As I was doing the first triage on my email, culling with sangfroid, I saw in the list an article alert from The Catholic Thing to which all you readers should subscribe. I saw “The Devil, You Say” by Francis X. Meier and the blurb, “Nefarious is a film about demonic possession, ….”.
Instantly, there flashed through my mind the phrase I knew I would start with in writing the post I knew I would write.
“I’m delighted – if that’s the right word – to see this morning…”
I opened the link to the article itself and read…
“One of the delights – if that’s the right word – of the recent film Nefarious …”
GMTA
Maier looks into the reactions of critics to the superbly crafted, powerfully acted film. “The pros” panned it, but El Pueblo loved it.
Nefarious is a must see movie.
It is not for the very young. Don’t expect projectile vomit or levitations. Do expect a roller coaster into the psychologically cruel torture of the human participants. It is also a mini-workshop on accurate angelology from the Catholic (therefore correct and true) perspective.
A sample from Maier:
There comes a moment in Nefarious when the prison’s Catholic chaplain makes a brief appearance. The demon initially recoils in fear. . .until the priest starts blathering about how the Church has “evolved beyond” belief in devils, thanks to enlightened psycho-social tools. Later, along unintentionally similar lines, the unbelieving psychiatrist lists all the human advances in knowledge and behavior that today make religion obsolete. The demon in the human prisoner pauses. Grins. And then says, “I think I love you.”
That’s about right. The Enemy has human agents not just human objects of abuse, victims.
On that note, I read yesterday that the Jesuits have dismissed serial abuser, sex predator of those in his spiritual charge, Mark Rupnik for violations of obedience…. For being disobedient. They wanted Rupnik to “change community and to accept a new mission” and he wouldn’t do it. His puerile art is everywhere seen in the Novus world, especially in Italy. In the midst of his problems of excommunication and lifting and suspension etc he went right on publicly functioning, even giving the Lenten retreat for the VATICAN CURIA.
He was dismissed for disobedience.
I guess that, based on this, were a Jesuit superior to require a Jesuit involved in a certain type of activism that blurs distinctions of compassion and permission, and serious undermines Catholic moral teaching, to stop what he is doing he would either have to obey or be dismissed from the Jesuits. Right?
Loading ...
And do they really think that Mr. Disobedience, Mark Rupnik, will leave? Color me skeptical.
Meanwhile, thanks to Fr Regina Martin, the Jesuits have adopted the Gay Pride Flag as their own. They belatedly added a red cross on the bottom right corner. Very small, very slight and almost unnoticeable .
Thanks for the link to “Nefarious”, Fr. Z. My family did not have a theater showing it less than a four hour drive for us. We will be sure to watch it.
If we wanted to be fair, many large organizations do this: when they need to get rid of someone, and they have a choice as to which of several reasons to state for getting rid of him, they choose that reason which is least controversial. They don’t mean by this that none of the other possible causes of dismissal are valid, they simply don’t feel it necessary to put those reasons forward. Employers might do the same thing, in firing a bad employee: they might have several causes, including the fact that “this person just won’t shut up already about her trans persona, making her unpleasant to be around”, but instead they merely cite “insubordinate, even after warnings.”
But there is no particular reason to be gentle on the Jesuits about this: they have proven for the last 50 years that they don’t believe in what the Church teaches about sexuality, and so they largely don’t think his sexual sins are reasons to dismiss him. Sure, some Jesuits might mouth platitudes about involving minors “against their consent” or something, but give it 20 more years, and their leading edge change agents will have overcome even this small resistance within the order to the “new” morality (that looks a lot like the morality of some ancient pagans). If the order still exists, I suppose.
I’m one of the outliers of the film-going public that hates horror and suspense movies. But I was happy to read the linked post and get more insight on current Catholic thinking about demonic possession. I still maintain “the devil made me do it” is a way of saying “not guilty by reason of insanity.” I don’t think I’ve ever met a demon, whether in possession of someone or not. Perhaps all the ones I have just didn’t want to talk to me.
[In conversation with an exorcist friend, he commented that demons will often leave alone those who are already well on the way to Hell without their promptings.]
So have you heard demons, then? What do they say? I knew an angel once, in homeroom. Those soft and fuzzy sweaters, too magical to touch…
Look, without trading barbs at each other, how numerous are these demonic possessions/talking demons? It would seem from the available evidence, not very.
[No barbs were intended. This is not a matter for levity. It is deadly serious.]