Exorcism in the Catholic Church

Even before the messianic action of Christ, the Old Testament contains several accounts that prepare for and prefigure the Christian practice of exorcism. These accounts are not anecdotal: they establish that the reality of demonic action upon persons and places has been known since the origins of biblical revelation, and that God Himself intervenes — by His own power or through His angels — to free His faithful from it.

King Saul and the "evil spirit" soothed by David's harp (1 Samuel 16)

The first clear account of a liberation from the action of an evil spirit is found in the First Book of Samuel. After his rejection by God on account of his disobedience, King Saul is tormented by "an evil spirit sent by the Lord" (1 Sam 16:14)^[9]. His servants then suggest that he summon a young man skilled at playing the harp: this is David, still unknown. The text states the immediate effectiveness of the musical and spiritual intervention:

"When the spirit sent by God came upon Saul, David would take his lyre and play it; then Saul would feel relief, he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him."^[10]

This account presents three features that the later Christian tradition would interpret as typologically foreshadowing Christ the exorcist: (1) divine authority over evil spirits; (2) the mediation of a human instrument chosen by God (David, a figure of the coming Messiah); (3) effectiveness achieved not through force but through peace — sacred music foreshadowing the "peace that surpasses all understanding" (Phil 4:7) that Christ would give to His disciples.

The Book of Tobit — Asmodeus and the Archangel Raphael

The most complete and structured Old Testament account regarding exorcism is found in the Book of Tobit (a deuterocanonical book, received as canonical by the Catholic Church). Sarah, daughter of Raguel, a devout young woman, is tormented by a demon named Asmodeus (in Hebrew Ashmedai, "the destroyer"), who "kills each of her seven husbands on the wedding night itself" (Tob 3:8)^[11]. The archangel Raphael — whose name means in Hebrew "God heals" — is sent by God to intervene.

Disguised as a traveller, Raphael accompanies young Tobit to Raguel's, and instructs him in the rite to be performed on the wedding night with Sarah:

"Put the heart and liver of the fish in the incense burner. A smoke will rise: at its smell, the demon will take flight, and you will be rid of him forever."^[12]

The rite takes effect: "the demon fled to the regions of Egypt; the angel pursued him there, bound him hand and foot, and in the twinkling of an eye chained him up" (Tob 8:3). This is the first explicit account of demonic deliverance in biblical history, and it remarkably prefigures the future ministry of exorcism through three structuring elements: the use of a sacramental (the burnt fish foreshadows holy water, incense, blessed oils), the explicit invocation of the divine name (Tobit and Sarah pray before consummating the marriage: "Blessed are You, God of our fathers"), and the binding of the demon by a heavenly being (Raphael, as later Saint Michael in the Apocalypse).

Job — the divine limit imposed on Satan

The Book of Job is essential to Catholic doctrine on the demon because it establishes that Satan acts only within the limits permitted by God. In the prologue (Job 1–2), Satan presents himself among the "sons of God" before the Lord and asks permission to put Job to the test. God grants it, but in two successive, bounded stages: "Behold, I hand him over to your power; but spare his life" (Job 2:6)^[13]. The demon is therefore subject to an absolute limitation imposed by divine sovereignty — a doctrine that the entire Catholic tradition of exorcism would take up: "Satan can do nothing to us but what God permits him", teach the Fathers, citing precisely this passage.

The wisdom writings — Wisdom 2 and the devil's hatred of man

The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon — another deuterocanonical book — explicitly formulates the doctrine of demonic jealousy toward man created in the image of God:

"God created man for incorruption, and made him an image of His own nature. It was through the envy of the devil that death entered the world, and those who belong to him experience it."^[14]

This verse (Wis 2:23–24) is cited explicitly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church at no. 391, and constitutes, together with the account in Genesis, the scriptural foundation of the doctrine of the original fall of the angels. Satan's hatred of man — "through envy", says Wisdom — explains the eschatological stakes of every exorcism: to free a soul from Satan's grip is to give back to God a concrete victory in the invisible battle.

Catholic exorcism finds its principal foundation in the actions of Jesus of Nazareth himself, who casts out demons on several occasions during his public ministry, and who entrusts this power to the Twelve and then to the seventy-two disciples he sends out on mission. The practice of the Church is thus rooted directly in the messianic action of Christ, of which it is the sacramental continuation.

The four principal exorcism accounts in the Synoptics

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) report four detailed accounts of exorcisms performed by Christ — to which are added several brief mentions of exorcisms in series during the days at Capernaum.

The exorcism at the synagogue of Capernaum (Mk 1:21-28)

The first exorcism reported in Mark takes place in the synagogue of Capernaum, on a Sabbath day, at the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry. A man “possessed by an unclean spirit” addresses him: “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the Holy One of God.” Jesus rebukes him: “Be silent, and come out of him!” The unclean spirit, “convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him”^[15]. The crowd, struck with astonishment, comments: “What is this? A new teaching, given with authority!” — thus manifesting that the power to exorcise is immediately perceived as a messianic sign of the first order.

The Gerasene demoniac — “My name is Legion” (Mk 5:1-20)

The episode of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5, with parallels in Matthew 8 and Luke 8) is the most developed of all the Gospel accounts of exorcism. In the territory of the Gerasenes, in pagan country, Jesus meets a man “who had an unclean spirit, and who dwelt among the tombs”, and whom “no one could subdue”. Christ asks the unclean spirit its name, and it replies: “My name is Legion, for we are many”^[16]. The term Legion — borrowed from Roman military vocabulary (a legio then numbered some six thousand soldiers) — underscores the multiplicity of the possession and the asymmetrical relation of force: “Christ against a legion of demons”. The demons, expelled by Jesus, beg to enter a herd of swine, which then rushes down into the lake. The freed man is found “sitting, clothed, and in his right mind”.

This episode is depicted as early as the 6th century in Christian iconography, particularly in the mosaic of the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (shown in the infobox of this article) — proof that exorcism was held, from the patristic era onward, as a central sign of Jesus' messianic ministry.

The daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:24-30)

The exorcism of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman is the only one Jesus performs at a distance. A Greek woman, “a Syrophoenician by birth”, begs Christ to deliver her daughter, tormented by an unclean spirit. After the famous exchange about the “crumbs” under the children's table, Jesus answers her: “For this saying, go; the demon has left your daughter.” Returning home, the woman “found the child lying on the bed, and the demon was gone”^[17]. This account is particularly precious in the theology of exorcism because it attests that deliverance from a demon does not require the physical presence of the exorcist beside the tormented person — a point that will be invoked in the later history of the practice.

The epileptic boy at the foot of Tabor (Mk 9:14-29)

The fourth major account — set at the foot of Mount Tabor, the day after the Transfiguration — concerns a child tormented by “a mute spirit” that makes him “fall into the fire and into the water”. The disciples had attempted to exorcise him without success. Jesus expels the spirit, then explains to his disciples: “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer”^[18] (textual variants: “by prayer and fasting”). This passage remains central to the Catholic theology of exorcism: every demonic deliverance presupposes a profound spiritual commitment, made up of prayer, fasting, and humility — not merely an exterior rite correctly pronounced.

Mary Magdalene and the “seven demons”

Beyond the four principal accounts, the Gospel of Luke mentions Mary of Magdala among the women who followed Jesus, noting that “seven demons had gone out of her” (Lk 8:2)^[19]. The expression “seven demons” is traditionally understood by the Greek and Latin Fathers as indicating either a particularly grave multiple possession, or a symbolic fullness of evil (seven being the number of completeness). This mention is taken up again in Mark 16:9.

The mandate to the apostles

The power to exorcise is not, in the New Testament, the exclusive monopoly of Christ. Jesus expressly transmits it to the Twelve: “He called the Twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits” (Mk 6:7). Then to the seventy-two disciples sent out on mission: on their return, “joyful”, they testify: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name” (Lk 10:17). Finally, the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark — a canonical text despite its probable late composition — sets out the universal mandate:

“These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues…”^[20]

This saying constitutes, in the Catholic tradition, the central scriptural foundation of the ministry of exorcism. The Acts of the Apostles confirms the practice: as early as around AD 60, in Ephesus (present-day Turkey), the first Christians “drove out the evil spirits” and punished the magicians (Acts 19:11-20)^[21].

Exorcism, in Catholic doctrine, only makes sense when set within a precise theology of angelology and demonology — that is, within a structured understanding of the spiritual beings created by God, a portion of whom (the fallen angels) rebelled out of pride and now constitute the kingdom of Satan.

The original fall of the angels

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, in nos. 391-395, that the demons are fallen angels — that is, spiritual beings created by God, endowed with pure intellect and freedom, but who rejected God “through a free choice, in an irremissible sin”^[22]. Padre Amorth summarizes this doctrine with his usual concision:

“The angel was faced with this trial. We do not know its exact form very well. But we know with certainty that this trial led to pride: the angel grew proud, he believed himself so intelligent, so beautiful, so free — for God had created him thus. And he wished to make use of his freedom by making himself independent of God. That is the great temptation of the angel: his rebellion against God. He sought to make himself the equal of God.”^[23]

The very name of the archangel Michael (“Mi-ka-El” in Hebrew) means “Who is like God?” — a rhetorical question that stands in direct opposition to Satan’s proud self-affirmation: “I am like God.”^[24] This is why the Catholic liturgy traditionally invokes Saint Michael as captain of the heavenly armies in the fight against the demon (cf. the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel of Pope Leo XIII, 1886).

Satan, “father of lies” and “murderer from the beginning”

The New Testament and Catholic Tradition attribute three principal characteristics to Satan: he is the “father of lies” (Jn 8:44) — that is, incapable of speaking the truth when it contradicts his interests —, “murderer from the beginning” (ibid.) — that is, the enemy of human life —, and “like a roaring lion that prowls around, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8). But his power, infinitely inferior to that of God, is “limited”: “Satan can only do to us what God permits him”, teach the Fathers, citing the book of Job (Job 1:12; 2:6), where the devil must ask God’s permission to put Job to the test.

Why does the demon still exist?

The nagging question — “if God is all-powerful and all-good, why does he tolerate the existence of the demon?” — receives, in Catholic theology, a threefold answer: (1) God respects the freedom he gave to the angels when he created them; (2) the fight against the demon enables man to merit his beatitude through fidelity (cf. the book of Job, and the whole great tradition of Christian asceticism); (3) the victory of Christ over Satan, wrought at Calvary (cf. Col 2:15), is already won, and awaits only its final eschatological manifestation at the end of time (Rev 20).

Medieval theology systematized the Catholic doctrine on angels and demons to an unequalled degree of precision. The classical synthesis on the subject is owed to Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Doctor of the Church, and is set forth principally in the Summa Theologiae, First Part (Prima Pars).

