FROM THE BOUNDARY: Begone! Part II
Exorcism: is it the ‘occult’, even a kind of ‘witchcraft’? Well, in its nature how does it differ from what the priest does in consecrating the bread and wine at the Eucharist? Is that the ‘occult’ too? What of ‘transubstantiation’ in the Roman Church – the idea that by what the priest does and says at the consecration, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ? Is that the ‘occult’?
Well, yes, exorcism surely is an ‘occult’ practice - at least if by that we refer to the supernatural, the mystical, as distinct from the ‘measurable’ in a scientific sense. That shouldn’t worry us, I suppose. We’re Christians, aren’t we? In the Roman Church there’s supposed to be an exorcist in every Diocese. He represents the entire Church and so also, in theory, the mystical Christ. The exorcism is performed in the name of Christ. Its language, in some measure, is the language of Christ. The exorcist’s power is said to be the power of Christ. Mind, there’s a downside. Seemingly, the exorcist typically receives no formal training (did Jesus?). His understanding is experiential. It’s quite possible that a mere ‘amateur’ might cause spiritual harm or mental injury. Deliverance-doers beware! Yet there’s evidence, by extension from Jesus himself (infra), that the exorcist need not be a Christian priest, though we must ever be mindful of the distinction between possession and mental illness. It’s always easier to ascribe personal brokenness to the devil than to the subject himself. Once the exorcism’s begun, that’s it. There’s no going back. It’s win or lose. If the exorcism fails, the damaging effect on the subject is incalculable. So beware!
These sorts of considerations didn’t seem to worry the ancients, not even Jesus. But then they didn’t have therapists, psychologists and social workers on call, did they? And they clearly didn’t understand depression, anxiety, stroke, migraine, epileptic fits, transient aphasia, and clever stuff like Munchausen syndrome (attention seeking). Given the alleged prevalence of possession cases in the Gospels, it’s hard to resist the conclusion they suffered a surfeit of devil mania.
Jesus’ interventions don’t sound like authentic ‘exorcisms’, rather than mere ‘healings’. Consider the paralytic in Matt 9:2-7. Jesus ‘cured’ him by forgiving his sins- and for his efforts was accused of blasphemy. For exorcising the blind and dumb man, he was accused of Satanism himself (Matt 12:22-37). When the disciples failed to exorcise a “dumb spirit” from a boy, described as a lunatic, who cried out and fell into the fire or water foaming at the mouth, Jesus variously stressed the need for faith, presumably in himself and the power of exorcism, prayer and fasting (Matt 17:14-21; Mark 9”17-29). In Mark 1:23-27, Jesus’ voice, heard teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum, was sufficient to cause the possessing devil to cry out audibly. In Luke 4:41, demons recognize Jesus as the “Son of God” as they leave the possessed, and Jesus has to tell them to shut up. Then he confronts the wild man of the tombs, whom even chains can’t hold, and whose many occupying devils beg Jesus to banish them to live in pigs. Jesus obliges and the pigs promptly charge from a cliff into the sea and drown. So the ‘legion’ of devils bring about their own destruction, and seemingly can’t survive the death of their porky hosts (Matt 8:28-33; Mark 5:1-20). The last detailed case is the Canaanite woman who, again, by reason of her faith in Jesus, secures the healing of her child who’s not actually present (Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). The disciples, including Paul, are equally empowered, but aren’t always successful. There’s evidence they were possessive of these powers. When one who refused to follow them nevertheless cast out devils in Jesus’ name, they forbad him and jibbed to Jesus. Jesus’ response? “He that is not against us, is for us” (Mark 9:38-40 – but cf. Acts 19: 13-16).
It’s a pretty mixed bag, isn’t it, and seems a far cry from exorcism as we now understand it, leaving aside the question of what the ‘possessed’ really suffered from? Jesus’ apparent one- line rebukes really don’t fit easily with exorcisms, which can take days to accomplish. They sound more like ‘deliverances’ than exorcisms – which suggests, perhaps, that they should always precede actual exorcisms. The underlying assumption seems to have been that a physical idiosyncrasy is itself a sign of possession, that the indwelling evil spirit has caused a physical condition. It’s a horrifying thought, isn’t it, that even in our own time wizened old women may yet be labeled ‘witches’, that hunchbacks were once thought of as inherently evil, “half made up”, and that black dogs and cats are still shunned by some as ‘unlucky’? Superstition dies hard. In exorcism situations, we’re not dealing with palpable physical conditions. The essence is that the subject’s body has been invaded by an alien conscious personality which displaces the conscious personality of its ‘victim’. So we’re looking primarily for psychological symptoms and signs. Of course, there may be physical indicators. During exorcism, the subject may become snake-like. He may become agitated and roar. His face may become satanic. “By their fruits you shall know them”!
Go safely, then – until the next time.
Cynicism, from the boundary: “We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell” (Oscar Wilde).