I saw a (dramatised) reenactment of an exorcism last night, on TDC. It looked like pretty standard Hollywood stuff-kid contorted in rage, priest chanting service. Enraged (devil-posessed kid breaks straps, attacks priest). No greeen pea soup vomit, though. So, I have a few questions: knowing that the rite (RC exorcism) is exceedingly rare, have any of these cases been investigated?
-what happens to people who undergo exorcism-do they get posessed agin?
-do most of them have that “superhuman” strength?
-do they attack the priest?
Anybody know how many exorcisms are performed per year, in the USA?
What is the official procedure for determining if somebody is really posessed(as opposed to simple mental illness)?
I don’t have any cites for you, but I know of no evidence that anyone has ever been possessed, nor that evil spirits exist.
It’s all a religious belief, like God.
A priest turns up, announces there is an evil spirit, which is undetectable by any scientific test, performs a ritual and announces a success, which is undetectable by any scientific test.
All parties then go to Church and give money in grateful thanks.
The Catholic Church regularly announces that people have become saints, which involves having performed miracles. These are never scientifically investigated either.
Why do you suppose the Church is so exceedingly reluctant to perform excorcisms, then, and finds in the vast majority of “possessions” that the issue is mental illness? Why aren’t they simply raking in the dough?
What is “TDC?” Did the Discovery Channel change their logo again (I really don’t know, as I have not had cable TV in over 3 years)?
They are (quite sensibly) concerned about their credibility as an institution.
The fact remains that there is no scientific evidence for "demonic possession,’ or for the existenmce of demons, evil spirits, what have you.
Exorcisms are still common in a number of other traditions. A religion professor of mine once showed us home video he had taken of a shaman performing impromptu exorcisms at a temple in Taiwan. It was very entertaining. The crowd in the temple was really into it. I guess it’s pretty commonplace there. People imagine they’re possessed (or maybe they’re schizophrenic), and they act like they think they should act. Then a shaman performs a ritual (for a fee) and they feel better. I think the shaman actually believes it himself, but it’s all psychosomatic.
ralph124c, you will find answers to a lot of your questions in American Exorcism which takes a relatively balanced (although not very in-depth) look at the subject.
Over the centuries, Churches have performed varying numbers of exorcisms.
(They have also sentenced people to death as witches, again based only on religious belief.)
My point is that there is no evidence at all that spirits exist, nor that exorcism does anything.
I threw in the money angle merely to show why this practice continues. (I could draw a comparison with psychics, who take money from bereaved people under similar circumstances.)
I have no idea why any Church would perform even a single exorcism, nor why they would pay people to perform them.
There is no such thing as magic, ralph124c. 
Actually, there is “scientific evidence” for demonic possession.
What also exists is much, much stronger scientific evidence in favor of other causes, such as mental illness, so that on balance, the appropriate scientific conclusion is that there is no such thing. This is a nitpicky point, I grant, but since you once argued yourself blue in the face over the meaning of “evidence” in the West Memphis Three case, I thought you might appreciate the point in another context.
Almost anything is “evidence.” The quesiton is not whether there is any evidence, but rather, what does an examination of ALL the evidence, weighed appropriatedly, tell us?
In these cases, of course, it tells us that fraud, mental illness, and poor and selective observation are the most likely explanations for “demonic possession.”
Except that your point DOESN’T show that. If the money angle explains why the practice continues, what’s the explanation for the fact that vanishingly few excorcisms are actually performed in this day and age?
MY point is that while it’s fair to attack the notion that evil spirits exist (except for tequila, of course; no one can deny that) and it’s fair to attack the notion that they may possess a body, it’s not supportable to claim some sort of financial motive for the Catholic Church in encouraging the belief, since they approach exorcism requests with great reluctance and a presumption that the issue is mental illness.
In defense of Bricker, while the RCC does not believe demonic possession is impossible, it doesn’t like to encourage beliefs that it happens very commonly (if at all) anymore, it does not encourage the practice of exorcisms by priests and tends to be extremely skeptical of specific claims about it. I read somewhere that appeals to the Church for help with purported incidents of possession are automatically assumed to be cases of mental illness, epilepsy, hoaxes or some other natural cause, and that it’s extraordinarily difficult to convince them otherwise.
In addition to that, whatever money might be made from performing an exorcism (which, again, the Church doesn’t like its clergy to do) is so negligible as to be a non-factor. If you talk to the average Catholic priest about possession, I think you’ll find they’re, if anything, more skeptical about it than the average Joe.
Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence. I confused the two definitions in the WM3 discussion. You’re doing it in this one. Scientific evidence actually has to prove something or it isn’t called evidence.
Here’s an interesting study: Belief in demons and exorcism in psychiatric patients in Switzerland.
Here’s another one: Exorcism-resistant ghost possession treated with clopenthixol
Lots more on Google Scholar.
A friend of mine got exorcised back when we were in college. She was pregnant and her husband decided that she was bearing the Antichrist. They discussed this with their minister and he suggested an exorcism. They had it done, but her husband decided it didn’t take and, since he didn’t want to be around the son of Satan, he divorced her.
The minister was talking to her afterwards and, trying to lighten things up, asked, “So, have you thought of any names for the baby?”
“Sure. Damien.”
I guess my question really is; can somebody get into such a mental state, that they actually BELIEVE they are being controlled by an evil spirit? Are these states similar to those experienced by teenage girls who go crazy over a rock star? I don’t put much credence in demonic posession-the gospels themselves forbid it: once Jesus told satan to fuck off (“get the behind me, satan”)I figure the world was free of satan and his demons.
Perhaps that should be support a hypothesis? Scientific evidence will never prove anything.
Yes, of course, I should have articulated myself better. scientific evidence has to demonstrate something by either confirming or falsifying a prediction made by a hypothesis. Demonic possession is a hypothetical explanation for certain kinds of claims and observed phenomena. There has never been any demonstrated finding which would support that hypothesis (as nebulous and resistant to falsification as it may be).
He was talking to Peter.
Um, that was St. Peter he was talking to:
There was this encounter with Old Scratch:
But only a short time later it seems, They’rrree ba-aaacckkk!
My point is, if we are to believe the Bible, a good cursing by Jesus won’t rid us of demons once and for all; they are like spyware, and will come back whenever they see an opportunity.
No, but if they don’t keep up the payments to their exorcist, they can get repossessed.