Monday, September 2, 2019


Harry Potter and yoga are evil', says Catholic Church exorcist

For most people it is a way of toning the limbs and soothing the stresses of everyday life, but the Catholic Church’s best-known exorcist says yoga is evil. 

How to become an exorcist
Father Gabriele Amorth, who for years was the Vatican’s chief exorcist and claims to have cleansed hundreds of people of evil spirits, said yoga is Satanic because it leads to a worship of Hinduism and “all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation”. 
Reading JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books is no less dangerous, said the 86-year-old priest, who is the honorary president for life of the International Association of Exorcists, which he founded in 1990, and whose favourite film is the 1973 horror classic, The Exorcist. 
The Harry Potter books, which have sold millions of copies worldwide, “seem innocuous” but in fact encourage children to believe in black magic and wizardry, Father Amorth said. 
“Practising yoga is Satanic, it leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter,” he told a film festival in Umbria this week, where he was invited to introduce The Rite, a film about exorcism starring Sir Anthony Hopkins as a Jesuit priest. 
“In Harry Potter the Devil acts in a crafty and covert manner, under the guise of extraordinary powers, magic spells and curses,” said the priest, who in 1986 was appointed the chief exorcist for the Diocese of Rome. 
“Satan is always hidden and what he most wants is for us not to believe in his existence. He studies every one of us and our tendencies towards good and evil, and then he offers temptations.” Science was incapable of explaining evil, said Father Amorth, who has written two books on his experiences as an exorcist. “It’s not worth a jot. 
The scientist simply explores what God has already created.” His views may seem extreme, but in fact reflect previous warnings by Pope Benedict XVI, when as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy. 
In 1999, six years before he succeeded John Paul II as Pope, he issued a document which warned Roman Catholics of the dangers of yoga, Zen, transcendental meditation and other 'eastern’ practises. 
They could “degenerate into a cult of the body” that debases Christian prayer, the document said. 
Yoga poses could create a feeling of well-being in the body but it was erroneous to confuse that with “the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit,” the document said. 
Italian yoga schools said Father Amorth’s criticism was absurd. 
“It’s an accusation that has nothing to do with reality,” Vanda Vanni, the founder of the Mediterranean Yoga Association, told Adnkronos, an Italian news agency. 
“It’s a theory — if one can call it a theory — that is totally without foundation. Yoga is not a religion or a spiritual practise. It doesn’t have even the slightest connection with Satanism or Satanic sects.” Giorgio Furlan, the founder of the Yoga Academy of Rome, said yoga had nothing to do with religion, “least of all Satanism.” “Whoever says that shows that they know absolutely nothing about yoga,” he said. 
Father Amorth has previously said that people who are possessed by Satan vomit shards of glass and pieces of iron and have such superhuman strength that even children have to be held down by up to four people. 
He has also claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Catholic Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries was proof that the Anti-Christ is waging a war against the Holy See. 


Anonymous 2 said...

According to the article, Father Amorth’s favorite film is The Exorcist. This shocked me. I have always refused to watch this film because I regard it as especially dangerous spiritually. Am I wrong to do so? Would Father Amorth be comfortable with everyone seeing this film, or is it something only trained exorcists can handle? In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that I also refuse to watch Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, though this is more for reasons associated with my objections to our culture’s love of violence, blood, and gore, as well as my general squeamishness. To pick up the theme in the previous thread, I am uninterested in the Harry Potter films but love Lord of the Rings (in which the “violence” is not of the blood and gore kind).

As for yoga, my wife does yoga for health-related reasons. I have not noticed any negative spiritual effects.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"In 1999, six years before he succeeded John Paul II as Pope, he issued a document which warned Roman Catholics of the dangers of yoga, Zen, transcendental meditation and other 'eastern’ practises. They could “degenerate into a cult of the body” that debases Christian prayer, the document said. Yoga poses could create a feeling of well-being in the body but it was erroneous to confuse that with “the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit,” the document said."

