Two Supreme Courts Rule on Exorcism
It has certainly been an exciting month for exorcism in the court systems. This past month two Supreme Courts had things to say about exorcism and those who practice it.
In Singapore, a fascinating case has unfolded about a woman who received an exorcism from two priests at her church; she claimed that the exorcism traumatized her and prevented her from leading a normal life. The Singaporean Supreme Court ruled in favour of the priests and the church (link to the Supreme Court case; here is another article on the matter). The judge’s ruling is lengthy, but two parts stand out:
- He said that the defendents (the priests and their assistants from the community) “did what their religion taught them to do”.
- He also said that “the substance of the defendants’ actions that night was the ‘invocation of divine assistance by prayer’”
What a wonderful vindication for these priests who, indeed, were doing what they felt was right according to the teachings they had received by their church.
Another interesting point: during the course of the exorcism, the woman had to be restrained. The judge ruled specifically on this, saying that any physical force applied to her that night was to stop her from hurting herself. He found that the defendants had acted reasonably that night and had not been negligent.
I feel this is a huge vindication for exorcists. This ruling validates exorcism as a reasonable response to clear symptoms of possession (such as this woman exhibited) and recognizes that restraining someone for their own protection during exorcism may be reasonable in certain situations.
Speaking of symptoms the woman exhibited, here is a sampling from the court transcript:
- Slithering on the floor as a serpent, including accompanying noises;
- Acting and dialoguing as a soldier;
- Speaking in a deep male voice;
- Assuming the name of Satan;
- Spitting and cursing violently.
Do not forget that this woman was a member of the church; the priests and other congregants knew her well. Clearly they would have observed this behaviour and understood that it was abnormal in the extreme relative to her regular behaviour.
Some of the dialogue that occurred during the exorcism was reported. For example:
Priest: Who are you?
Plaintiff (in a male voice): I am Lucifer.
Priest: Why have you come?
Plaintiff (in a male voice): You all have no power over me, I am Lucifer. (The Plaintiff spat at the cross). What is your name?
Priest: My name is Simon
Plaintiff (in a male voice): I curse you. You will die in two years’ time. I will come and get all of you in two years’ time.
Given the sudden behaviour change, the dialogue, and particularly the references to being Satan…what do you think? Do you think this woman was possessed? And would you have done the same as the priests did? Let me know by leaving a comment!
Next week: the US Supreme Court also rule on exorcism! Stay tuned!
You might also be interested in...
If I could be reasonably sure that the woman had not taken any psyhcotropic or hallucinagenic drugs and that this was a sudden change in behavior, I would conclude that the woman was possessed. I would offer her a drink of Holy Water making sure that she KNEW it was holy water. If she accepted it and drank it with no effect, I would then doubt she was NOT possessed. If she reacted strongly to the pressence of the water and refused it, I would then be fairly certain in my own mind that she was possessed and if I knew how to perform an exorcism I would be on it right away. Maybe I’d call for back up first. There WERE two priests.
Interesting decision by the court. Interesting that she sued the priests. I’d like to know a little more about THAT angle of the case.
Peace and Blessings,
Frank
This sounds like a full on luciferic possession, you dont always get the top dog going in there. His reference to 2 years is interesting, there are rumours in exorcism circles that in approximately that amount of time Lucifer will incarnate on earth. If so there’s a good chance those priests are done for!
Yes, she was. no doubt about that one.