The treatise on the angels and the fall (Ia, q. 50-64)

Saint Thomas devotes some fifteen questions to the treatise on the angels (De Angelis), a central portion of which concerns the angelic fall. In questions 63 and 64 of the Prima Pars, he analyzes:

• Q. 63 “The sin of the angels” — 9 articles. Thomas teaches that the sin of the fallen angels was pride: the angel sought “to be as God” (esse sicut Deus) by striving for beatitude through his own powers, rather than as a free gift of God. This sin was instantaneous, free, and irrevocable — the angel, being pure spirit, chose without hesitation and with no possibility of subsequent repentance^[25].
• Q. 64 “The punishment of the demons” — 4 articles. Thomas clarifies that the intellect of the demons remains intact (they retain their natural angelic knowledge), but that their will is fixed in evil; they suffer a poena damni (privation of the beatific vision) and a poena sensus (the fire of hell, understood analogically)^[26].

The power of the demons over bodies (Ia, q. 114)

In question 114, “The assaults of the demons,” Saint Thomas specifically examines the power of action of demons over man. He distinguishes two kinds of action:

1. Action upon the imagination and the internal senses — the demons can suggest images and passions to the human imagination, by way of suggestion, never by constraining the free will.
2. Action upon external bodies — the demons can act, “with divine permission,” upon physical bodies (levitations, bodily possessions, infestations of places and objects).

Saint Thomas states the decisive limitation: “The demons have no direct power over the human will, because the will can be moved only by God alone or by the man himself”^[27]. This clarification is fundamental to understanding the Catholic doctrine of possession: even in the most serious cases, the inner freedom of the soul remains intact — which is why a possessed person is never lost, and can be freed by grace.

Pseudo-Dionysius and the nine angelic choirs

Catholic Tradition also receives, from the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (c. AD 500) — a mystical text received throughout medieval theology as an authority — the doctrine of the nine angelic choirs organized into three triads:

• First triad (proximity to God): Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones;
• Second triad (governance of the universe): Dominions, Virtues, Powers;
• Third triad (proximity to man): Principalities, Archangels, Angels.

This typology is taken up by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 108) and by the whole Catholic liturgy. The archangels — including Saint Michael, Saint Gabriel, and Saint Raphael, the only three named in canonical Scripture — belong to the third triad and play a particular role in spiritual combat.

The history of the ministry of exorcism in the Catholic Church is continuous from the very beginning, but it has passed through several phases that must be distinguished.

Exorcism in the early centuries (1st–3rd centuries)

In the early Church, every faithful Christian is expected to be able, in case of urgency, to pronounce a prayer of deliverance in the name of Jesus. The Apostolic Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian) bear abundant witness to the widespread practice of exorcism in the Christian communities of the 2nd century, and present it as a first-rate apologetic argument against the pagans.

Saint Justin Martyr (~100–165), a converted philosopher and lay theologian, writes in his Second Apology, addressed around 153 to the Roman Senate:

“Many of us, Christians, have healed and still heal today a great number of possessed people throughout the world, and in your own city, by exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate — whereas your exorcists, your enchanters and your magicians have been unable to do so.” — Saint Justin Martyr, Second Apology, VI, 6 (~153)^[28]

Tertullian (~155–220), a converted Carthaginian lawyer, formulates the same apologetic argument with his usual legal conciseness, in his Apology written around 197:

“Let someone who is notoriously troubled by a demon be brought before your courts. Ordered to speak by any Christian whatsoever, that spirit will confess that it is a demon — just as truthfully as, elsewhere, it falsely claimed to be a god.” — Tertullian, Apology, XXIII, 4 (~197)^[29]

Origen of Alexandria (~185–253), in Against Celsus (~248), answers the objection of the pagan philosopher who disputed the Christian uniqueness in matters of exorcism:

“The name of Jesus is so powerful against demons that sometimes it is effective even when it is pronounced by the unworthy. […] Christians use neither invocations nor barbarous names; the name of Jesus alone, together with other words drawn from divine Scripture, is enough.” — Origen, Against Celsus, I, 6 (~248)^[30]

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (~296–373), in his Life of Saint Anthony written around 360 — a founding text of Christian monasticism that would have a considerable impact as far as Saint Augustine — devotes whole chapters to the hermit's struggle against the demons in the desert. Saint Anthony teaches there:

“The demons tremble at the sign of the cross of the Lord; for it is by the cross that Christ stripped them and made a spectacle of them. […] They are not to be feared. By the grace of God and by their defeat, they are henceforth powerless.” — Saint Athanasius, Life of Saint Anthony, ch. 35 and 41 (~360)^[31]

Saint Augustine (354–430) systematizes this tradition in his great treatise On the City of God, in which he distinguishes the demons from the faithful angels and sets the true Christian religion against pagan magics, theurgies and invocations:

“The demons, for all their knowledge which is not that of wisdom, can do nothing without the permission of the hidden and almighty providence of God.” — Saint Augustine, On the City of God, IX, 21 (~413–426)^[32]

It is in this continuous tradition that the minor order of exorcist gradually takes shape — one of the minor orders received by clerics before the subdiaconate. The Apostolic Letter of Pope Cornelius (250–253) to Bishop Fabius of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History, VI, 43), already mentions in Rome, around 251, “forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers and doorkeepers” — proof that exorcistate constituted a structured clerical order as early as the mid-3rd century in the Roman Church^[33]. This minor order was maintained in the Latin rite until the reform of Pope Paul VI in 1972 (motu proprio Ministeria quaedam), which abolished the minor orders in favour of the instituted ministries alone (lectorate, acolytate) — a purely disciplinary reform that in no way abolished the ministry itself.

A ministry controlled from late antiquity — the end of spontaneous charism

Contrary to a widespread notion, Catholic exorcism never remained a spontaneous and uncontrolled power awaiting the Ritual of 1614: its legal framework began as early as the 4th century. The Council of Laodicea, around 360, forbids exorcising without having received the corresponding episcopal ordination. The Fourth Council of Carthage, in 398, specifies the conditions of this clerical ordination. Pope Innocent I, in a letter of 416, recalls that the bishop remains responsible for exorcistate in his diocese^[34]. This ancient chronology — more than a millennium earlier than the Rituale Romanum — establishes that episcopal control of the ministry of exorcism is not a modern invention born of post-Tridentine prudence, but a constant discipline of the Church since late antiquity.

Control tightened further in the modern era, alongside the ebbing of witchcraft trials. The Holy Office recalled in December 1700 the duties of exorcists; a decree of 7 July 1710 formally reserved exorcism to the priest mandated by his bishop; an instruction of January 1713 insisted on the required prudence and obedience; Pope Clement XII renewed this requirement in September 1738^[35]. Canon 1172 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is therefore not a recent reaction to a few highly publicised abuses: it is the culmination of an uninterrupted canonical jurisprudence stretching back more than sixteen centuries.

The medieval synthesis and the Roman Ritual of 1614

In the Middle Ages, exorcism is gradually structured within the framework of canon law. The great Council of Trent (1545–1563), in its Session XXIII (15 July 1563), confirms the existence and value of the minor order of exorcistate. But it is Pope Paul V who, by publishing the Rituale Romanum in 1614, gives the Catholic Church for the first time a unified ritual of exorcism. Title XII — De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio (“On the exorcism of those possessed by the demon”) — comprises:

• A pastoral introduction describing the signs of discernment of a genuine possession (unknown languages, superhuman strength, knowledge of the occult);
• A series of prayers and adjurations to the demon (“Adjuro te, immundissime spiritus…”);
• Liturgical signs (repeated sign of the cross, laying on of hands, sprinkling of holy water, presentation of the crucifix);
• A list of psalms to be recited during the rite;
• Pastoral warnings to the priest (humility, fasting, prayer, clear conscience, state of grace).

The Ritual of 1614 — the work of Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santori — remained in force for three hundred and eighty-five years without substantial revision. It was never, however, universally binding: several popes touched it up without recasting it — Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII, the latter abolishing in 1952 the exorcism formulas aimed at animals, objects and places; the text was still being reprinted in France as late as 1853^[36]. It was this old Ritual that formed whole generations of Catholic exorcists right up to the threshold of the 21st century.

A prudence written into the very text of the Ritual of 1614

Contrary to the image of a credulous rite applied without discernment, the first rule of the De Exorcizandis Obsessis a Daemonio explicitly commands the exorcist not to believe too readily that a person is possessed^[37]. The 1614 text itself lists the three classic signs — real xenoglossy, revelation of unknown or future things, disproportionate strength — and invites the distinction between illness and possession according to the medical knowledge of its time. Its humoral medicine obviously could not provide a modern differential diagnosis, but the prudential intention is already fully present in the Tridentine text, well before the 1999 Ritual's insistence on prior medical assessment.

The 1614 Ritual goes further: it forbids the exorcist all curiosity regarding the words attributed to the demon. It recommends not engaging in conversation with the alleged spirit, except for the questions strictly necessary for discernment — its identity, the supposed time and manner of its intrusion, the date of its departure — and warns against any voice claiming to be that of a deceased person or a saint, formally forbidding questions about the future or about secrets^[38]. This ancient rule is decisive against sensationalist accounts that turn words spoken during a session into theological revelations: no word reported during an exorcism, whatever its alleged origin, can found a doctrine. The complete course of the 1614 rite — prior discernment, a religious setting away from the crowd, sacramental preparation of the subject, few and praying assistants, litanies and Psalm 53, Gospel readings, conjuration formulas and then the major adjuration — is documented in eighteen precise steps by Sbalchiero^[39]. Two elements of this ancient text — the permission to use restraint in case of danger and the search for supposedly maleficial objects — already called, the author notes, for critical contextualisation: they can in no way be mechanically transposed outside contemporary law, medicine, and safety standards.

The post-Vatican II era — apparent retreat then spectacular renewal

The recent history of the ministry of exorcism is marked by a three-phase trajectory that must be carefully distinguished, since it is often misunderstood. Contrary to a widespread idea, the contemporary expansion of exorcism did not immediately follow the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965): it actually unfolded in three stages spread over sixty years.

First stage (1965-1985) — a period of pastoral retreat

In the twenty years immediately following the closing of Vatican II (8 December 1965), the ministry of exorcism actually undergoes a period of pastoral retreat in parts of the Catholic West. Three factors converge:

• The influence of the theology of demythologisation (popularised by the Lutheran Rudolf Bultmann but received in certain Catholic circles), which tended to present the demon as a "symbol" of evil rather than a real person;
• The post-conciliar rationalism of certain theological circles, which interpreted the Gospel exorcisms as psychiatric healings retrospectively attributed to demonic action;
• The abolition of the minor order of exorcist by Saint Paul VI in his motu proprio Ministeria quaedam of 15 August 1972, as part of the general reform of minor orders in favour of instituted ministries alone (lectorate, acolytate). This abolition is purely disciplinary — it in no way signifies that exorcism ceases to be a legitimate ministry — but it may have been misinterpreted as a sign of the Church's lack of interest in spiritual combat.