Anything could "degenerate" into something else. You handle $20 dollar bills? You could degenerate into rolling them up to snort cocaine. You have a pet dog? That could degenerate into unnatural sex practices. You read "Scientific American"? You might degenerate into a God-hating, science-worshipping atheist. Your own a car? You might degenerate into a leather-jacket-wearing, duck-tailed hair style sporting, cigarette-smoking greaser.

I suppose that feeling of well-being I get from a hot shower in the morning, that sense of satisfaction I get from a well-cooked meal, the joy I feel when the doctor gives me a good report from my annual physical - all of these could be confused with "authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit."

Anonymous said...

I think what Fr. Amorth was getting at was that these "degenerations" are in the spiritual realm, which is what makes them dangerous. All of these eastern practices--even the martial arts--have a spiritual tradition behind them, and it is a tradition that is based on false gods. God is TRUTH. The spiritual realm is nothing to play with.

While I appreciate your willingness to post these kind of controversial stories Father McDonald, I fear that you are opening yourself up to be mocked by scoffers and people who fancy themselves as more "up-to-date" and "enlightened". I appreciate your courage.

Anonymous said...

I recall some Yogis lamenting about the west’s yoga fad. Their concern was that yoga was a religious practice and that its practice by those who are not Hindu was culturally inappropriate. I think pope Benedict knew of the religious significance of yoga, I also guess he knew many in the west were practicing it as a substitute for religion. I would suspect that yoga studios and fitness centers have become Churches for many. I don’t see the same threat from Harry Potter. I do think the chief exorcist needs a good exorcism himself.

Marc said...

I’m with Fr. Kavanaugh on this subject. We hear sermons about this stuff from time to time, along with sermons about the dangers of rock and roll music. Frankly, I tune them out, go home, and listen to one of my thousands of rock and metal albums... and I’ve read Harry Potter. I finished it a couple weeks before I first went to RCIA, actually. This Puritanical stuff is very off-putting to me.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Anon 2 - I saw The Exorcist when I was 14. I did not find it spiritually dangerous, but I SWEAR my bed moved for the next three nights when I was sleeping.... :->

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

I have to say that I think these Blame Harry Potter/Zen/Yoga/Ouija Boards/Tarot Cards/Whatever are misguided attempts to scapegoat someone or something else.

I've mentioned Rene Girard before; he wrote extensively on this very ancient scapegoat mechanism. "The victim (scapegoat) must be thought of as a monstrous creature that transgressed some prohibition and deserved to be punished. In such a manner, the community deceives itself into believing that the victim (scapegoat) is the culprit of the communal crisis, and that the elimination of the victim will eventually restore peace."

Anonymous said...


Here's a litmus test for you (and I like rock and roll too). Can you live without it?

Seriously, if you can't handle not having the music (or whatever else) for an extended period of time--something is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Reading the comments comes as little surprise Intellectualism and psychology have trumped spiritual reality in the minds of modern Catholics. I even read recently about a bishop who said that Hell does not exist. Go figure.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father Kavanaugh,

Did you have nightmares and did your bed have wheels? And does your comment indicate a blanket approval or disapproval of the film?

Although one wants to avoid reductionism, Girard’s insights do indeed seem to be very illuminating. Presumably, there is also some connection with the literary device of pathetic fallacy.

Speaking of such matters and of diabolical monsters, we hope and pray that all will be well for you and others in the path of Dorian.

60's Survivor said...

One remark that intrigues me:

"This puritanical stuff is very off-putting to me."

When heresies arise, it is almost always because there is a problem that the Church's leadership is not dealing with in a meaningful or effective way. Puritanism was a reaction against the worldliness of the COE, which was becoming too much like the Catholic Church (which for Puritans was "the Whore of Rome").

How worldly, especially POLITICALLY worldly is our current Church leadership today? Personal holiness and conversion seems to be far less important to most priests and bishops than many current political issues. This might well explain the skepticism of so many people responding here. Are we as "advanced" as we like to think we are?//

I'm just sayin'...

Marc said...

I don’t think people are intended to live without music. The discussion here isn’t about over attachment to creatures: it is about the supposed demonic lurking in various things. I don’t buy it.

Anonymous said...


