Satanism in the Vatican
Katie van Schaijik | Mar 10, 2010 | 3 cmts
The only part of the story about the chief exorcist’s claims that Satan is at work in the Vatican (including among Cardinals and Bishops) I find impossible to believe is this comment from another Roman exorcist repudiating the charge:
“Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God,” he said.”
Comments (3)
Scott Johnston
Mar 11, 2010 7:00am
I am puzzled why a priest would say such things publicly. What is there to be gained?
Fr. Amorth’s statements as reported in this article seem a little odd to me.
Of the following I am sure:
1. Satan always tries to attack those in the Curia and the Vatican. Just as he especially targets priests in general, he certainly targets priests who are in the Vatican even more as it is the earthly headquarters of his enemy. Of course he will be trying to cause problems. Until this world comes to an end, this is a given.
2. There is a difference between causing havoc however Satan can, and actually possessing someone. Fr. Amorth does not go so far in what this article presents as to claim certain people in the Vatican are actually possessed (depending on what he means by “bishops who are linked to the Demon”). So, it seems that what he says is actually a version of no. 1, aside from claims about Cardinals not believing in Jesus.
Isn’t it odd that the article does not give the context for these quotes? Did Richard Owen interview Fr. Amorth? Or is he quoting from his new book? Both?
And I don’t find the accusation of a cover-up in the horrible case of the 1998 multiple murder substantive—what is the evidence of a cover-up? None is given. The only thing mentioned is “unconfirmed reports.” Huh??? This is really bad journalism. How swift is “remarkably swift”? What was the evidence the Vatican investigators had? Perhaps all the evidence indeed pointed to the conclusion they reached and any other law enforcement team would have come to the same conclusion.
I have no doubt Satan tries to “infiltrate” the Vatican. But I am also highly suspect of the motives of a journalist who would be so unprofessional as to report as evidence of a cover-up, mere “unconfirmed reports.” Give me a break. It is newsworthy that Fr. Amorth claims there was a cover-up. But a responsible journalist would go on to ask the obvious question, What evidence was there of a cover-up? On what basis did you reach that conclusion? If Owen asked such questions, we do not know what the answers were. Either Owen did not bother to ask these basic follow-ups, or he did and did not report the answers. In any case, this is shoddy journalism.
Katie van Schaijik
Mar 11, 2010 7:13am
I agree that the journalism in question is shoddy.
As to what might be gained by the priest’s public statements on the subject, isn’t the answer truth and light? Whether Fr. Amorth is right or not, his claims combined with his stature deserve genuine journalistic interest, and greater prayer and vigilance on the part of the faithful.
And if he IS right, a serious airing is called for.
Scott Johnston
Mar 11, 2010 7:23am
Yes, as an encouragement to more prayer and penance on behalf of those leading the Church is a good reason for public comment.
I wish Fr. Amorth had made a specific remark about prayer. Perhaps he did and Owen did not report it.