A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I couldn’t resist following the link:

Yes, I’m a glutton for punishment. It may be a remnant of my past religious life. It also may be a remnant of my past religious life that I feel compelled to share part of the linked item, plus some comments, with you.
The Aurora Murders and Demonic Possession
Father Dwight LongeneckerWhat makes a mild mannered, promising young scientist decide to arm himself to the teeth, walk into a suburban movie theater and start killing innocent people at random?
Did he have a bad childhood experience? Doesn’t seem that way. Everybody says he was a nice, very smart, shy kid. Maybe a bit of a geek, but there are millions of geeks who don’t go on killing sprees. Was he insane? There weren’t any warning signs that he was crazy. Was he politically or religiously motivated? No evidence. Was he driven crazy by violent video games? He didn’t seem to play more than most kids. Was his mind poisoned by the nihilistic second Batman movie? It was a dark film, but millions saw it and didn’t go on a rampage. Was he somehow “possessed” by the Joker character? Some say the demonic Joker drove Heath Ledger to kill himself.
Now it’s getting spooky. There was a weird phone message with bizarre guttural voices and moans. Was he demon possessed? Maybe. It happens.
Father Longenecker doesn’t waste much time getting to his primary point. Notice how he tosses out and dismisses several plausible ideas. Then, notice how he tosses out two implausible ideas and tries to pass them off as more credible than the claims he dismisses so glibly. Take the Heath Ledger reference: “Some say the demonic Joker drove Heath Ledger to kill himself.” Who are “some” people? How many of them are there? Where are his references for this claim? Well, how about that – he offers no references. Why am I not surprised? Let’s not overlook the fact that the “demonic Joker” is a fictional character. The last time I checked, imaginary creatures had no power to drive anyone to do anything. But maybe I’m making too much of the demonic Joker reference. After all, it may just be a segue into the topic Longenecker really wants to address: demon possession.
Demonic infestation is a rare, strange and terrible psycho-spiritual affliction. In simple terms, a malevolent, separate intelligence infests the mind and spirit of a person. It takes over the rational faculties and dominates the personality. The phenomenon is real, but anyone who has ever dealt with the problem realizes that the demonic realm is complex. The human person is an intricate organism in which the physical, mental and spiritual aspects are totally interwoven. Therefore, in most cases, trying to diagnose the possibility of demonic influence is extremely difficult.
This is because, in theory, demonic influence in a personality can exist on several different levels. Experts disagree about the terminology and extent of the diabolical influence, and in this arcane discipline, for reasons that will become clear, there are few set rules or guidelines. However, some levels of demonic involvement can be observed.
I’m not sure what to say about this mess of gobbledygook, except to note that no one has ever actually demonstrated that demonic possession is a real phenomenon, let alone that it is complex, strange or terrible. I will admit that I’m morbidly curious as to how one becomes an “expert” in an “arcane discipline” for which “there are few set rules or guidelines.” It sounds dodgy to me. Let’s take a look at what the “experts” have unraveled so far.
The first level of demonic influence is temptation. This is not just the mild desire to drink too much, overindulge, or have a sexual dalliance. That’s just part of being human. If there is a demonic element, the “temptation” is to do something radically and extremely vile. This can happen in a person’s life without any sign of supernatural activity.
The second level of demonic influence is obsession. At this level, there is still no sign of anything paranormal happening. The person starts to give in to the temptation. He may become reclusive and secretive as he becomes obsessed with the evil that he is entertaining. This evil may be in the form of occult activity, violent video games or movies, pornography, drug abuse, sexual perversion, sexual promiscuity, or obsession with power and violence.
Ah, temptation – the root of all evil. Some say temptation got Eve into trouble in Eden and it’s been the downfall of humankind ever since. So, it stands to reason (or what counts for reason when one is talking religious nonsense) that demonic possession, surely as terrible an evil as any, must begin with temptation. Where else could it start? Believers reading this nonsense may be comforted to know that most of the mundane “temptations” they deal with can likely be attributed to being normal humans rather than possessed humans. Unless they want to do some really disgusting stuff. In those cases, they may be on slippery paths to possession. Notice Longenecker’s increasing use of “hedging” language: the person who progresses from temptation to obsession “may” become reclusive and so on. Then again, he or she “may” not do anything of the sort. Notice also that “obsession” is not defined. How does one determine whether one is merely being tempted or is becoming dangerously obsessed (and possessed)? Too bad the good father doesn’t offer an answer for that question. Perhaps I moved too quickly with the comfort.