You've missed my point entirely. More than a few exorcists have lamented the current state of popular music especially given that good music stimulates the intellect and will. Again, I love rock music, especially the hard stuff, but there is no denying that much of what we would call hard rock or "heavy metal" arouses passions within us. While that is very enjoyable as a teenager, as we get older, it might not serve us as well. I brought up the possible influence of music and our ability to do without it because I listened to a talk by a priest who was an experienced exorcist and he spoke at length on the influence of music. He remarked that if music becomes something we almost feel addicted to or cannot manage to do without, then something is wrong and needs to be dealt with.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

A long while back, in my 30's, I had thought yoga looked like a good no impact exercise that would accomplish the same sort of health ballet stretches bring, and became interested, but when I read that the poses are a form of worship of the various gods and goddesses of Hindu, I thought, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Here's a quote I found I think backs this up;

"George P. Alexander, Ph.D., a Christian believer who taught World Religions at Biola University, sheds light on this subject for us. Born in Sri Lanka, George grew up in India, the birthplace of Hinduism and yoga. He told us that yoga poses are actually offerings to the 330 million Hindu gods.
“Many Westerners who practice yoga today are unaware that the physical positions assumed in yoga symbolize a spiritual act: worshiping one of the many Hindu gods,” Dr. Alexander told me during a phone conversation.

“My wife and I were shocked when we immigrated to the U.S. and sought prenatal care for our first child. The doctor advised my wife to begin practicing YOGA for ease of childbirth!"

and this...

"Subhas Tiwari, Professor of Yoga Philosophy and Meditation, said, “Efforts to separate yoga from its spiritual center reveal ignorance of the goal of yoga.” –Subhas Tiwari, Professor of Yoga Philosophy and Meditation at the Hindu University of America in Orlando, FL (Hinduism Today – Sept. 2009)."

God bless.

David Burkovich said...

The Devil's greatest weapon is encouraging people to believe he doesn't exist. He is constantly trying to tempt and influence each one of us, especially those who are consecrated or are very close to God. All others, not so much, he more or less has them whenever he wants. Anyway, I believe Jesus truly believed in the devil and the demonic and I don't think He would take it lightly and make jokes about it.

Православный физик said...

I agree with Marc, we are not puritians. This isn't to say things can't be dangerous. Of all the things the church or Rome should focus on, I believe cleaning their own house and actually governing it should be higher on the liSt than Harry potter/yogalrock music

John Nolan said...

I watched The Exorcist shortly after it came out. In the UK it had an 18 certificate, so 14-year-olds like Father Kavanaugh would have to have been big for their age to gain admission! There was a lot of media hype surrounding the film and its effect on audiences, but I found it distinctly underwhelming. I understand that the Jesuits who advised the producers did not want too much of the exorcism rite included, so we had parts of the Roman Ritual (in English) and a melodramatic and unconvincing ending.

Apart from anything else, the exorcism of an adolescent girl required women (usually relatives) to be present, but at one stage the exorcist was actually alone with the demoniac.

Much later I read Thomas Allen's account of the exorcism of a boy in 1948 which was the basis of Blatty's novel and the subsequent film. Entitled 'Possessed' it was sober and convincing. Night after night Fr Bowdern and his assistant Fr Halloran recited the 1614 exorcism rite (RR Tit. XI) in its sonorous Latin. The demon eventually departed, but it was a long struggle.

The boy's deceased aunt was a spiritualist who taught him the ouija board. This seems to have triggered the obsession and later possession.

Marc said...

Anonymous, I would join exorcists in lamenting the state of modern popular music. Where I disagree is with the idea that rock music cannot be good music that stimulates the intellect and the will. Usually, this discussion involves the claim that classical music is "good" music because it stimulates the intellect and will in a good way, while rock music is "bad" music that arouses the passions. I take issue with both of these assertions: classical music also arouses the passions, and rock music stimulates the intellect and will.

I actually think you have it backwards by saying that rock music might not serve us as we get older. As a teenager, regardless of the musical style, we are going to have strong, passionate reactions to music -- such is the nature of being a teenager. As adults, we can be more dispassionate, relying on our intellect regardless of its object.

