Talk:Exorcism in the Catholic Church
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exorcism Pages
[edit]We should consider merging exorcism pages. for example, Exorcisms in Christianity and the catholic church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticalresearch (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This is horribly written, with phrases like "With demonic possession on the rise..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.241.70 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Warning: long quote
[edit]The "History" section currently contains clandestine, underground affairs, undertaken without the approval of the Catholic Church and without the rigorous psychological screening that the church required. In subsequent years, the Church took more aggressive action on the demon-expulsion front. The practice of exorcism without consent from the Catholic Church is what prompted the official guidelines from 1614 to be amended. The amendment established the procedure that clergy members and each individual who claims to be impacted by demonic possession must follow. This includes the rule that the potentially possessed individual must be evaluated by a medical professional before any other acts are taken. The primary reason for this action is to eliminate any suspicion of mental illness, before the next steps of the procedure are taken. Since demonic possession, according to Roman Catholic teachings, is extremely rare, and mental health issues are often mistaken for demonic possession, the Vatican requires that each diocese have a specially trained priest who is able to diagnose demonic possession and perform exorcisms when necessary.”[6]
According to this edit, when the text was inserted into the lead, this was (correctly) copy/pasted from the offline source Cuneo, Michael W. (Jan 1999). "Exorcism". Contemporary American Religion. 1 (New York: Macmillan Reference USA): 243
using quotation marks. The quote is exceedingly long - but the book itself is presumably much longer, so there's likely no copyright violation, as the quote is likely a very tiny part of the book, and it was inserted as a quote.
However, someone inserted a double quote in the middle of the quotation, making it unclear what is a quote and what is Wikivoice - this is a long-term editing risk with such a long quote. The content of the quote does seem relevant, and summarising it would lose many interesting points. So I'm leaving it as it is. Providing an independent summary would require access to the book, reading and understanding it, and then summarising. Please do not paraphrase. Boud (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Lack of skeptical/realist angle
[edit]The absence of such a heading page is odd, to say the least, since it's well-established that there's no scientific proof for many of the myriad claims made by exorcists. A section dedicated to the skeptical position would provide a more balanced view. It would also give an opportunity to address substantial criticisms and offer insight into the scientific and psychological perspectives of backwards amd superstitious practices. The page as it stands presents a one-sided narrative that overlooks the range of viewpoints and ongoing discussions surrounding the subject. TairaMasakado108 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The realist angle is indeed missing, but it does not belong in a specific section. See WP:CSECTION.
- First, we need reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have a few sources that might help as a start. Taken from Wikipedia library, focusing on contemporary Catholicism and possession or exorcism:
- Polish Catholics Attribute Trauma-related Symptoms to Possession: Qualitative Analysis of Two Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors. By: Pietkiewicz, Igor J., Kłosińska, Urszula, Tomalski, Radosław, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10538712, May/Jun2022, Vol. 31, Issue 4
- Modern Practice, Archaic Ritual: Catholic Exorcism in America Authors: Chavez, William Source: Religions. Oct2021, Vol. 12 Issue 10
- Exorcisme catholique en France contemporaine, entre thérapeutique et régulation institutionnelle Author: Giménez Béliveau, Verónica Source: Social Compass. Dec2022, Vol. 69 Issue 4, p515-535. 21p.
- The (Re)Invention of Biblical Exorcism in Contemporary Roman Catholic Discourses. By: Bauer, Nicole M., Doole, J. Andrew, Religion & Theology, 10230807, 2022, Vol. 29, Issue 1/2
- Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have a few sources that might help as a start. Taken from Wikipedia library, focusing on contemporary Catholicism and possession or exorcism:
We shouldn't have a procedure section
[edit]I removed a section about how to perform an exorcism, including what is required for it to work efficiently. This isn't a place for recipes, spells, video game guides. If someone wants to learn how a sect performs a particular religious rite/spell, Sunday school is better than a primary source wiki how style blurb. Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Description of religious practice actually has some real value for anthropologists and sociologists so I'm going to take some exception to your phrasing though, of course, an encyclopedia should be written as summary, not detail. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I resuscitated the exorcism procedure section, but I did my best attempt to exorcise Wikivoice daemons that could have made it look like Wikipedia asserts pseudoscience to be science. In aiming to follow the spirit of our five commandments, I exorcised the uncited (since Sep 2024) sentence after reciting "I vow to preview my edit before hitting save" three times. I hope I have not sinned.Pray let the Holy Synod of This Talk Page Section accept this as tending towards a daemon-free consensus, and improve the text further, before it becomes canonical as the one and only true Holy Wikiwrit version. Boud (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have changed the word "procedure" into "practice", because of the connotations. Procedure implies something scientific, meticulous and detailed, whereas practice can also imply a religious practice.
- Rather than providing a "realist/skeptical" angle, I think there should be a section discussing mental illness and demonic possession/exorcism, as there is enough literature on the topic.[1][2][3] (and many others) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing 'procedure' to 'practice' - good point. Using the peer-reviewed literature would obviously be useful, though this particular article is restricted to Catholic exorcism, so the more generic articles might be difficult to use here.The quality of the peer review of Ref 3 (Brill: Chapter 10 Madness, Demonic Possession, and Methods of Categorization) looks a bit suspicious, since the abstract was not properly proofread:
the diving line between an illness and spiritual state
- should have "the dividing line";such a categorization seem to
- should have "seems to";those processes, where the diving line was not clear
- the comma should be removed, and "diving line" should be "dividing line" (Archived 2025-01-18 at archive.today). Sloppy proofreading does not prove poor review, but it does suggest it.The first paper is OA and overall looks reasonable - it might be straightforward to use for 1 or 2 introductory sentences in the 'practice' section to set the general context. Boud (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for looking at the sources. I only gave them a cursory look and I didn't mean for it to be an exhaustive list or for any of them to be used necessarily. There's lots of literature on the topic, that's why a section on mental illness vs demonic possession might be more informative than simply a "realist" view of demonic possession.
- Those who consider "demonic possession" to be a result of mental illness deny the supernatural character of it while providing an alternative theory, while a realist/skeptic view denies the supernatural character without necessarily providing an alternative view. Those who don't believe in demonic possession do so already, without wikipedia telling them to, but they might not be aware of all the research/literature into demonic possession as a mental illness.
- This isn't me being against the realist/skeptic view per se, but it takes more expertise and knowledge to say "demonic possession isn't real, it is in fact..." than to say "demonic possession isn't real". Anyone can say the latter, no degree in psychiatry or knowledge of mental illness required. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does appear that most of the scientific / social-scientific work on the subject right now is much more interested in a functionalist account of the practice than a directly critical one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Changing 'procedure' to 'practice' - good point. Using the peer-reviewed literature would obviously be useful, though this particular article is restricted to Catholic exorcism, so the more generic articles might be difficult to use here.The quality of the peer review of Ref 3 (Brill: Chapter 10 Madness, Demonic Possession, and Methods of Categorization) looks a bit suspicious, since the abstract was not properly proofread:
- C-Class Catholicism articles
- Mid-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- High-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class Occult articles
- High-importance Occult articles
- WikiProject Occult articles
- C-Class paranormal articles
- High-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles