Starring Anthony Hopkins, Colin O’Donoghue, Ciarán Hinds

Warner Brother Enterprise presents a film directed by Mikael Håfström

based loosely on a book by Matt Baglio, The Rite: The making of a modern exorcist, 2009

rated: PG-13 for disturbing thematic material, violence, frightening images, and language including sexual references.

            The biggest difference between the film The Rite and the book on which it is loosely based is the character of the man called to Rome to be trained as an exorcist. In the film, this man is the fictional Michael Kovak, an affable seminarian who doubts his vocation and suffers from weak faith. In the book, this man is a real person, Father Gary Thomas, a well-educated 57-year-old American priest who was requested by his bishop in 2005 to train for the position of exorcist for his diocese. People who have read the book may find this difference distracting. However, it ends up being unimportant. Taken as a whole, the film is surprisingly accurate about the phenomenon of diabolical possession.

            The film deals with three exorcisms. The first case is that of a young pregnant woman. The exorcist helping her is Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins), an intense, charismatic priest originally from Wales but living alone in Italy in a suitably spooky house. Seminarian Michael Kovak is sent to train under Father Lucas. His training is hands-on. During a series of exorcisms on the young woman, Michael sees her exhibit disturbing behaviours, such as speaking a variety of languages in different voices, displaying superhuman strength, uttering obscenities, writhing, chok­ing, spitting, and convulsing when touched by a Crucifix or sprinkled with holy water. All these phenom­ena are consistently documented by reputable exorcists, which means the filmmakers did their homework. Oddly, Michael remains unconvinced of any supernatural explanation and insists the woman needs a psychiatrist.

            The second case is that of a young boy who has been bitten ferociously by an evil “mule” and displays knowledge of things he cannot know through natural means. Father Lucas asks pointed questions to determine whether or not the boy is suffering from child abuse. He becomes convinced it is a genuine case of extraordinary diabolic activity. As part of the exorcism, he demands to see the boy’s pillow, tears it apart, and finds inside the confirmation of his diagnosis. Again, the filmmakers did their homework. Exorcists emphasize the importance of correct diagnosis, and do indeed report the discovery of strange hidden objects as a sign of demonic activity in some cases. At this stage in the film, the seminarian Michael begins to believe.

            The third case is that of Father Lucas himself. This part of the film is the most sensationalistic and the least catechetical. Accurate reflection of Church teaching breaks down because the seminarian Michael successfully performs the exorcism on Father Lucas with the aid of a female journalist. The Catholic Church does not allow seminarians to perform exorcisms. If they attempt to do so, they are unlikely to be successful. An exorcism is to be performed only by a faithful priest appointed by his bishop. Also, experienced exorcists discourage the popular idea that the devil normally attacks the exorcist as revenge for the exorcism ritual.

            The main value of this film is its generally accurate portrayal of extraordinary diabolical phenomena, as documented by such experts as Father Livio Fanzaga, Father Gabriele Amorth, Monsignor Léon Cristiani and Father Corrado Balducci, to name a few. It is to be hoped that the film will sharpen the determination of believers to follow Christ. Through a salutary fear, it could also rekindle the faith of lapsed Catholics.

Lise Anglin works at a mental health centre in Toronto. She has a deep interest in spirituality. Ω

The Rite and Jesus the Exorcist

by Cale Clarke

            The new movie, The Rite, which recently opened as #1 at the North American box office, once again reveals Hollywood’s fascination with exorcism. 1973’s The Exorcist began this trend in earnest, with 2005’s The Exorcism of Emily Rose a more recent example. All three movies are, at least in part, based on actual cases.

            Whenever a movie like this appears on the scene, in­terest in real-life exorcisms begins to spike. It is therefore necessary to ask, “Did Jesus himself perform exorcisms?”

            It may surprise some readers of the Gospels to learn that there were many exorcists who abounded in Jesus’ day. The Lord himself acknowledged this when he asked the Pharisees, “by whom do your sons cast them (demons) out?” (Matthew 12:27). According to the Jewish historian Josephus, exorcists needed: 1) a formula from Solomon to be incanted, along with 2) a piece of wood (called “bunk” or “the bunk stick”), which had a scent from the Barras root (see Josephus, JW 7.6.3; Ant. 8.2.5, 46-49).

            The exorcist would use the bunk stick to draw the demon out of the nose (the ancients believed spirits would enter/exit a person via the nostrils). Heck, the person would probably sneeze (due to the scent of the Barras root), and the exorcist would say, “Look, there goes the demon!” Hmm…I wonder if that’s why people say, “God bless you” when some­one sneezes!

            On a more serious note, the reason why Jewish exorcists used incantations from Solomon was because, as Dr. Craig A. Evans points out in his magisterial commentary on Mark, “The tradition of Solomon as exorcist par excellence was widespread in late antiquity. The tradition began in 1 Kings 4:29-34 and was enhanced in later traditions such as Wisdom 7:17-21 and the Testament of Solomon. As ‘son of David’ (Mark 10:47, 48), Jesus would have been ex­pected in some circles to effect cures paralleling those effected by David’s famous son Solomon” (Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34b, p. 49).

            Jesus was, in fact, well known as an exorcist. The Gospels are littered with references to this, and no serious scholar of the matter doubts it. But what made Jesus’ exorcisms much more impressive than that of others in his time was the manner by which Jesus performed them. He had no need of rigmarole, incantations, the Barras root, or any other “bunk’, if you’ll pardon the pun. He simply says to the demons, in effect, “Shut up, and get out!”

            And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, “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.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” And at once his fame spread every­where throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee (Mark 1:21-28).

            Many wonder why Jesus would command silence from the demon, considering it correctly identified Jesus as “the Holy One of God”. Part of the answer lies in the fact that as the Messiah, Jesus did not want acclamation from demons – that is, he doesn’t want to use them as his P.R. team! Also, given the tense political situation of the time and the possible danger to Jesus’ life that a prema­ture public announcement of his messiahship could bring (other false messianic claimants of the day were executed as political threats to Rome), silence was prudent for the moment. As seen in the exorcism films, exorcisms also involve a power struggle around the issue of names. Know­ing someone’s name implies having some sort of power over them. Hence, the exorcist attempts to get the demon to give up its name. This is also why the demon in the aforementioned incident was attempting to make known Jesus’ true identity. Of course, Jesus silences the evil spirit, but it is always fascinating to note that, while demons do recognize Jesus’ true identity and must obey him, human beings often do not.

            Should we be worried about the presence of the demonic in our own day? As C.S. Lewis once put it, in The Screwtape Letters, there are two errors we can fall into, like ditches on either side of the road: “One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased with both errors.”

Cale Clarke is the Director of The Faith Explained Seminars: www.thefaithexplained.com. Ω