When I sit in my listening room in front of the hi-fi these days, I put on the music and examine it intellectually, regardless of the genre. While as a teenager, I might have some more overt reaction, I no longer have that sort of passionate response. The difference is not the musical style, but my own maturation with regard to music.

If you're referring to the lecture by Fr. Ripperger on this topic, I have listened to his opinion on rock music as opposed to classical music. I've heard the arguments about the supposed satanic influence on rock music. Again, I don't buy it. I've read the biographies of the artists, studied their music and influences, and concluded that the sorts of suppositions Fr. Ripperger and others have about rock music are based mostly on urban legends and false assumptions.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

A2, well, the bed moved by itself ..of course.
I thought and think that The Exorcist is a good movie, somewhat groundbreaking for it's time.

John, my brother who was 20 at the time who got us into an R rated movie.

John Nolan said...

The exorcism of a demoniac is unique among sacramentals and sacraments in that its efficacy can be observed. Part and parcel of the liturgical 'reform' which followed Vatican II was the revision of the ritual books. The sacraments were to be administered using in most cases radically different forms and prayers. Some liturgical scholars have been critical of these revisions - they don't question their validity, but validity and efficacy are not the same thing.

The revised exorcism rite was promulgated in 1998. Rumour had it that some of its drafters did not actually believe in demonic possession. Be that as it may, exorcists claimed that it was less effective than the previous (1614) rite and petitioned Cardinals Ratzinger and Medina for permission to continue with the older rite, which was granted. Also, I understand the rite is more effective in Latin, a language hated by the Devil. Any exorcist who was deficient in Latin would be scorned by the demon.

One unfortunate result of the 'streamlining' of the rite was the omission of the instruction (Tit. XI, Caput 1, s.19) relating to the exorcism of a woman; not long ago an Italian priest found himself accused of sexual molestation since he was not given this prudent admonition.

One positive (and often overlooked) result of Benedict XVI's liberation of the classic Roman Rite is that any priest may avail himself of the Rituale Romanum which was in force in 1962, and an increasing number do.

Anonymous said...

Grace is not impeded by the language used in the fire of exorcism.

It is God's grace and his love for us that can set us free from the power of Satan.

"The devil hates Latin" is a tired old canard, almost as tired as "Rumor had it..."

TJM said...

A very liberal priest friend of mine told me if he was going to perform an exorcism he would use the full ritual in Latin because why take a chance? This guy spoke 6 languages and had more degrees than most (over 7). He also never celebrated Mass in Latin after the deforms, but when it came to exorcism, he was going to use the Cadillac exorcism rite and not Brand X.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:
Anonymous at September 4, 2019 at 8:31 AM said:

"The devil hates Latin" is a tired old canard,..."

said the Devil... :-)

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Bee, and of course, since you believe it and say it, it HAS to be true.

Or does it...?

John Nolan said...

Interesting that Anonymous picks on one sentence of my post, that which pertained to the efficacy of Latin, to take issue with.

I doubt if he is an exorcist; neither am I, but I have read the opinions of those who have experience in the matter.

I can surmise, however, that his oft-expressed derision for the Church's sacred language puts him in some dubious company.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Of course you know who Anonymous is, a priest who despises the mother tongue of the Catholic Church. My 32 year old pastor is light years ahead of him. My pastor learned to celebrate the EF, a generous thing to do. I doubt Anonymous has the generosity to do so

Anonymous said...

John, where do you get the idea that I must comment on your ENTIRE post? I can choose any part or parts I wish.

Your comment ignores, tellingly, the issue I raised. That is, is the flow of God's grace impeded by the language used.

You can think i" feride" Latin and can day you elevate it to absurd and unnecessary heights.

John Nolan said...

Yes, and the fact you homed in on one particular sentence is telling. I would not expect you to engage with the argument; it's not your style.

Your last sentence is literally meaningless. Check before you post. You don't want people to think you are possessed, do you?

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at September 4, 2019 at 2:30 PM said...

"Bee, and of course, since you believe it and say it, it HAS to be true.

Or does it...?"

I'll just respond with a quote from Jesus, "Get behind me, Satan...."

God bless.

Anonymous said...

"You can think i" feride" Latin and can day you elevate it to absurd and unnecessary heights."