During this period, many European bishops ceased to appoint diocesan exorcists, for lack of clear requests and trained priests. Padre Amorth himself testifies in his books that, when he was appointed exorcist of Rome in 1986, he was almost the only one of his kind in all of Italy, whereas there had been, before Vatican II, exorcists in most Italian dioceses. Saint Paul VI, aware of this drift, delivered on 15 November 1972 his famous address on the demon (« Confronto col Diavolo ») in which he firmly stated: "Evil is not merely a deficiency, but an efficiency, a living being, spiritual, perverted and perverting. A terrible, mysterious and frightening reality."

Second stage (1985-1999) — the renewal under John Paul II

It was under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II (1978-2005) that the genuine renewal of the ministry of exorcism occurred — not as a reaction against Vatican II, but as a full implementation of conciliar teaching, especially that of Lumen Gentium on the Church militant. Several landmark stages:

• 1985-1986: appointment of Padre Gabriele Amorth as official exorcist of the diocese of Rome (1986), training under Father Candido Amantini;
• July-August 1986: a series of five general catecheses by John Paul II on angelology and demonology, including the audience of 13 August 1986 affirming that "the existence of the demonic world is at the heart of the Gospel"^[40]. These catecheses constitute the most structured solemn magisterial reaffirmation of the twentieth century on the subject;
• 1991: foundation by Padre Amorth and Abbé Chenesseau of the International Association of Exorcists (AIE);
• 1 October 1998 / 26 January 1999: approval and promulgation of the new Roman Ritual De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam — the first officially revised exorcism Ritual since the Rituale Romanum of Paul V (1614, that is, 385 years earlier).

Third stage (2000-2025) — contemporary expansion

Since the turn of the millennium, the ministry of exorcism has experienced remarkable expansion in the Catholic West, under the double impulse of growing social demand (secularisation, esotericism, occultism, recourse to "seers") and a magisterial will to rigorously regulate the practice:

• 2005: opening by the Italian Episcopal Conference of an annual training course for exorcists at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum (Legionaries of Christ University, Rome). Several hundred priests have since been trained there to date;
• 13 June 2014: approval by the Congregation for the Clergy, under Francis, of the canonical statutes of the AIE (~250 exorcists in 30 countries);
• 2020s: in France, estimates indicate over a hundred officially mandated diocesan exorcists (compared to around fifteen in 1980 — 16 recorded in 1977^[41]); in Italy, almost all dioceses once again have an official exorcist;
• September 2025: message from Pope Leo XIV to the international congress of the AIE, describing exorcism as a "necessary and delicate ministry".

The lesson of this trajectory

This three-phase trajectory — pastoral retreat 1965-1985, renewal under John Paul II 1985-1999, contemporary expansion 2000-2025 — shows that the relationship between Vatican II and exorcism is more complex than simple linear causality. The Council itself taught nothing different from tradition concerning the demon (cf. Lumen Gentium 16, on the "powers of darkness"); but its immediate reception underwent, in certain circles, a rationalist drift that practically marginalised the ministry for two decades. It is precisely the magisterial authority of Saint John Paul II, from 1986 onwards, that made possible a return to a fully integrated practice — faithful both to the Church's doctrinal continuity and to the pastoral renewal willed by the Council itself.

The timeline below visually summarizes the landmark magisterial acts of this recent history, from Paul VI's discourse on the demon (1972) to Leo XIV's message to the AIE congress (September 2025).

“Evil is not merely a deficiency, but an efficiency, a living being, spiritual, perverted and perverse. A terrible, mysterious and frightening reality. He who refuses to acknowledge its existence departs from the realistic, biblical and ecclesial vision.” — Saint Paul VI, general audience Confronto col Diavolo, 15 November 1972^[42]

“The existence of the demonic world is at the heart of the Gospel. The whole history of humanity can be viewed in terms of total salvation, in which is inscribed Christ's victory over the ‘prince of this world’.” — Saint John Paul II, general audience of 13 August 1986^[43]

The great historical cases

The Western history of exorcism is punctuated by famous cases — some remaining iconic, others becoming, a posteriori, the object of historical criticism. Patrick Sbalchiero, in his Enquête sur les exorcismes — Une histoire du diable (Perrin, 2018), traces this history with rigor — his first chapter, “Les faits bruts” (pp. 19-140), lists more than forty documented cases from Saint Anthony of Egypt (251-356) to contemporary possessions^[44]. A few decisive milestones:

• The Affair of the Possessed Nuns of Loudun (1632-1638) — the dramatic exorcisms of the Ursulines of Loudun, accusations against the priest Urbain Grandier, burned alive in August 1634. Sbalchiero recalls that the affair began on the night of 21 September 1632, when Jeanne des Anges, superior of the Ursuline convent, and several nuns claimed to see the ghost of their former confessor; within weeks, “fourteen other nuns display the same signs” — convulsions, blasphemies, spitting out the Host, nocturnal running along the rooftops^[45]. The investigation conducted by Laubardemont (a relative of Jeanne des Anges) and the political rivalry between Grandier and Richelieu make the affair inseparable from its politico-religious context — something historical criticism rightly emphasizes — without thereby validating the hypothesis of a mere plot, several physical phenomena attested by the magistrates remaining unexplained. Aldous Huxley drew from it The Devils of Loudun (1952), brought to the screen by Ken Russell (1971).
• Saint John Vianney (Curé of Ars, 1786-1859) — famous for his uninterrupted combat against the demon, whom he familiarly called “the grappin”. Sbalchiero reports an exorcism dialogue at Ars on 23 January 1840 in the Saint John the Baptist chapel, where the holy priest questions in Latin: “Tu quis?” (Who are you?) and receives the answer from the possessed woman — “a masculine voice through the young woman's mouth” — “Magister caput! I am immortal”^[46]. The dialogue continues, with characteristic demonic mockery: “You annoy me! Ah! If that whore of a Blessed Virgin weren't protecting you!” — Marian protection reaffirmed as the first weapon against the demon's action.
• The audience of Pope Pius IX with “la Sibon” (30 October 1864) — Sbalchiero reports that a young Frenchwoman “seized by the demon”, nicknamed “la Sibon”, was received in private audience by Pius IX at the Vatican: “the young woman screams and blasphemes”; the Pope replies: “Yes, I cast them out, these demons, and forever!”, and the possessed woman regains her calm^[47]. The episode illustrates the continuous practice of exorcism by the popes themselves — a practice continued in the twentieth century by Leo XIII, Pius IX, and Saint John Paul II.
• The Hélène-Joséphine Poirier de Coullons affair (Loiret, 1850-1872) — a massively documented French case, in which a pious young peasant woman endured for twenty-two years repeated phenomena (blows against walls, hurling to the ground, levitations attested by several witnesses in 1867, unexplained bruising, vomiting of metal needles)^[48]. Bishop Félix Dupanloup, the famous bishop of Orléans, authorizes in 1863 the great exorcism according to the 1614 Ritual and appoints three priests for this purpose — among them Father Bougaud, curé of Gien. During the first interrogation in Latin, “the demoniac answers them promptly in the language of Cicero, without a single mistake”. Pius IX himself celebrates three Masses for her intention in October 1868, and in 1872 Bishop Dupanloup, convinced of the reality of the possession, asks her to offer her sufferings “as an expiatory victim for the conversion of sinners” — which she accepts. The affair is exemplary on two counts: for its rigorous episcopal supervision (mandate, team of priests, the 1614 ritual strictly applied) and for the Marian expiatory purpose assumed by the possessed woman herself at the end of the process.
• The Anneliese Michel affair (1976, Bavaria) — the tragic case of a 23-year-old German woman subjected to 67 exorcisms by Fathers Renz and Alt before her death. A sensational trial in 1978 against the two exorcists and the parents; a case still studied today as a borderline example of the possible abuses when medico-psychiatric discernment is lacking. The inspiration for the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005).

Six cases examined by Patrick Sbalchiero — from Laon to present-day Romania

Patrick Sbalchiero's investigation lists, in its first chapter "The Raw Facts", some forty cases graduated from the best-established testimonies to the most tragic affairs. Six of them deserve detailed presentation: they illustrate, each in its own way, the demand for rigorous discernment — and the price paid, in some cases, by its absence.

Nicole Aubry — the notarised report from Laon (1566)

In 1566, in Laon, a young woman named Nicole Aubry was the subject of a public exorcism of which a royal notary drew up an official report — one of the oldest administrative documents preserved on a possession in France:

"The said woman [...], (held by seven or eight men), with her tongue hanging down to her chin, kept speaking and naming all the persons, both from the town of Laon and from other places (whom she had nevertheless never seen). And when the said lord Bishop showed the holy and sacred host and the chalice, the said woman rose up into the air..." — Notarised report cited by Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 35^[49]

This document attests to a concern for official attestation already present in the sixteenth century, several decades before the codification of the Rituale Romanum.

Antoine Gay — four months of observation before any exorcism (1843)

In 1843, Cardinal de Bonald asked two doctors to examine Antoine Gay before any religious decision. Sbalchiero points out that the observations continued for four months, with Dr Pictet delivering his report on 12 November 1843^[50]:

"We were unable to discover the slightest physical or moral alteration. On the contrary, he enjoys perfect health of both body and mind, an uncommon uprightness of judgement and reason." — Dr Pictet, report of 12 November 1843, cited by Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 89^[51]

But Sbalchiero immediately qualifies this document strongly: Pictet slides without transition from the absence of any identified natural cause to a religious assertion, going so far as to invoke a voice that he says revealed secret elements of the patient's life. The author concludes bluntly:

"This is no longer a medical diagnosis, but a theological dissertation from the pen of a doctor!" — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 89^[52]

This case remains one of the best examples of the cardinal principle of Catholic discernment: a serious medical assessment is indispensable, but the absence of a medical explanation never suffices, on its own, to establish a possession.

Bishop de Cooman — the method of separate inquiry (Phat-Diêm, 1924-1925)

In the affair of the Amantes de la Croix in Phat-Diêm (Indochina), Bishop de Cooman questioned separately eight nuns concerned by alleged phenomena of possession, so as to compare their testimonies without their being able to concert with one another:

"He meets them one by one to see whether their testimonies diverge. Their account is harmonious and free of any discrepancy." — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 102^[53]

The investigation then broadened to the whole of the motherhouse: fifty people testified under oath^[54]. This method — isolating the witnesses, comparing their accounts, widening the circle of depositions — remains a model of serious canonical inquiry, even if Bishop de Cooman's primary source (his Souvenirs d'un exorciste, published in 1949-1950, more than twenty years after the events) still calls for direct verification before any definitive assertion.