The obsession with evil will probably have an addictive element. The personality begins to change. The individual may seem “normal” most of the time, but he’ll have “dark moments” when his “inner demons” take over. The difficulty in diagnosing demonic influence is that these same symptoms may indicate substance abuse problems, mental illness, social maladjustment, emotional inadequacy, relationship problems or a complex web of such difficulties. Demonic influence will cause these symptoms, but these symptoms are not necessarily a sign of demonic activity.
Oh, oh, oh! Maybe the line between “temptation” and “obsession” is the “addictive” element. Oh, wait. The addiction thing is only a probability. Maybe the obsession can be identified by an addictive nature. Or maybe not. Moreover, sometimes people have addictions that aren’t related to demonic activity at all. Remember when I told you to pay attention to the “hedging” language? I hope you’re keeping track because it’s cropping up everywhere now. Have you also noticed the repeated statements that demonic activity is really difficult to detect, diagnose, etc.? We all know what that’s called, don’t we?
In the first two levels of demonic influence, the malevolent spirit is still outside the personality. On the third level, the malevolent spirit seems to enter the whole person in a spiritual, mental and even physical dimension. This level of influence is called infestation. This is the stuff of exorcism movies—when the person exhibits disturbing physical, mental, and spiritual signs of infestation. The individual is “taken over” by the demonic spirit and paranormal phenomena are exhibited. When the signs of preternatural strength are seen, horrible alien voices come from the person, vile blasphemies are heard and perverted and violent actions are witnessed, one can be fairly sure that a demonic infestation is happening. However, many of these symptoms may also be signs of a deep mental or spiritual illness which is not demonic in origin.
The final stage of demonic influence is possession. This is when the malevolent spirit does not manifest itself any longer, but hides within the personality rather like a parasite. The person will appear to return to normal, but there is a shadow within. Even if they do so in a respectable and “normal” manner, they will live only for themselves and the darkness within.
Previously, we encountered two junior levels of demonic influence: temptation and obsession. Now, we’re moving into really dangerous territory: infestation and possession. I’ll point out that Father Longenecker has been sloppy with his use of the word “infestation.” He used it earlier in the piece as a general term: Demonic infestation is a rare, strange and terrible psycho-spiritual affliction. Now, he’s using it as a technical term to define one specific stage of demonic activity. If he’s confused about the language, how can he expect his readers to keep the ideas straight? I’m sure you noticed that “infestation” is when a demon “seems” to enter a “whole person.” Seems? Have I missed something? I haven’t yet seen any specific symptoms that can ever be used to derive a reasonably secure conclusion of “demon infestation” or “possession.”
If you can bear with me a bit longer, we’re coming to the home stretch.
In analyzing these levels of demonic influence, one must remember that each level builds on the former and there may be no sequence, predictability or diagnostic tests. In dealing with the interface between the paranormal realm and the complexities of the human person, the exorcist often feels like he is walking blindfolded through a minefield set in quicksand. He is wrestling with a pool of oily octopuses. He is on the edge of chaos where there is no foothold.
Is James Holmes demon possessed? It is impossible to say without a detailed diagnosis. Even then, it is a slippery question. We are dealing with a reality that is rubbery. In many ways this is the wrong question. Better to ask, “Was James Holmes taken over by Evil?”
Oh, my. I’ll start with this bit: each level builds on the former and there may be no sequence…. Excuse me. The notion of levels building successively on each other implies sequence. Father Longenecker has just provided a step-by-step progression from temptation through obsession through infestation through possession. Now he’s trying to say the sequence may not actually go that way. Or it may deviate sometimes. What, demons are going to start, say, at infestation and work their way down to temptation? I also like the bit about there being no predictability or diagnostic tests for demon possession. This brings me back to my earlier question about expertise. If there are no reliable symptoms, patterns or tests re: demon activity and possession, how does one know whether one is dealing with demons or mental illness or substance addiction? And how does one earn the right to hang an exorcist’s shingle on the door? The whole thing reeks of scam. As an aside, I’ll suggest that, if you have the heart for it, maybe you can spare some pity for the poor exorcist who has to work his or her way (probably his, we all know how most religions feel about women) through all those dreadful metaphors.