The perils of posting with a weak tablet...

Should be, "You can say I "deride" Latin and I can say you elevate it to absurd and unnecessary heights."

My argument is that there is nothing other than the opinion of very small number of people who think that God's healing grace in exorcism is impeded by the use of languages other than Latin.

Which, of course, is based on the faulty notion that God's grace is blocked by what we do in the rituals. Were that the case we would not have the expressions "ex opera operanto" and "ecclesia supplet."

Bee, I hope that Satan does stay behind you. And I hope you also know that "Get behind me, Satan" isn't much of a response - at all.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Really, Anonymous? I thought it was very funny. And quite fitting.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Bee - Of course you thought that, because your non-response was very self-serving.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, it's 'ex opere operato', although blaming it on a weak tablet hardly covers up for your weak Latin.

In any case, it's not germane to the argument. You are a very stupid man if you think so.

Anonymous said...

John - It is very germane.

Your assertion is that the language used in the exorcism rite can impact the efficacy of the rite. In your view, if Latin is not used, the efficacy of the rite will be diminished. "Be that as it may, exorcists claimed that it was less effective than the previous (1614) rite..."

'Ex opere operato' reminds (and teaches) us that, "...the sacraments (and sacramental) confer grace when the sign is validly effected — not as the result of activity on the part of the recipient but by the power and promise of God."

The power and the promise of God is healing. Your contention is that God's healing is diminished when Latin is not used in the exorcism rite.

That view is an affront to the power of God.

John Nolan said...

Bee, it seems that Anonymous-the-troll has it in for you. You can swat him off (it's not too difficult as he's not that intelligent) but rest assured that you will always have my support.

Wipo of Mainz has also weighed in, but the internet connection from the 12th century is understandably slow, and of course he posts in Latin. Watch this space.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, it's not 'my assertion' that the 1614 rite is more effective than that of 1998, it is what many exorcists, with practical experience, discovered. Why else would they have petitioned for the continued use of the older form?

My contention is that validity and efficacy are not the same, and that exorcism is unique in that its efficacy can be demonstrated. Nothing you have said contradicts this.

The idea that those concerned exorcists were expressing 'an affront to the power of God' is gratuitous, offensive and completely unsustainable.

Nor is exorcism simply a matter of 'healing'. Modernists like yourself deal in abstract and nebulous concepts, which you then manipulate to fit your agenda. Exorcists have to deal with demons, real, actual, and extremely malevolent. If you don't accept that such beings exist, at least have the honesty to come out and say so.

Anonymous said...

John - It is your assertion. You have allied yourself with them. You own it. If you think they are wrong, that they are full of baloney, that they are being plain silly, "at least have the honesty to come out and say so."

Validity and efficacy are not the same. Your cntention - YOUR contention - is that the rite in languages other than Latin is less EFFECTIVE. You bring validity in as a distraction. "Be that as it may, exorcists claimed that it was less effective than the previous (1614) rite..."

I never said exorcism is "simply a matter of healing." You introduce that notion as yet ANOTHER distraction.

Exorcism is healing through the casting out of Satan or whatever "real, actual, or malevolent demon" there might be. Absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is healing through the forgiveness of sin. Anointing in the Sacrament of the Anointing of the sick is healing through the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit in a time of physical, or spiritual need.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at September 6, 2019 at 8:20 AM said...

"Bee - Of course you thought that, because your non-response was very self-serving."

I wish I had responded with the entire quote from Our Lord. I thought you would automatically know the rest, but perhaps I was mistaken. Here are three versions of the same quote from different versions of the Bible, just so that you can more fully interpret the meaning:

New American Bible: "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."

King James version: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Douay-Rheims version: "Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."

My response to you, in all charity, is that I have noticed you are focused on the things that are of men, and hence, often a stumbling block to those who read your comments. On the advice of Jesus Christ, gleaned from this Bible passage, I put your comments behind me, and discount whatever you say, because I know you are focused on the things of man, and not the things of God.

God bless.


Anonymous said...

Bee here:

John Nolan at September 6, 2019 at 10:29 AM said, "Bee, it seems that Anonymous-the-troll has it in for you."

