' approach, but it used heavily loaded imagery to give the religious explanation more credibility than it really had. I don't think any of the sane, compassionate theists I know would have had much trouble in pointing out that this girl was more or less murdered, given an account of such a case that was actually presented neutrally.