Now, the coup de grace. Longenecker has gotten us all this way, he’s asked the question he’s been leading up to at length, and the best answer he has is, “We can’t answer that question at this time.” Then what the fuck was the point of this whole damned article? He teases by throwing out pictures of demons, then, when it’s time for a gut check, he backtracks to some weaselly notion of “evil.” Argh!
I’m so frustrated with this jackass that I’m not even going to discuss the rest of the article. He goes on about “evil” at some length. If you’re interested in reading it, follow the link and help yourself. If you want some idea of where he goes from this point, here’s the end of his piece:
Love is the meaning that makes us remember in a compassionate connection that this dark act took place in a town named Aurora, which holds a hopeful meaning: “Daybreak.”
Is that saccharine or what? The stuff leading up to it, several paragraphs of it, is just as bad. It’s nauseating. I think what Longenecker really wants to do is scare the shit out of people by ranting about demon possession. But, realizing that he can’t leave his readers feeling hopeless, he has to wind his way around to an uplifting conclusion. Thus, he chides that demon possession is real and people must be wary of the devil. But, they don’t have to let him (or evil, Longenecker’s devil without a face) get them down too much because love always wins.
Contrary to what Father Longenecker wants us to believe, love doesn’t always win over evil. Sometimes people treat each other like shit, and even more vilely than that, and they never answer for their behavior. More often, people behave with awesome nobility. People are not driven by demons. Rather (barring mental illness, etc.), they have the power within themselves to choose how they will live and behave. That is the most uplifting thought that anyone need offer to another.
– the chaplain





Paul Sunstone
July 28, 2012 at 12:00 am
“Experts disagree about the terminology…”.
I know the good Father speaks the truth here, because I myself happen to be just as much of an “expert” on demonic possession as he. In fact, the difference between us appears to be a mere matter of terminology.
That is, I refer to demonic possession using the highly technical term “bullshit”, while he seems to prefer using less accurate terms. Nevertheless, we possess the same knowledge. That is to say, neither one of us knows anything because there is nothing really to know.
Great analysis, Chappy!
the chaplain
July 28, 2012 at 6:44 am
I bow to your expertise on the matter. Even though you don’t know any more about this subject than I do. How could you? There’s nothing to know.
The Blog Fodder
July 28, 2012 at 4:09 am
And if you don’t pay him, you get repossessed?
It isn’t just Catholics that believe in demons. Fundamentalists too. I was present in the 1980s when a woman who was severely manic-depressive was forcibly held down and prayed over by the senior men from the organization I have since left that the demons that possessed her would leave.
We are headed back to the Middle Ages in all things, it seems. God speaks through natural disasters, demon possession, women treated like property and workers like serfs, bible and superstition trump science and on and on.
the chaplain
July 28, 2012 at 6:50 am
I read the brief bio on Longenecker. He’s written 16 books about Catholicism, and was an Anglican priest – my guess is, he didn’t want to take the celibacy vow (hey, I never said he was stupid!).
I don’t think there’s much doctrinal difference high Catholicism and High Anglicanism; that split was political: Henry VIII needed someone to approve his divorce with his first wife so he could marry the second one, who eventually lost her head over the matter, and the games went on and on through six wives. Turned out, Elizabeth I was pretty much the son Henry had always wanted, except for that pesky gender thing…
TorontoTroubleMaker
July 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Dear Chaplain, you are so wrong. You wrote “last time I checked, imaginary creatures had no power to drive anyone to do anything” but think about how many people do the most unspeakable horror because of their God/god/dog and many other forms of that evil called faith ;P ;P ;P.
Have a good one
the chaplain
July 29, 2012 at 9:29 am
TT
People do many things on behalf of imaginary beings in whom they believe. Those beings, not actually being, uh, beings, can’t and don’t make people do anything – they only exist in people’s minds, not the real world. When people act on behalf of their deities, what’s actually happening is something like:
a) they are doing things they want to do anyway and imputing responsibility for their behavior onto their imaginary friend(s).
b) they have been manipulated into doing something because someone they trust, or who has authority over them – priest, pastor, president, prime minister, etc. – has told them that their imaginary friend(s) want them to do it, or
c) they are manipulating people to do something they (the manipulators) want done by telling people that their imaginary friend(s) have commanded that it be done.
People have done countless horrors on behalf of non-existent entities in which they believe (or profess to believe). But, it’s not the imaginary beings who compel people to behave one way or another – it’s the people themselves (either ignorantly or using religion to justify what they know is immoral behavior) or those others who manipulate them. But it’s never the gods, they neither act for themselves nor compel others to act for them.