Lucia — ambiguity honestly maintained (Italy, 1991-2003)

The case of Lucia illustrates the intellectual prudence that a real dossier demands. After abdominal pains, loss of consciousness and severe wasting, she was hospitalised, operated on without any anomaly being discovered, then fell into a coma for two months. From 1991, Father Vincenzo Taraborelli exorcised her three times a week — for twelve consecutive years^[55]. Sbalchiero nonetheless refuses to decide:

"The usual signs point either to a possession or to a split personality." — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 123^[56]

This methodological honesty — acknowledging that a long and painful dossier may remain open between two possible readings — is precisely what a Catholic encyclopedia must preserve: the seriousness of discernment is also measured by its ability not to conclude prematurely.

Maurice Thériault — when danger must take precedence over the rite (Canada, 1970s-1980s)

The wife of Maurice Thériault first ruled out any psychiatric consultation, for fear of seeing him committed. The Archbishop of Boston nevertheless required a medical opinion, which quickly failed because of the threats made by Thériault. After several exorcisms, Maurice returned to live at home, then relapsed: he was accused of having assaulted his stepdaughter for years, before threatening his wife with a rifle and taking his own life^[57]. Sbalchiero poses the question that dominates the whole dossier:

"Even so, are all criminals possessed? And do people suffering from psychic ailments become potential Satanists?" — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 115^[58]

This case shows that an occasional ritual improvement never suffices to lift a serious psychiatric assessment or security measures — for the person himself as much as for those around him.

Irina Cornici — the illegal exorcism that became homicide (Romania, 2005)

The clearest case of absolute drift across the whole range studied by Sbalchiero is that of Irina Cornici, a 23-year-old Romanian woman suffering from depression, insomnia and emotional instability. Father Daniel Corogeanu exorcised her without episcopal authorisation: Irina was tied to a cross, a piece of tape placed over her mouth, then left without food or assistance^[59]. She died of exhaustion.

"A medico-legal certificate specifies the causes of death: asphyxia and dehydration." — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 126^[60]

A prior hospitalisation for schizophrenia was revealed afterwards. Corogeanu was sentenced in February 2007 to fourteen years' imprisonment, a sentence reduced on appeal to seven years in 2009^[61]. This is the absolute counter-example of a properly regulated Catholic ministry: absence of episcopal mandate, disregard of a prior psychiatric diagnosis, physical restraint, deprivation of food — everything that Canon 1172 and the 1999 Ritual exist precisely to prevent.

On 26 January 1999, after several decades of preparatory work carried out by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the new Roman Exorcism Ritual was promulgated under the title De exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam. Approved by Saint John Paul II on 1 October 1998, this Ritual is the first officially revised exorcism rite since the Council of Trent (385 years earlier)^[62].

The main innovations of the 1999 Ritual

Four principal innovations characterise the new Ritual compared with that of 1614:

1. Removal of harsh medieval phrasings describing the demon — vocabulary deemed too crude and liable to offend contemporary sensibilities without any detriment to spiritual efficacy.
2. Change in the mode of adjuration — instead of the direct imperative form ("I command you, unclean spirit, to come out of this body"), which was the norm of the 1614 Ritual, the new Ritual favours the deprecatory form: "May God Himself command you…" — that is, the exorcist invokes God to command the demon, rather than commanding the demon himself. This change underscores the ministerial humility of the exorcist, who acts only as an instrument of God.
3. Prior emphasis on discernment — the new Ritual requires a thorough medical and psychiatric evaluation before any major exorcism, and explicitly states the primacy of differential diagnosis between possession and psychiatric disorder.
4. Broader framework of prayers of supplication — the Ritual now includes, in addition to the major exorcism proper, prayers of supplication for cases of moderate demonic oppression that do not require the full rite.

Reactions to the 1999 Ritual — the permitted double practice

From the moment of its promulgation, the 1999 Ritual drew public criticism from experienced exorcists — Padre Amorth chief among them — who considered it "too watered down" and feared that it would be practically ineffective in the most serious cases. In response to these criticisms, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, issued a decree stating that exorcists may still use, with the permission of their bishop, the old Ritual of 1614. This permitted double practice remains the canonical situation today: most exorcists choose one Ritual or the other depending on the specific case at hand.

Traditional Catholic teaching — taken up and systematised by Padre Amorth in his successive books — distinguishes five degrees in the demon's action upon persons. This typology, which has no dogmatic value but constitutes a classic pedagogical tool of discernment, follows a progression from universal temptation to the rare and extraordinary possession^[63].

The table below summarises the five degrees, their relative frequency, the criterion that distinguishes them, and the proportionate pastoral response. This graduation is essential for understanding why the great exorcism concerns, in reality, only a tiny fraction of the requests addressed to diocesan exorcists — vexation and infestation being statistically far more frequent than possession properly so called.

The most delicate distinction concerns the transition between obsession (degree 4) and possession (degree 5) — the boundary at which the most rigorous medico-spiritual discernment takes place. Padre Amorth himself noted that out of his ~70,000 sessions, genuine cases of full possession did not exceed "a few dozen": pastoral pedagogy must therefore constantly resist the popular temptation to interpret everything in the light of the film The Exorcist (1973) — which presents as the norm what is, in the reality of the ministry, an absolute rarity.

1. Temptation — ordinary demonic action

Temptation is the most universal and ordinary form of demonic action. All human beings — including the saints, as illustrated by the account of Christ's temptations in the desert (Mt 4) — are subject to the demon's temptation. This action suggests to the mind thoughts contrary to God without ever compelling the freedom of the will. It is the subject of the final petition of the Our Father: "Lead us not into temptation"^[64]. Temptation calls for no exorcism: it is fought by prayer, the sacrament of penance, and the practice of the virtues.

2. Vexation or oppression — the external attack

Demonic vexation — or "oppression" in Padre Amorth's terminology — refers to an external attack by the demon upon the person, without control over the will or the body. It manifests itself through strange material trials (systematic failure of projects, unexplained illnesses resisting all medical treatment, repeated accidents), physical disturbances (temporary paralysis, loss of consciousness) or involuntary movements with no identifiable organic cause. Vexation remains external to the person, who retains his or her full spiritual lucidity.

3. Infestation — places, objects, animals

Demonic infestation refers to the presence of a demonic action linked to a place, an object or an animal — not to a person. Classic manifestations include: unexplained noises (footsteps, knocks, voices) in certain houses; objects that move or break without any physical cause; animals that behave abnormally in the presence of blessed objects. The exorcism of places — distinct from the exorcism of persons — is provided for in the Ritual for these specific cases.

4. Obsession — uncontrollable obsessive thoughts

Diabolic obsession is, in Amorth's classification, more serious than vexation because it strikes at the inner life: the person is assailed by uncontrollable obsessive thoughts, sometimes absurd but of such force that they cannot free themselves from them. Obsession is often accompanied by a state of prostration, despair and, in the most serious cases, suicide attempts. This is where the distinction from psychiatric disorders (obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression, schizophrenic disorders) must be drawn with the greatest rigour — a subject dealt with in section VII.

5. Possession — the supreme torment

Demonic possession is, according to Padre Amorth, "the most serious torment a demon can inflict upon a body"^[65]. During attacks of possession, the person "no longer controls anything of their own body": the demon takes control of the voice (speaks through their mouth, blasphemes, utters insults), of movement (superhuman strength, contortions), and sometimes of consciousness itself (the person afterwards has no memory of it). Outside these attacks — which generally last from a few minutes to an hour — the possessed person may return to normal functioning and, for the most part, has no memory of what took place during the attack. It is this discontinuous character that distinguishes possession from continuous psychiatric disorders.

The Rituale Romanum of 1614 — taken up by the 1999 Ritual in its pastoral introduction — lists three principal signs traditionally observed in cases of genuine possession. One must, however, be precise about their scope: the Church's contemporary pastoral teaching explicitly describes them as "first indications", never as automatic proof nor as a diagnostic protocol in the medical sense. The Bishops' Conference of Tuscany, in its pastoral letter "Magic and Demonology" of 15 April 1994, states this unambiguously after recalling the three signs of the Ritual:

"These signs are nothing more than first indications." — Bishops' Conference of Tuscany, "Magic and Demonology", 15 April 1994^[66]

The same document calls for these indications to be set alongside broader moral signs, warns against the risk of turning exorcism into a form of magic that "succeeds", forbids any media spectacle surrounding the person, and concludes with a directive that any serious Catholic pastoral practice must observe:

"In all cases, make sure you are helped by experts in medicine or psychiatry." — Bishops' Conference of Tuscany, "Magic and Demonology", 15 April 1994^[67]

The table below summarises these three traditional signs, their classic manifestations and the prior medical examination they call for. No single sign taken in isolation is sufficient, and their convergence together never constitutes sufficient proof in itself: it guides the discernment of a mandated exorcist acting in close consultation with doctors and psychiatrists — a discernment which remains, in the final analysis, a prudential pastoral judgement and not a technical diagnosis.

It is this triple series of indications, formalised by Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santori in 1614 and taken up by the 1999 Ritual, that structures Catholic pastoral discernment — not as a conclusive test in itself, but as a starting point that a medical examination and a thorough spiritual assessment must then confirm or rule out.

Sign 1 — Knowledge of unknown languages

The possessed person understands and speaks languages they have never learned — typically liturgical Latin, or foreign languages unknown to them. This sign — already mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as the inverse charism of Pentecost — is attested in almost all the cases of exorcism reported by Padre Amorth. The famous exorcism dialogue of the Curé of Ars reported by Sbalchiero (23 January 1840) is instructive: "Tu quis ?" (Who are you?), asks Saint John Marie Vianney in Latin; and the possessed woman — an illiterate peasant — replies, in a voice that was no longer her own: "Magister caput ! I am immortal"^[69].

Sign 2 — Superhuman strength

The possessed person displays physical strength disproportionate to their natural constitution — lifting objects impossible to carry, resisting several adult men, passing through walls or windows. The episode reported by John Paul II's official photographer, Arturo Mari, at a general audience in 1982, is exemplary: a young woman in her twenties, "held by six men", "thrashes about with inconceivable force" before John Paul II frees her with a simple laying on of hands^[70].