Yes, I know that, John. I know why too. It's because I have faith, and he doesn't. And because I know Jesus, and he knows ABOUT Jesus.

"You can swat him off (it's not too difficult as he's not that intelligent) but rest assured that you will always have my support."

Oh, I'm just toying with him now. One of his traits is that he MUST have the last word. He will post and post and posts responses because he is a "right" fighter. "Right" fighters always have to have the last word. He thinks his snarky comments are biting and on target. They just seem stupid to me, but don't tell him I said so.

Thank you for your support. I hold you in very high regard.

God bless.

John Nolan said...

Bee, notice that A-the-T in his post of 11:37 (in which he tries to have the last word) merely descends into bluff and bluster, attributing to others opinions and positions which they have never evinced, and resorting to internet shouting (capitalization).

Everyone on this blog not only sees through him, but holds him in the utmost contempt, not least because he adamantly refuses to reveal his identity. Of course he will come back with his usual mixture of sanctimony and sarcasm, since that is the nature of the beast.

I suppose I should feel sorry for him on account of his lack of intellect, although stupid people have the knack of never knowing when to shut up and thereby incurring even more ridicule. However, to quote Hilaire Belloc, 'caritas non conturbat me.'

TJM said...

John Nolan,

It appears you knocked-out, Anonymous K. No reply

Anonymous said...

Fr. McDonald sometimes "loses" comments...

I did respond. One of the things I said was that if I was being held in contempt by John Nolan, I must be doing something right.


Anonymous said...

Bee here:
Anonymous September 7, 2019 at 5:05 PM said...

" Fr. McDonald sometimes "loses" comments...

I did respond. One of the things I said was that if I was being held in contempt by John Nolan, I must be doing something right. Cheers!"

See? I told you. He MUST have the last word. Never fails.

God bless.

TJM said...


Anonymous K suffers from clericalism on steroids. Sad

John Nolan said...


Actually, if you go back to my original comment, you will find that I did not assert anything (despite Anonymous's splutterings to the contrary). I began with a hypothesis, namely that the revision and dilution of the ritual books after Vatican II did not affect the validity of the sacraments and sacramentals, but may have impaired their efficacy (note the subjunctive here).

It is not an original hypothesis on my part, which I actually made clear. What can be asserted, since they are factually accurate, are the following.
1. Exorism, a sacramental, is unique in that its efficacy is quantifiable (the demon departs or it does not, and the exorcist requires a sign that it has in fact departed).
2. The exorcism rite was re-written in 1998.
3. A number of experienced exorcists found it to be less effective, and petitioned the Holy See for permission to continue with the 1614 rite, which was granted (no such permission would be required now, since the traditional Roman Ritual has been reinstated in its entirety).

Everything else I said was qualified. 'Rumour had it' is not a 'tired old canard' but simply reports what was said at the time. Rumours may be true or untrue, but cannot be entirely ignored. Similarly, I did not assert that 'the Devil hates Latin' (the one thing that seems to have got Anonymous's back up), I qualified it by saying 'I understand that ...' I'm not an exorcist, but have taken the trouble to find out what their opinions are on the subject; their opinions surely are of value since they are based on direct experience.

You seem to believe that Anonymous is a cleric. I hope not, although I have met priests whos general education was somewhat deficient.

Anonymous said...

'Rumour had it' is not a 'tired old canard' but simply reports what was said at the time.


Many rumors have nothing to do with what was actually said or done at any time.

Rumor had it that Louis XV was, around 1750, kidnapping children in order to bathe in their blood in hopes of curing his leprosy. He wasn't.

Rumor had it that Jews in the 14th century in Europe were poisoning the wells of Christians. They weren't.

Rumor has it that John Kennedy is still alive, along with Elvis Presley and Jimmy Hoffa.

Many rumors can and should be ignored.

When you state "Also, I understand the rite is more effective in Latin, a language hated by the Devil." That is an assertion, unless you want us to believe that you do not think that the Devil hates Latin.

TJM said...

Anonymous K,

Rumor has it that you are a priest. Heaven forbid! Father McDonald could clear this up!

John Nolan said...


