[Editor’s Note: the original letter in response to “The Challenge of Emily Rose” appears below in italics with Fr. Euteneuer’s responses in plain type throughout.]
Dear Mr. Stone:
First off, Satan can and does possess people living in a state of grace. It is rare, but God does allow it to happen sometimes. Fr. Amorth points to two examples of saints, Fr. Giovanni Calabria and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified who suffered diabolic possession. As well, Padre Pio and the Curé of Ars both suffered physical demonic attack.
This same critique was brought up by another person concerned about my comment. Had I simply inserted the qualifying phrase, “…unless God allows it,” I would have avoided this criticism; the omission is regrettable and the critique is valid. I read Fr. Amorth's books too! Satan's power over people in a state of grace is limited to temptation and external persecution unless the Lord allows an internal infestation to occur. What I was most concerned about was the Hollywood misrepresentation of a young woman presumably in a state of grace waking up possessed by the devil. People need to know that this does not happen. The fragile faith of some viewers could be undermined by a false fear of a power the devil does not have. Could God have allowed Emily Rose to become possessed? Of course. That apparently was one of the themes of the movie. But it does not happen that way. Possessions, in the rare cases they occur, are always gradual.
Secondly, the demon will try to scare and harass the exorcist and participants when possible.
In my article I had not denied the reality of harassment, sometimes even serious harassment. You will read that I said, “It is undoubtedly true that the devil harasses and persecutes people,” but again I was attempting to counter the misrepresentation of the devil's power as gaining the upper hand in the course of an exorcism. He can be virtually neutralized by a good exorcist who knows his salt. Remember that, as a priest, I am concerned about people's faith in the Church and their correct perception of the devil's actual power which my years of exorcist experience has taught me: I said, “One could conclude from this movie that the devil was unstoppable because not only did the exorcism fail to expel him, but after that, the Church itself, her ritual, her priesthood, and her dignity were all put on trial.” This was unfair to the Church and I wanted to set the record straight. It is the Church that persecutes the devil in an exorcism. Join me for one some time and you will see.
Thirdly, exorcisms do occasionally take place at night. The true case upon which The Exorcist is based involved several weeks of nightly exorcisms. Many times, the time of the exorcism is dependent upon the time of manifestation.
This last statement is simply untrue. The freedom of the exorcist is not qualified by any initiative of the devil or his timing. The fact that Fr. Moore postponed the exorcism until Halloween night was a false portrayal of an exorcism “strategy.” The “time of manifestation” as you say is totally irrelevant to the Church's freedom to enter in when it wishes and remove the evil presence.
Keep in mind also that I did not in this article deny the reality that some exorcisms take place at night by necessity or by design. What I said was clear: “Never, if it can be avoided, does an exorcist perform an exorcism at night.” As such, I speculate that if the exorcisms in The Exorcist had been performed in the daytime the actual length of time for deliverance would have been reduced considerably. In some cases the only way to gain power over a “hiding” demon is to forcibly open the eyelids of the exorcee so that light enters the soul through the senses. The devil hates it with the worst passion. He is a creature of the dark, and just because some exorcisms are performed at night does not mean that they should be.
There are times though that the Lord, in His wisdom, chooses to let Satan appear to have an upper hand. Just as God allowed Job to be tested, sometimes the faithful must undergo extreme tests as well.
Job was not an exorcist, he was a victim. My observation was that the devil was portrayed as having the upper hand against the Church, and this is not true unless incompetence is involved. In my love for the Church and my understanding of its spiritual power which my hands wield by Christ's grace, I did not want the faithful or the weak of faith to be led astray — again — by Hollywood's fascination with a fallen angel. Demonic possession is an “extreme test” and the victims suffer horribly. Let us all pray that we are never subjected to that pain. Let us also pray that the bishops will authorize and train many more priests to free the faithful of such malice. The spiritual power to exorcise is in the hands of the priests, they just need to exercise it.
God bless,
Fr. Tom Euteneuer
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