Sign 3 — Knowledge of hidden events and hatred of the sacred

The possessed person knows, without any natural information, of hidden events or secrets of the exorcist or the assistants — unconfessed sins, past events never recounted, personal plans. At the same time, they display a violent aversion to every sacred object: recoiling before the crucifix, vomiting blessed objects, tearing up holy images, blaspheming against the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. This hatred of the sacred is, for traditional exorcists, the most distinctive sign of a genuine possession.

The primacy of medical discernment

The 1999 Ritual insists strongly, in its pastoral introduction, on the absolute priority of medical and psychiatric discernment before any major exorcism. No exorcist should carry out a major exorcism without first ascertaining, through consultation with qualified doctors and psychiatrists, that the symptoms have no identified natural explanation at this stage. This careful wording is crucial: the present absence of a medical explanation never amounts to a positive exclusion of natural causes. Patrick Sbalchiero says as much without mincing his words regarding a case where the failure of treatments had been interpreted as a demonic sign:

"The absence of relief following medical treatment would be the signature of the Evil One. But there are personality disorders over which doctors have little (and sometimes no) power!" — Patrick Sbalchiero, Enquête sur les exorcismes, op. cit., p. 349^[71]

The prudent course of action expected is therefore: (1) symptoms observed and documented; (2) a serious medical and psychiatric assessment, without a diagnosis necessarily being reached; (3) traditional signs observed in convergence alongside prolonged spiritual accompaniment; (4) in cases of sufficient uncertainty, abstention from the major exorcism, while not refusing the person appropriate spiritual help — prayer, accompaniment, the sacraments.

One of the major developments in the Catholic doctrine of exorcism in the 20th century is the explicit integration of psychiatric discernment into the diagnostic process. Padre Amorth devoted an entire book to this question (Exorcism and Psychiatry, Éditions du Rocher, 2002), acknowledging that the great majority of people who present themselves to the exorcist actually suffer from psychiatric disorders and not from demonic possession.

The technical distinction — indicative criteria, never isolated proofs

Classical teaching retains several orienting criteria, but each of them calls for a serious clinical nuance that an honest pastoral approach cannot ignore:

• Discontinuity vs continuity — possession classically alternates between crises and periods of normal functioning, with amnesia after the crisis; severe psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia, dissociative disorders) often present with continuously impaired functioning. But this opposition must not be hardened to excess: the history of 19th-century psychiatry documents cases of hallucinations and delusions that were perfectly circumscribed, compatible with intact reasoning and preserved social or professional functioning. The alienist Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol thus reports the case of a man hearing persecutory and suicidal voices, while retaining total intellectual lucidity: “Otherwise, he reasons perfectly well; all his intellectual faculties are of perfect integrity”^[72]. A person can therefore hold a coherent discourse, work normally, and yet experience circumscribed hallucinatory or delusional phenomena: apparent good functioning is sufficient neither to exclude a psychiatric disorder nor to establish one.
• Reaction to the sacred — a marked aversion towards blessed objects, the crucifix or holy water is traditionally retained as a strong indicator. But Sbalchiero points out that a psychic imbalance can, by itself, produce a comparable reaction of aversion towards anything touching on religion^[73]: this sign can therefore never function on its own as a proof.
• Spontaneous polyglossy — effective and verified knowledge of a language genuinely unknown to the person remains a rare and significant sign. However, any confusion with a mere change in voice timbre or a few foreign sounds reported without control must be set aside: the history of psychiatry already documents, in the 19th century, voice alterations and partial polyglossy phenomena in patients with no connection to a demonic cause^[74].
• Knowledge of occult events — knowledge of secrets or hidden events that the person could not normally have known remains the hardest indicator to explain naturally, but it requires rigorous independent verification before any conclusion.

Respect for medicine

Padre Amorth, in I Met Satan, insists strongly on the necessary collaboration between exorcists and doctors: “The demon can do nothing against the sacraments of the Church, nor against medicine. When a man suffers, one must first ask him whether a doctor has seen him.”^[75] This prudential position is today constitutive of the official pastoral practice of the AIE: no major exorcism may be conducted without a prior medical assessment.

A late vocation — from resistance fighter to exorcist

Gabriele Amorth was born on 1 May 1925 in Modena (Italy), into a family of five children. Before his priestly ordination, he knew a turbulent youth: a “partisan” during the Second World War in the Italian Resistance against fascism and Nazism, a law student at the University, and then a national official of the Italian political party Christian Democracy under Alcide De Gasperi and Giulio Andreotti — for a time he was Andreotti's assistant^[76]. This first-rank political trajectory could have made him a statesman; he got out in time: “If I enter politics, I will never leave it”, he would later say to his confrere Sznurkowski^[77].

At the insistent invitation of his former high school teacher — who had told him, when he was seventeen: “Join the Paulines!”^[78] — and after a promise made to the Virgin for the protection of his four brothers during the war, Gabriele entered the Society of Saint Paul (Paulines) founded by Blessed Don Giacomo Alberione. He was ordained a priest on 24 January 1954, at the age of 28.

Padre Pio as spiritual director

A biographical detail of the very first importance: Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968) — the great Capuchin stigmatist canonized by John Paul II in 2002 — was “for a long time his confessor and spiritual director”^[79]. The relationship between the future exorcist and the Capuchin saint, himself famous for his spiritual battles and his knowledge of the demonic world, is one of the factors that shaped Amorth's spirituality.

The apprenticeship with Father Candido Amantini (1986)

The true turning point in Amorth's life comes in 1986, when he is sixty-one years old. Cardinal Ugo Poletti, Vicar General of Rome, entrusts him with the role of assistant to the Passionist father Candido Amantini — the official exorcist of the Scala Santa in Rome for nearly forty years, regarded as “the most renowned exorcist of his time”^[80]. Amorth trains directly under this experienced master for several years, until he himself becomes official exorcist of the diocese of Rome from 1986 to 2016 — that is, for thirty consecutive years.

More than 70,000 exorcisms

In 2010, during an interview with the journalist Marco Tosatti (Confessions), Padre Amorth estimated that he had personally performed “more than 70,000 exorcisms”^[81]. This figure — which may seem staggering — is explained by the fact that many patients received several sessions: complete liberation sometimes requires dozens of sessions over several years. Amorth himself specified that genuine cases of plenary possession were rare (on the order of a few dozen throughout his career), the great majority of consultations concerning milder cases (vexation, oppression, infestation) or unfounded requests (psychiatric disorders).

A life of hard work

According to the testimony of his Pauline confreres — including his interviewer Don Sławomir Sznurkowski, who knew him for 33 years (1981-2014) — Padre Amorth “worked from morning to night, seven days a week, including at Christmas and Easter”^[82]. He had “neither a mobile phone nor a computer” and “never consulted the Internet, television or the press”^[83]. Beyond exorcism, his specialties included Mariology (the study of the place of the Virgin Mary in the divine plan), and for years he directed the monthly Marian journal Madre di Dio (Mother of God).

The written work

Padre Amorth published some twenty books on exorcism and spirituality, the main titles translated into French being:

• An Exorcist Tells His Story (Éditions du Rocher, 2010)
• New Stories of an Exorcist (Éditions du Rocher, 2011)
• Exorcism and Psychiatry (Éditions du Rocher, 2011)
• Defeating Evil with Mary (Salvator, 2013)
• I Met Satan — The Battle of the Most Famous Exorcist (Éditions des Béatitudes, 2016)
• The Demon Can Do Nothing Against God's Mercy (Pierre Téqui, 2016)

He died on 16 September 2016 in Rome, at the age of 91, after continuing his ministry as an exorcist until his last days.

Before returning to Padre Amorth in the full breadth of his ministry, it is important to present the man who was his direct master in the ministry of exorcism: Father Candido Amantini, C.P., an Italian Passionist, official exorcist of the Scala Santa in Rome for thirty-one years.

An early Passionist vocation

Candido Amantini was born on 31 January 1914 in Bagnolo, a hamlet of Santa Fiora in Tuscany (Italy), the son of a blacksmith and a homemaker. At the age of twelve, after his primary studies, he entered the minor Passionist novitiate in Nettuno, near Rome. On 23 October 1929, at the age of fifteen, he received the religious habit and took the name “Candido of the Immaculate”^[84]. He would later profess solemn vows and be ordained a priest a few years afterward.

Biblical scholar and professor (1941-1961)

In 1941, Father Candido deepened his biblical studies at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where he studied Greek, Latin and Hebrew. He subsequently became a professor of Sacred Scripture and Moral Theology in the Passionist formation houses. He published a work of Marian spirituality entitled The Mystery of Mary — which bears witness to a rare doctrinal depth and explains why his later ministry as an exorcist would be marked by a strong Marian dimension.

Official exorcist of the Scala Santa (1961-1992)

In 1961, the Vicariate of Rome appointed Father Candido official exorcist of the Diocese of Rome and of the Vatican City. He carried out this ministry at the Scala Santa — the sanctuary housing the “Holy Staircase” from the praetorium of Pilate, traditionally climbed by Christ during his Passion and brought to Rome in the 4th century by Saint Helena — until his death on 22 September 1992. Thirty-one years of uninterrupted ministry, which would make him, in the words of Padre Amorth himself, “the most renowned exorcist of his time”^[85].

The testimony of Saint Padre Pio

A precious biographical detail: Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina said of Father Candido that he was “truly a priest according to God's Heart”^[86]. This judgment, coming from a stigmatized saint himself deeply engaged in spiritual combat, attests to the doctrinal and spiritual integrity of Father Amantini.

The cause for beatification (since 2012)

The cause for beatification and canonization of Father Candido Amantini was opened in Rome in 2012. On 21 March 2012, his body was exhumed and exposed for the veneration of the faithful in the Chapel of the Cross within the sanctuary of the Scala Santa. The cause is currently progressing in Rome^[87]. That Padre Amorth's master in exorcism is himself the subject of a canonical process of beatification is one of the signs of the theological seriousness of the contemporary Catholic ministry of exorcism.

If Padre Amorth, in his spiritual youth, had Saint Padre Pio as his confessor and spiritual director^[88], it is notably because the great Capuchin stigmatist himself knew intimately the battle against Satan — a battle that occupied his entire life as a monk and which he meticulously documented in his correspondence.

