American Papist directs our attention to this article in the Daily Mail, in which Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, claims that both Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the devil. Rasputin, perhaps. But both Hitler and Stalin? Makes me want to read the Lukacs book, 1941.
Would the vicar of Rome really keep someone unstable or kooky on as chief exorcist? And under the watch of the pope? One would have more faith in our bishops, unless there were a plot *gasp* to discredit the Church and the ministry of exorcist. Another Masonic conspiracy?
Regardless, it is his own personal opinion of Hitler and Stalin--it does not appear that he has any evidence, just an inference he is drawing from their actions. Certainly, looking at the number of deaths for which they were responsible, one does not doubt that the devil was involved in some way. But a full-blown possession?
On the other hand, Himmler is rumored to have been dabbling in the occult. Even if Hitler was not as interested, might he have taken part in some ceremony?
wiki entry on Nazi mysticism (rather undeserving of the name "mysticism," isn't it?)
Ed Peters and Sandra Miesel have expressed reservations with Fr. Amorth's book, An Exorcist Tells His Story. I think their concerns are unfounded, since what he says can be interpreted differently, but since we are not exorcists what first-hand knowledge would we really have of infestation and possession? I do believe that witchcraft/black magic exists, and that many folk religions that make use of such practices have ties to the occult, especially in the use of curses. (For example, shamanism, which has not died out in Korea. I wonder if curses are used in "religious" Daoism, though charms and spells are.)
Alas, there is no website for the International Association of Exorcists.
Now, I must get back to polishing the Spear of Destiny... and no, it doesn't "belong in a museum."
(Supposedly Karen Allen will be back for the next Indiana Jones movie, along with Indy's love child?)
Actually the Holy Lance is reputedly in Armenia; I will say something about that when I finish my post on Armenia.
2 comments:
Ok, well, good for him to have an opinion, but "possession" sort of hitches off the idea that they were responsible for their actions. It's hard, yes, to think someone would have done as they did cognatively, but truly, I think they deserve to be held accountable rather than some invisible "demon."
If it were an involuntary possession, yes, but not if it's voluntary--in which case the one volunteering is responsible, since he assents both to the possession and to what happens as a result of it.
But thanks for the interest.
Post a Comment