TorontoTroubleMaker
July 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Ok, yes, I’ll agree with you, but, it’s worth remembering that humanity has a propensity for externalising responsibility (and, IMNSHO, is exacerbated by the indoctrination into religion and brainwashing into belief).
A very interesting read is “Professionalism and Responsibility in the Technological Society,” Conrad Grebel Review Vol. III, No. 2 (Spring, 1985), pp. 133-153. It’s been re-printed a few times in other publications on ethics.
One of the interesting things discussed in it is the ability of people to externalise responsibility for crimes, even heinous crimes. For example, many of atrocities committed by normally law-abiding, upstanding citizens in the Weimar Republic were justified as simply “being part of the job”. People were asked to do something and they carried it out because it was their duty to do anything that was assigned to them to the best of their ability.
TorontoTroubleMaker
July 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm
“humanity has a propensity for externalising responsibility” AND for blindly accepting instructions.
truelogic
July 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm
We should make it very clear to all of those that claim to be Christians or an authority on the Christian God. If the Christian form of a God is real, the blame falls onto that being/God. “Yet all is of God” (II Cor. 5:18) It is obvious that Christians and their leaders are ignorant of their very God’s words or they haven’t the ability to face the fact that their God is truly and profoundly immoral. One needs only to read the Bible to make that discovery. “God is operating all in all” (I Cor. 12:6). To operate means to “control the function”!! Do these Christians think God is NOT operating all in all? Apparently they are denying their very Gods statements. Don’t they believe him? If so, why blame others. If Satan had anything to do with the killing we can determine why he did what he did in Scripture: “I (that would be the Christian God) created the waster (that would be Satan) to destroy” (Isa. 54:16). Therefore, God didn’t create Satan to be a good little angel that suddenly decided to go against God. No, God created him from the beginning with a purpose just as God himself created evil: “I create evil” (Isa. 45:7).
I only wish that someone that had a little knowledge of Scripture would come onto Fox News, or any other show where idiots make ridiculous claims about supernatural beings, and provide the endless list of Scriptures that make it obvious that God is the one in control of all things, and if evil happens, he does it, no one else:
“…so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things…” (Josh. 23:15).
“…shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord has not done it?” (Amos 3:6).
“What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil” (Job 2:10).
The next time some Christian or some religious leader attempt to put the blame of anything onto anyone else or on some other acts like sin, they clearly have know knowledge of the God they claim to follow and love.
Peace
truelogic
July 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Lets not forget that God proudly tells us that HE is the potter and he is the one that creates a vessel for honor (that would be me) and he is the one that creates a vessel for dishonor (that would be those like James Holmes). If you don’t like it, tell your God about it. I am sure you can imagine him telling you to ignore the facts and believe nonsense. Because we know that it has nothing to do with you (Christians), right? Clearly God is correct and you have no control over what you do just as I have no control over what I do…if God is real and his word true: “O lord, i know that the way of man is NOT IN HIMSELF. It is NOT in man that walks to direct his steps” Jer. 10:23. Man, it really sucks to be a robot and have no free will. Oh, but since I don’t believe in the word of this christian god or any other, i guess i have control over my actions. Being ignorant isn’t a good way to go through life. Everyone should teach their kids to question nonsense.
Brian M
August 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm
There was an alternative theology (Gnosticism) that very much acknowledged the ultimate meaning of these Biblical passages, that the Christian God Yahweh is evil, fallen, a monster.
Of course, the Catholic Church made sure to slaughter brutally the principle pockets of Gnostic religion (the Cathar Crusades), but Gnosticism is older than what we call “Orthodox” theology.
Ahab
August 1, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Delusional, dangerous nonsense . . . and sadly, there are still pockets of people in our society who believe in demons. Wouldn’t it be more constructive for Father Longenecker to probe the REAL roots of mass violence, rather that blame it on make-believe beings?
tommykey
August 14, 2012 at 7:52 pm
humanity has a propensity for externalising responsibility
Like the celibate Christian monks who would blame their jacking off fantasies on being tempted by female demons called succubi.
PhillyChief
August 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Crazy talk is fun. For instance, I could say the “demons” are just overcrowded sperm. When they reach a critical mass, a man goes crazy. Like the comedian Jim Norton says, you have to get the poison out. Clearly he wasn’t getting his poison out. See, that was easy.