Twenty-six years with Padre Pio (1942-1968)

Padre Amorth recalls in his conversations with Don Sznurkowski that his direct acquaintance with Padre Pio spanned twenty-six years, from 1942 to 1968 — well before his own tenure as an exorcist in Rome (1986). It is this long spiritual companionship that explains the place of the Capuchin saint in his own theology of combat:

“Padre Pio is very special to me because I was acquainted with him for twenty-six years. Of course, that does not mean that I lived with him for twenty-six years, but that I went to see him regularly. I came to see him above all to take part in his Mass. […] The first Mass I attended lasted one hour and forty minutes. […] Padre Pio added nothing, but he celebrated with such fervour and such devotion that all those present were deeply moved. I saw men in tears at the end of Padre Pio's Mass.” — Gabriele Amorth, I Met Satan, chapter “Spiritual Remedies”, pp. 200-201^[89]

Several details of this testimony are theologically decisive. First, Padre Pio did not use the Roman Ritual in his ministry of deliverance: “Padre Pio too used very simple prayers; he never had recourse to the Ritual. Many saints, none of whom was an official exorcist, drove out demons. They did not have the Ritual at hand”^[90]. This clarification is fundamental for Catholic pastoral practice: the codified liturgy of the great exorcism is reserved for verified cases of possession requiring an episcopal mandate (Canon 1172), but the personal prayer of deliverance — grounded in the invocation of the Name of Jesus, the Rosary and confession — is accessible to any soul advanced in the life of grace. Next, the efficacy of this spontaneous prayer attests that Catholic exorcism is not a ritual technique but a sacramental manifestation of Christ's victory at Calvary (Col 2:15).

Continuous demonic assaults

Saint Padre Pio (Francesco Forgione, 25 May 1887 — 23 September 1968) — who entered the Capuchin novitiate at the age of 15 on 6 January 1903 and received the Franciscan habit on 22 January — reported throughout his religious life continuous demonic assaults, at times purely spiritual, at times physical and bodily. In a letter of 18 March 1913 to his spiritual father, he wrote:

“These demons keep striking me and knocking me out of bed; they even manage to strip off my shirt to beat me black and blue.”^[91]

In the morning, Padre Pio bore visible signs of the violence suffered during the night: bruises, wounds, torn clothing. Several Capuchin confreres from San Giovanni Rotondo testified to this in the course of the beatification process opened in 1969 and culminating in his canonization by John Paul II on 16 June 2002.

The many forms of the demon

According to the testimonies compiled in the canonical process, Satan appeared to Padre Pio “in the most diverse forms”:

• “in the guise of naked young girls dancing” (temptation of the flesh);
• “in the form of a crucifix” (temptation through false piety);
• “in the appearance of a young friend of the monks” (social deception);
• “in the guise of the spiritual father or the provincial father” (ecclesial deception);
• “in the guise of Pope Pius X or a guardian angel” (ultimate magisterial deception)^[92].

These testimonies illustrate the classical doctrine according to which the demon, the “father of lies”, can assume every appearance — including the holiest of appearances — in order to lead the soul astray. Saint Paul already taught this: “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14).

Padre Pio's spiritual weapons

Padre Pio taught that three main weapons were enough to repel the demon:

1. The invocation of the Name of Jesus — “Padre Pio managed to escape these assaults by invoking the name of Jesus”^[93];
2. The Rosary — “remained his shield of choice” (in the famous words of the Capuchin saint: “The rosary is the weapon”);
3. Frequent reception of the sacraments — daily confession, Eucharistic celebration with exceptional devotion.

This spiritual trinity — Holy Name of Jesus, Rosary, sacraments — would be taken up by Padre Amorth as the foundation of the ordinary spiritual protection he recommended to all the faithful in his conferences and his books.

Foundation in 1991

The International Association of Exorcists (IAE) was founded in 1991 by Fr. Gabriele Amorth and the French priest René Chenesseau, with the aim of:

1. Promoting the training of Catholic diocesan exorcists;
2. Encouraging meetings among exorcists for the sharing of experience;
3. Integrating their ministry into the ordinary pastoral care of local Churches.

The IAE holds regular international meetings in Rome (generally every two years) and publishes a bulletin enabling exorcists from around the world to share their cases and doctrinal questions.

Canonical approval of the statutes (13 June 2014)

For more than twenty years, the IAE operated de facto without its own canonical legal status. The situation changed in 2014, under the pontificate of Pope Francis: by decree of 13 June 2014, the Congregation for the Clergy approved the association's statutes, granting it private legal personality in the sense of canon law (canon 322 of the 1983 Code)^[94]. At that date, the IAE brought together “nearly 250 exorcists spread across more than 30 countries.” The pontifical approval formalised the ministry and constitutes, in the recent history of the Church, a strong sign of the renewal of exorcism.

Leo XIV's message (September 2025)

At the 15th international gathering of the IAE (Fraterna Domus, Sacrofano near Rome, 15–20 September 2025), Pope Leo XIV — elected on 8 May 2025 after the death of Pope Francis — sent the gathered exorcists an official message describing exorcism as a “necessary and delicate ministry”^[95]. In it, the Pope recalled the reality of the action of the devil and of spiritual combat in Christian life, and asked exorcists to combine doctrinal rigour (collaboration with doctors, strict discernment) and pastoral charity (welcoming those who suffer).

This intervention by Leo XIV takes its place in the continuity of the positions expressed before him by Saint John Paul II (catecheses of July–August 1986), Benedict XVI (general audience of 27 August 2008) and Francis (regular public reminders about the reality of the devil).

Beyond the major exorcism reserved to the mandated priest, the Catholic tradition places at the disposal of every faithful a set of ordinary spiritual weapons effective against the action of the devil. These weapons — prayers, sacramentals, devotions — are not accessories but constitute the Christian's normal response to daily spiritual combat. Padre Amorth presented them systematically in his conferences and his books.

The Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel by Leo XIII (1886)

One of the most powerful spiritual weapons of the recent Catholic tradition is the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel composed by Pope Leo XIII around the end of 1886^[96]. The context of its composition is itself related by the Pope's biographers: one day, after celebrating Mass, Leo XIII had a vision in which “the earth appeared to him wrapped in darkness, and from an abyss a legion of demons emerged and spread across the world to destroy the works of the Church.” Saint Michael then appeared and “with his sword drove the evil spirits back into the abyss.” Deeply shaken, Leo XIII immediately composed the prayer that follows, and ordered by pontifical decree its addition at the end of every Low Mass:

“Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our help against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And you, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.”^[97]

This prayer was recited at every Low Mass from 1886 to 1964 — the year in which Saint Paul VI ordered the suppression of the “Leonine prayers” as part of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. But it was never forbidden: Saint John Paul II, on 24 April 1994, during a Regina Caeli in Saint Peter's Square, publicly recommended its recitation “by all the faithful, particularly today when the action of Satan is felt with alarming force.” Padre Amorth considered it the most effective ordinary prayer of protection and recited it daily.

The Medal of Saint Benedict — a sacramental of exorcism

The Medal of Saint Benedict (in Latin: Medalla Sancti Patris Benedicti) is one of the oldest and most powerful sacramentals of the Catholic tradition in matters of spiritual combat. It dates back at least to the 11th century in a primitive form, and was solemnly blessed in its present form (“cross-medal”) by Pope Saint Pius X in 1742, then confirmed by Benedict XIV the same year.

The medal bears several inscriptions which together form a condensed prayer of exorcism:

• On the vertical stem of the cross: CSSML — Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux (“May the holy Cross be my light”)^[98];
• On the horizontal bar: NDSMD — Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux (“May the dragon not be my guide”)^[99];
• Around the medal: VRSNSMV SMQLIVB — Vade Retro Satana, Nunquam Suade Mihi Vana! Sunt Mala Quae Libas, Ipse Venena Bibas! (“Begone, Satan! Never counsel me your vanities! What you offer is evil — drink your own poisons!”)^[100].

This condensed prayer — traditionally attributed to Saint Benedict himself — constitutes, in Catholic doctrine, a true little private exorcism that any faithful can make their own when they feel the action of the devil in their life. The Medal of Saint Benedict, blessed by a priest, is a sacramental endowed with real spiritual efficacy — unlike superstitious objects, from which it is rigorously distinguished by the prayer of blessing that makes it a channel of God's grace.

The Rosary — the privileged weapon

The Rosary — a Marian prayer combining meditation on the mysteries of Christ and invocations to the Virgin — is, in the great Catholic tradition, the privileged weapon of ordinary spiritual combat. Saint Padre Pio is said to have said: “The rosary is the weapon” — a short formula that marked all of Capuchin spirituality in the 20th century. Padre Amorth, a direct heir of this spirituality through his confessor Saint Padre Pio, recommended:

“When a faithful asks me how to protect oneself from the devil, I answer: ‘Confession, communion, rosary.’ And if they insist: ‘Confession, communion, rosary, plus the Medal of Saint Benedict.’ And if they insist still further: ‘Confession, communion, rosary, Medal of Saint Benedict, prayer to Saint Michael.’”^[101]

The sacraments — ordinary protection

Above all the sacramentals, Catholic doctrine teaches the primacy of the sacraments as the ordinary protection against the action of the demon. Three sacraments are particularly efficacious:

1. Confession — which destroys the hold of mortal sin, the true open door to demonic influence (CCC § 1395);
2. The Eucharist — reception of the Body of Christ which "renews, strengthens and profoundly renews" the life of grace (CCC § 1391-1392);
3. The Anointing of the Sick — which confers, among its effects, "a gift of the Holy Spirit" for the spiritual struggle against evil (CCC § 1520).

Padre Amorth summed it up: "The sacraments can do what a thousand exorcisms cannot. Regular confession and frequent Communion are the true liberation."^[102]

Holy water, the crucifix, holy images

Among the other sacramentals traditionally efficacious in ordinary spiritual combat, the Catholic tradition highlights:

• Holy water — blessed according to the rite of the Roman Ritual, traditionally sprinkled on persons, places and objects;
• The blessed crucifix — central sign of salvation, particularly feared by the demon;
• Blessed holy images — of Christ, of the Virgin, of the saints (Saint Michael, Saint Joseph, Saint Padre Pio);
• The sign of the cross — a baptismal gesture that makes present Christ's victory over Satan.

The efficacy of these sacramentals rests neither on their materiality nor on "white magic": it rests on the prayer of the Church that blessed them, and on the faith of the faithful who use them in the communion of the Church.

Although this article concerns primarily Roman Catholic exorcism, it is important to briefly present the ecumenical perspective: exorcism is not a specifically Catholic feature but a practice shared by the main Christian traditions, in differing forms.

Exorcism in the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Church — which shares with the Catholic Church the heritage of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) and the tradition of the Church Fathers — has preserved a living practice of exorcism from the earliest times. The Trebnik (the Orthodox liturgical book equivalent to the Roman Ritual) contains several exorcism prayers:

• The prayers of Basil the Great (4th century) — four in number, collected in the Slavonic Great Trebnik and used in Russian and Greek liturgical practice;
• The prayers of John Chrysostom (c. 400);
• The prayers attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century).