Another 'epic fail' from Anonymous. He must be aware that when dealing with a secretive organization like the Vatican, those who study that institution depend a lot on leaks and rumours. They are not required to give them unconditional credence, but they cannot be simply dismissed as conspiracy theories, like Anonymous's inapt analogies.

Actually, inapt analogies are something that Fr Kavanaugh is prone to; however, I would not infer from this that he is 'Anonymous' - in fact, when Fr Kavanaugh posts he usually makes a cogent argument (which can, of course, be argued against).

I cannot, and do not, assert that 'the Devil hates Latin' any more than I can assert that God, or the Devil, actually exists. All that I can do, and where it is not a matter of Faith, is to report what others more knowledgeable than myself have maintained, and leave it up to others to make up their minds.

Anonymous has yet to realize what debate is all about. One side puts forward a propostion and produces evidence in its support; the opposing side does the same. I learned it fifty years ago at the Durham Union Society. It was founded (like the Oxford and Cambridge Unions) 180 years ago to mirror debates in Parliament. Sadly, the Westminster Parliament is dominated these days by mediocrities who neither know nor care for civilized argument.

Anonymous said...

Many rumors can and should be dismissed out of hand, especially when they deal with "secretive" organizations or groups.

Would that the rumors about the Jews, a secretive group with "strange" laws about food, with peculiar language, with a belief system substantially different from that of the Christians, were ignored. Millions more Jews would be alive today if those rumors had been dismissed rather than disseminated by the "well-meaning."

When "debate" of serious issues includes giving credence to rumor and/or innuendo, then there is no "debate," just words.

TJM said...

Anonymous K,

You need to look no further than the typical American "news" outlet, New York Times, the Post, ABC, etc. where rumors become "news" especially if it pertains to a Republican.

John Nolan,

As always, well said. The problem I have with Kavanaugh, is that he has a serious disrespect for the pre-Conciliar Church, and somehow believes the failing Novus Ordo Church is better.

John Nolan said...

In politics, including ecclesiastical politics, what starts as a rumour often materializes. Journalists are always on the look-out for 'straws in the wind'.

Anonymous confuses rumour with conspiracy theory. But then, English was never his strong suit.

If one only believes in black-and-white written evidence, then Hitler was not responsible for the 'Final Solution' since there is no written order from him specifically authorizing it.

I did make it plain that no-one is obliged to give credence to rumour. But then, whatever you say, he will twist it to suit his purposes.

Anonymous said...

"In politics, including ecclesiastical politics, what starts as a rumour often materializes."

And, if often does not.

"I did make it plain that no-one is obliged to give credence to rumour. But then, whatever you say, he will twist it to suit his purposes."

But, you clearly do give credence to this rumor. Otherwise you would not have posted it in support of your preference for Latin.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous once again shows his lamentable lack of basic comprehension.

What I posted was, concerning the 1998 exorcism rite: 'Rumour had it that some of its drafters did not actually believe in demonic possession.'

Nothing to do with my preference for Latin in the liturgy and the ritual, which I freely admit. I neither need, nor use, rumour to support this.

Nothing to do with the fact (not a rumour) that a number of liturgists successfully petitioned the Holy See for permission to continue using the older form (language was not the issue here, since the new rite had yet to be translated). In any case, since exorcism is not a public rite, there is no advantage in using the vernacular.

I cannot prove that some of those who drafted the revised exorcism rite did not actually believe in demonic possession. So I deliberately did not assert this. But to deny that there were indeed rumours to this effect is to deny what is palpably true.

I can hardly express myself more clearly. Those who believe I am wrong on a point of fact can point it out and if necessary I will stand corrected. I am not like the speaker at the Durham Union forty-odd years ago who would never give way on a 'point of information' (to those not accustomed to the rules of debate, I should point out that a speaker must give way on a 'point of order' but not on a 'point of information'). He said: "I don't take 'points of information' - pray do not confuse me with the facts."

The same speaker dealt with a persistent woman heckler by saying: "We should go into pantomime, dear. I'll play the front half of the horse, and you can be yourself."

In those pre-PC days before the world went mad, it brought the house down.