Orthodox exorcism is generally reserved to experienced priests, without any institution equivalent to the explicit episcopal mandate of Catholic canon law. The patriarchates of Constantinople, Moscow, Bucharest and Athens each have their own specific tradition of exorcism, but the doctrinal substance remains remarkably close to Catholic doctrine.

Exorcism in the Protestant churches

The Protestant churches, following the Reformation (16th century), adopted divergent positions:

• Classical Lutheranism retained a simple baptismal exorcism in its original rite (Luther's Kleiner Katechismus, 1529), gradually abandoned by most contemporary Lutheran churches;
• Anglicanism maintained a baptismal exorcism in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, removed in 1552. The contemporary Church of England has diocesan exorcists under mandate (since 1972, on the recommendation of the commission chaired by Bishop Robert Mortimer);
• The Reformed churches (Calvinist, Presbyterian) have largely abolished the practice of exorcism, regarded as a "Roman superstition" — while acknowledging the reality of the demon;
• Pentecostal and charismatic churches have, by contrast, developed since the 1960s a massive practice of "deliverance" (deliverance ministry), exercised by pastors or charismatic laypeople without systematic theological training — a practice that draws criticism from classical theologians (Catholic and Reformed) owing to the absence of canonical oversight.

Summary comparative table

The table below sets out the current positions of the main Christian traditions regarding the practice of exorcism — fundamental doctrinal convergence, disciplinary and structural divergences.

Fundamental ecumenical convergence

Beyond practical divergences, all the great Christian traditions agree on three fundamental doctrinal points:

1. The personal existence of Satan and the demons as fallen angels;
2. Christ's definitive victory over Satan at Calvary (Col 2:15);
3. The duty of spiritual combat for every believer (Eph 6:12-17).

These ecumenical convergences constitute a solid basis for contemporary interconfessional dialogue on spiritual combat — a dialogue repeatedly encouraged by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis and Leo XIV. The Catholic specificity nevertheless remains clear: it is the only tradition to have preserved, without interruption since Christian antiquity, strict canonical oversight of major exorcism, which safeguards both doctrinal rigour and the dignity of the suffering person.

Over the past fifty years, the Catholic Magisterium has on several occasions publicly reaffirmed the personal existence of Satan and the reality of spiritual combat — in the face of a current of secularization within certain theological circles that tended to present the devil as a mere "symbol of evil" without real personality.

Saint John Paul II — the 1986 catecheses

Between July and August 1986, Saint John Paul II devoted a series of five general audiences to angelology and demonology. The audience of 13 August 1986 — the fourth of the cycle, entitled "Christ's victory over the Evil One" — is the most structured of the twentieth century. In it, the pope states clearly that "the existence of the demonic world is at the heart of the Gospel"^[103] and recalls that "the whole history of humanity can be considered in terms of total salvation, in which Christ's victory over the 'prince of this world' is inscribed"^[104]. The pope then sets out the dual dimension — real and theological — of the combat:

"The extraordinary and dramatic greatness of the work of Christ appears precisely in the struggle against the spirit of darkness, because this spirit really opposes God and Christ's salvific plan. The only effective defense against the action of the Evil One therefore lies in the imitation of Christ and in his redemptive sacrifice." — Saint John Paul II, general audience of 13 August 1986, "Christ's victory over the Evil One"^[105]

This solemn reaffirmation came at a precise moment: in the early 1980s, certain Western theological circles — heirs of Bultmannian "demythologization" — were still interpreting the Gospel teaching on the devil as a mere "symbolic category" to be surpassed. The magisterial gesture of John Paul II — five consecutive catecheses, dogmatic language without compromise — put an end to this ambiguity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, would confirm this position six years later, at nos. 391-395 (fall of the angels) and 2851-2854 (commentary on the sixth petition of the Our Father: "Deliver us from the Evil One"). Padre Amorth saw in John Paul II "the great magisterial figure" of his ministry — to the point of explicitly invoking him during his own most difficult exorcisms: "John Paul II, come to my aid! You know that I am weak and that I will not manage on my own!"^[106].

Pope Francis — constant firmness

Pope Francis (2013-2025), throughout his pontificate, insisted firmly on the personal reality of the devil. In numerous Santa Marta homilies, he recalled that "the devil is not a myth", that "he is a person" and that "he must be fought". The approval of the AIE statutes in 2014 and the promotion of diocesan training for exorcists are the institutional expressions of this pastoral line. On this point, Pope Francis held to deliberately plain language: "The demon exists, and we must fight him. That is what the Gospel says, and what Saint Paul teaches us: he does not fight with human weapons, but with traps and deceptions."^[107]

Leo XIV (since May 2025)

Pope Leo XIV, elected in May 2025, confirms this line. Alongside his message to the AIE congress of September 2025, he has reaffirmed in several public addresses that the ministry of exorcism is "necessary" to the contemporary Church, and that the training of diocesan exorcists must be "carefully supervised" by bishops, so as to avoid both sectarian abuses (self-proclaimed exorcists acting outside a bishop's mandate) and rationalist trivialization (the outright denial of the demon). The magisterial continuity Paul VI → John Paul II → Benedict XVI → Francis → Leo XIV is, on this precise doctrinal point, perfectly linear: no pope since Vatican II has weakened the doctrine of the personal existence of Satan; all have publicly reaffirmed it, with their own accents but identical substance.

The Increase in Exorcism Requests

Since the 1990s — coinciding with the accelerated secularization of the West, the growth of esoteric practices (spiritism, occultism, neo-paganism, recourse to "psychics" and "sorcerers"), and the massive spread of demon-related cinematic imagery — European and North American dioceses have noted a significant increase in requests for exorcism. In France, the number of officially mandated diocesan exorcists is estimated to have grown from around fifteen in 1980 to more than a hundred by the mid-2020s — Sbalchiero already counts 16 official exorcists in France in 1977, versus 93 in 2004, assisted by some fifty trained laypeople; in 2009-2010, the exorcist of the Diocese of Paris reportedly received more than 1,500 appointment requests in a single year^[108]. In Italy, the Italian Episcopal Conference has since 2005 organized annual training sessions at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum (University of the Legionaries of Christ), with several hundred priests trained to date.

The Massive Gap Between Requests and Actual Solemn Exorcisms

The field survey conducted by Sbalchiero among contemporary diocesan exorcists consistently reveals a considerable disproportion between the number of people received and the number of solemn exorcisms actually celebrated — a fact that should correct any spectacular image of the ministry conveyed by the cinema.

The Jesuit Joseph de Tonquédec, appointed exorcist of Paris in 1918, estimated that he had encountered only one truly problematic case out of ten thousand people received^[109]. Abbé Lebreton, exorcist of the Diocese of Saint-Brieuc from 1987 to 2003, personally received 1,094 people between 1988 and 2004, but celebrated only two or three solemn exorcisms over the whole period — 60% single women, 10% single men, 10% couples, and 5% children, with visitors aged 14 to 84, mostly from urban areas^[110]. Father Ludovic Frère, exorcist of Notre-Dame du Laus, for his part reports having received 80 to 90 people since July 2010, including some twenty cases deemed sensitive and only four retained as serious — none of them showing any extraordinary manifestation^[111].

Padre Amorth himself defended a more audacious position, which he justified in practice by exorcism as a discernment instrument in itself — a minority and contested position within the ministry, presented below as a controversy of practice (cf. Objection 4). The official line, for its part, requires rigorous prior discernment before any use of the rite, precisely to prevent a repetition of sessions from reinforcing, in a fragile person, an already entrenched delusional conviction. Father Ludovic Frère sums up the right posture of the mandated exorcist: he makes no autonomous diagnosis, only a deep pastoral conviction, received from the bishop and not from a personal charism^[112].

Contemporary Pastoral Recommendations

The Catholic Church issues several pastoral recommendations for the faithful:

1. Never ask for an exorcism without first consulting a parish priest and, where appropriate, a qualified doctor or psychiatrist.
2. Never take part in occult practices (spiritism, Ouija boards, black magic, séances with psychics or fortune-tellers), which, according to the Catechism, are open doors to demonic influence (CCC §§ 2115-2117).
3. Give pride of place to the sacraments — regular confession, frequent Communion, the Rosary — as ordinary protections against the action of the Evil One.
4. Make use of sacramentals — holy water, the sign of the cross, blessed medals, the prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel — for everyday protection.
5. Entrust yourself to the Virgin Mary, whose Rosary and Marian devotion are, in the great Catholic tradition, particularly dreaded by the demon. Padre Amorth liked to say: "The demon is afraid of the Virgin Mary."

Absolute Free of Charge and the Danger of Fake Exorcists

The Catholic ministry of exorcism is entirely free of charge: no payment, no fee, no promise of results can legitimately accompany it. Padre Amorth himself refused the offerings proposed after a session, quoting the Gospel:

"What you have received freely, give freely." — Gabriele Amorth, I Met Satan, op. cit., p. 144^[113]

This free gift is the best practical criterion for distinguishing authentic ministry from the commercial outfits that thrive on religious distress. Sbalchiero documents the proliferation of pseudo-priests, curse-lifters, and commercial platforms, and warns of the psychological and financial damage they inflict on vulnerable people^[114]. Amorth reports an emblematic case: an engineer suffering from persistent headaches pays 42 million lire — more than twenty thousand euros — for a small pouch to be worn at all times, which he is forbidden to open. The pouch contained, when opened, nothing but string and knots, and had produced absolutely no effect^[115]:

"Excuse me, but don't you think you've been well and truly taken for a ride?" — Gabriele Amorth, I Met Satan, op. cit., p. 163^[116]

The pattern of this scam — real suffering, an immediate promised solution, a secret object that must not be opened, an exorbitant price, a total absence of any verifiable effect — repeats itself invariably in commercial occult shops. No genuine Catholic sacramental — holy water, the Medal of Saint Benedict, a blessed cross — is ever sold, nor accompanied by a promise of guaranteed results: its reach depends solely on the faith of the one who uses it, not on any magical power intrinsic to the matter^[117].

The Catholic Rejection of Automatic "Generational Curses"

A widespread belief holds that a curse is transmitted automatically from one generation to the next through the blood. Padre Amorth rejects this with the utmost firmness, reporting the judgment of his own master, Father Candido Amantini:

"One inherits many things from one's ancestors: somatic characteristics, psychic traits, certain diseases; but curses, no! They do not pass through the blood!" — Candido Amantini, cited by Gabriele Amorth, I Met Satan, op. cit., p. 227^[118]

Amorth adds, drawing on his entire experience: "In two thousand years of Church history, this is the first time an exorcist has said that a curse can reverberate on the next generation", and notes that he has never personally encountered such a case among the thousands of exorcisms he has performed^[119]. This warning is pastorally decisive: it protects families from unfounded genealogical guilt, while never obscuring the very real suffering — exhaustion, bereavement, necessary vigilance — that the entourage of a person in spiritual or psychological distress may go through.

Imperative Safety Safeguards

No spiritual accompaniment, whatever its conviction, ever exempts one from maintaining medical care and safety vigilance. The cases examined in this article all converge on the same warning signs, which require immediate and priority medical care:

• Suicidal or homicidal thoughts or words — emergency psychiatric and safety assessment, without waiting for the outcome of any spiritual discernment;
• Malnutrition, refusal to eat, physical exhaustion — strict medical and nutritional monitoring, as the case of Anneliese Michel would have required;
• Epilepsy, documented neurological or psychiatric history — imperative continuation of treatment, never its interruption in favor of religious accompaniment alone;
• Violence toward oneself or others — immediate protection of the person and their entourage, recourse to emergency services if necessary;
• Addictions or substance use — specialized care, without reducing the disorder to a single spiritual cause.

Padre Amorth himself formulated this rule of collaboration, despite his sometimes bolder positions on other points: "The demon can do nothing against the sacraments of the Church, nor against medicine. When a man suffers, one must first ask him whether a doctor has seen him."^[120] No religious interpretation of suffering should ever replace a serious medical evaluation — this is, from Antoine Gay in 1843 to Irina Cornici in 2005, the most constant lesson of the entire history of Catholic discernment.

Spiritual warfare as an ordinary dimension of Christian life

Beyond the exceptional cases of major exorcism, Catholic teaching recalls that spiritual warfare is an ordinary dimension of Christian life, from which no one is exempt. Saint Paul already expressed this to the Ephesians: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against the evil spirits in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12). The Christian's armor — belt of truth, breastplate of justice, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God (Eph 6:13–17) — remains the fundamental response of every faithful to the action of the demon, whatever its form.

Catholic exorcism remains, in the 21st century, the subject of recurring objections that must be honestly presented before being answered. Three of them come up constantly in public debate — psychiatric, theological, hermeneutical. The ministry can only be defended intelligently by confronting these objections in their strongest form.

Objection 1 — "The possessions in the Gospels are merely pre-modern descriptions of psychiatric illnesses"

This is the principal rationalist objection, formulated by Rudolf Bultmann (Neues Testament und Mythologie, 1941) and taken up by the entire historical-critical exegesis of liberal Lutheran inspiration. The Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5) would be a schizophrenic, the epileptic of Tabor (Mk 9) a genuine epileptic, and so on. Exorcism would be nothing but a pre-scientific etiological narrative to be "demythologized" in order to reach the "existential core" of the gospel message.

Catholic response — three converging elements:

1. Exegetical argument: the evangelists themselves explicitly distinguish possessions from illnesses: "He healed many who were sick with various diseases, and he cast out many demons" (Mk 1:34). This systematic distinction rules out mere descriptive confusion. Mark, Matthew, and Luke use different technical vocabulary for exorcisms (ekballein ta daimonia) and for healings (therapeuein).
2. Historical argument: ancient Greco-Roman medicine (Hippocrates, Galen) was perfectly familiar with psychiatric and neurological illnesses (epilepsy, melancholy, mania). Jewish antiquity was not particularly credulous about demonic diagnosis — quite the contrary, rabbinic Judaism has always shown great prudence on these matters.
3. Magisterial argument: the position of the Church in 2025 — 1999 Ritual + DAE — fully integrates modern psychiatric discernment, while maintaining that beyond the medical diagnosis, certain residual cases can only be explained by demonic action (objectified superhuman strength, spontaneous glossolalia, knowledge of verifiable occult events). Padre Amorth himself acknowledged that more than 95% of the requests addressed to exorcists are in reality matters of psychiatric disorders — which is the exact opposite of a credulous demonology.

The Bultmannian objection therefore assumes, without proof, that the evangelists confused what they themselves distinguish, and that the modern Church ignores what it has methodologically integrated since 1999.

Objection 2 — "The Anneliese Michel case (1976) proves the danger of the rite"

The tragic case of the young German Anneliese Michel (1952-1976) — subjected to 67 exorcisms by Fathers Renz and Alt before dying at the age of 23 from exhaustion and malnutrition — is regularly invoked to discredit the Catholic practice of exorcism. The 1978 trial convicted the two priests and the parents for negligent homicide.

The precise course of the affair, as recounted by Patrick Sbalchiero, illustrates the scale of the pastoral disaster: Anneliese had suffered from convulsions since adolescence and had been followed by four psychiatrists for four years before the exorcisms began. From 1975 onward, she underwent one or two major exorcisms per week; she refuses to eat, performs up to six hundred successive genuflections during the sessions, which causes knee injuries, then develops pneumonia and severe nutritional deficiencies. She dies on July 1, 1976, weighing only 31 kilograms^[121]. None of those involved — family, priests, religious entourage — had gauged the psychological and physical pressure that the weekly repetition of the rite imposed on a young woman already weakened by a neurological pathology documented since adolescence.

Catholic response — three essential clarifications:

1. The Anneliese Michel case is precisely a borderline example of the abuses that the 1999 Roman Ritual aims to prevent: absence of serious medical and psychiatric discernment, disorderly multiplication of sessions, isolation of the patient, neglect of somatic treatments for a young woman clinically epileptic (diagnosed in 1968).
2. The episode paradoxically contributed to the reform of the Ritual: it was precisely after the 1970s and 1980s, marked by several problematic cases, that the Congregation for Divine Worship undertook the revision completed in 1999, with its solemn insistence on prior medical assessment as a canonical condition of any major exorcism.
3. The argument is asymmetric: one does not invalidate cardiac surgery because a patient died from a surgical procedure that was poorly indicated. The Anneliese Michel case does not invalidate properly conducted exorcism; it validates the canonical safeguards that the Church has precisely strengthened since.

Objection 3 — "Why does an all-powerful God still tolerate the demon?"

This metaphysical objection, deeper than the previous two, overlaps with the classic problem of evil applied to angelology: if God can annihilate Satan with a word, why does He allow his action to persist?

Catholic response — a Trinitarian synthesis:

1. Respect for created freedom: God, in creating free spiritual beings (angels and men), accepted in advance the risk of their revolt. To annihilate Satan would amount to denying the very nature of the freedom He gave them. This is the constant doctrine of Saint Augustine (De libero arbitrio) and of Saint Thomas (Ia, q. 19, a. 9).
2. Permission ordered to the greater good: God permits limited demonic action because it can serve the purification of the elect, the awakening of spiritual vigilance and — by contrast — the manifestation of His own mercy (cf. the book of Job).
3. Eschatological victory already won: according to Col 2:15, Christ has already "disarmed the principalities and powers" at Calvary; Satan's defeat is definitive — only his final eschatological manifestation (Rev 20:10) remains, which will come at the last judgment. Exorcism is precisely the sacramental that makes "already" present this victory "not yet" fully manifest.

The objection therefore presupposes a truncated theistic model — an omnipotent God isolated from the Trinitarian God and from the economy of salvation. Catholic theology responds not with a logical shortcut, but with an articulation between creation, freedom, redemption, and eschatology.

Objection 4 — "An experienced exorcist can use the rite itself to establish the diagnosis"

This objection comes from within the Catholic ministry itself: it is raised by Padre Amorth. In his interviews with Sznurkowski, he states bluntly:

« Je ne peux savoir qu'une personne est possédée qu'en pratiquant un exorcisme sur elle. » — Gabriele Amorth, J'ai rencontré Satan, op. cit., p. 96^[122]

He develops elsewhere the idea that, in case of doubt, several repeated exorcisms would necessarily bring the demon out if he is present^[123]. This personal pastoral position, held by one of the most experienced exorcists of the twentieth century, deserves to be presented honestly — and discussed with equal rigour.

Catholic response — three points of prudence:

1. This position never became the official norm of the ministry. The 1614 Ritual, like that of 1999, requires on the contrary a prior discernment, before any recourse to the rite, precisely so that a session does not itself become the instrument of the diagnosis it is meant to confirm.
2. The risk of suggestion is documented. Sbalchiero reports the case of a former exorcist who lost his episcopal mandate but continued to perform highly suggestive sessions on a patient over several years without any established liberation — a concrete illustration of the danger that indefinite repetition of the rite reinforces a delusional conviction in a vulnerable person rather than dispelling it^[124].
3. The most prudent field practice goes in the opposite direction. Father Ludovic Frère, exorcist of Notre-Dame du Laus, makes clear that he makes no autonomous diagnosis and works in conjunction with a psychologist; other contemporary exorcists described by Sbalchiero systematically begin with one to two hours of listening before any decision, and retain only a tiny minority of cases within the properly exorcistic field^[125].

This internal controversy illustrates a broader point: even within a ministry as strictly canonically regulated as Catholic exorcism, a practitioner's personal experience, however authoritative, never replaces the institutional safeguards that the Church took centuries to build.

Catholic exorcism, far from being a medieval survival or a marginal phenomenon, remains in the twenty-first century a ministry fully integrated into the teaching and practice of the Church. Its bimillennial continuity (from the first exorcisms of Christ reported by Mark to the message of Leo XIV in September 2025), its strict canonical regulation (1999 Ritual, canon 1172, obligatory episcopal mandate), its affirmed collaboration with medicine and psychiatry, and the exemplary figure of Padre Gabriele Amorth (who renewed its practice for thirty years, under John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis) — all combine to show that the Catholic Church today approaches the question of the demon with a remarkable balance between spiritual realism (the demon really exists) and pastoral prudence (the great majority of cases stem from a cause other than demonic possession).

For the ordinary faithful, the lesson is clear: the point is neither to trivialise the demon — as a secularised rationalism that denies his existence would do — nor to overestimate him — as a devout sensationalism that sees Satan everywhere would do. The point is, in the great Catholic tradition, to take the demon seriously without fearing him excessively, because « le démon ne peut rien contre la miséricorde de Dieu »^[126] — a formula taken up by Padre Amorth as the title of his last book published in his lifetime in 2016. Christ's victory on Calvary is already won (Col 2:15); exorcism is but its sacramental application in the present time, awaiting its final eschatological fulfilment at the end of time.

• Le Dicastère pour la Doctrine de la Foi — Doctrinal authority overseeing questions of exorcism and the discernment of supernatural phenomena.
• L'enfer — réponses aux principales objections — Catholic doctrine on eternal damnation, the final state of the demons and of lost souls.
• Notre-Dame de Fatima — Marian apparition whose messages include an explicit dimension of spiritual combat against the demon.
• La réponse au mystère du mal et de la souffrance — Catholic theodicy linked to the doctrine on Satan.