Via Media

Via Media


Milingo-Stallings Dream Team?

posted by awelborn

Rocco’s reporting on what he’s hearing…considering Milingo is an archbishop who can, you know…ordain …yikes.

Archbishop Milingo’s Moonie Wedding set off a summer of high drama in the Italian media, ending with Milingo’s reconciliation with John Paul II, a more stringent oversight for the his activities, and his separation from Sung, who charged that the Vatican was holding the archbishop hostage.

Stallings married his wife, Sayomi, a former Moon aide, at the same 2001 Unification church ceremony in which Milingo and Sung went public with their union. The couple have two children, and the AACC head is said to have kept close ties with Moon.

In a seismic move, it’s being said that Milingo and Stallings are moving toward joining with Moon to form a Unification-backed Catholic group. Given Milingo’s valid episcopal orders (he was ordained a bishop by Paul VI) and Stallings’ record on the ordination of women and married men, to call the prospect a "mega-schism" in the making would be an understatement.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(30)
post a comment
Tom Haessler

posted July 12, 2006 at 12:23 am


Yes! And let’s not forget Fr. Gabriel Amorth’s close association with Archbishop Milingo. The fact that a sophisticated theologian like Fr. Fessio would publish Amorth’s book, and that Ralph Martin and Fr. Baker would give it a good review show that orthodoxy is not necessarily a protection from credulity. Amorth believes in the “evil eye”, says that the new exorcism ritual approved by Rome “doesn’t work” (!), and rejects the traditional insistence on deciding BEFORE a solemn exorcism that one is not dealing with mental illness. The “success” of the exorcism, says Amorth, will determine whether or not there’s a real case of possession. Fortunately, Fr. Richard Woods, O.P. had the good sense to blow the whistle on this superstition. Amorth’s bad theology continues the recent tradition established by Malachi Martin (HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL) – Irish blarney masquerading as “demonology”.



report abuse
 

Tim Ferguson

posted July 12, 2006 at 12:45 am


Even if Milingo and Stallings team up – and I do think it’s a very real possibility, I think it’s an exaggeration to refer to it as a “mega-schism”. Stallings previous denomination-building experience has petered out in failure after a high-profile and well-financed beginning. Milingo would not be the first archbishop to break off on his own, and does not have anywhere near the following of his most recent predecessor in that endeavor, Msgr. Lefebvre. If Milingo joins Stallings (who has already been validly, if illicitly ordained a bishop) little would be added. It’s a sad thing, and something for which we all should pray, but it’s a blip on the ecclesiastical radar, if that.



report abuse
 

WF

posted July 12, 2006 at 1:06 am


Of course, the Pope could place them both under interdict and declare them unable to either receive or effect sacraments–but that would take some intestinal fortitude not seen in modern popes.



report abuse
 

Jimmy Mac

posted July 12, 2006 at 1:47 am


WF … Do you really think that a papal interdict would have any effect on Milingo, Stallings or any of their offspring? If you do, I have a nice bridge that you might be interested in buying.



report abuse
 

Lee Penn

posted July 12, 2006 at 2:01 am


If Stallings becomes a co-leader of a “Catholic” sect, the defrocked and suspended pedo-priests will have a place to go.
As I reported in my own book (see pp. 122-124 of False Dawn – the section about the Moonies):
“An ecclesiastical member of the “Invitational Committee” for the March 23, 2004 crowning of Moon was Archbishop G. Augustus Stallings, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Clergy Leadership Conference (ACLC), a Unificationist organization. Stallings has a colorful past. As Jason Berry, an expert on the Catholic sex-abuse scandal, reports: “In 1989, The Washington Post began coverage of the flamboyant George Stallings, who quit the [Catholic] priesthood rather than follow Cardinal Hickey’s request to enter a treatment facility after abuse accusations by former altar boys. He, too, was never prosecuted. Stallings launched his own religion, with drums, dancing, and stem-winding sermons that bestirred a tongue-in-cheek profile by 60 Minutes’s Morley Safer.”[1] Stallings founded the Afro-centric Imani Temple in 1989 in Washington DC, and accused the Catholic Church of racism. However, as Christianity Today reported, in May 2001, Stallings participated in one of the Rev. Moon’s trademark mass weddings; “strangely enough, though Stallings has repeatedly said that the world’s Jesus isn’t black enough (he once burned a portrait of ‘the white Jesus’), he didn’t want his wife to be African-American. Instead, he asked Moon for a Japanese wife because they’re ‘gentle,’ ‘take care of the kids,’ and don’t ‘party all the time.’ Needless to say, several of the black women in his congregation took offense at the comments.”
Stallings and the ACLC, meanwhile, have been involved in a campaign to remove crosses from Christian churches. As a writer for the ACLC magazine says, “In a recent international campaign, openhearted Christian ministers have courageously been taking down their church crosses. This is being done as acknowledgement that the crucifixion should not be the ultimate symbol of Christian faith, and also as atonement for the past oppression of Jews and Muslims through the cross as a symbol of political and religious domination.”
Unificationists say that Moon was inspired to begin the “take down the cross” campaign in June 2001, when lightning destroyed the cross that had been atop the chapel for 70 years at the Unification Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York. A seminary official said in July 2001, “As a symbol of Christ’s suffering and salvific love for all humankind, the cross is heroic and magnificent. But as a symbol of humankind’s malice toward God expressed by crucifying His son, the cross induces pain and sorrowful grief to God. While a symbol of God’s victory, it is also a symbol of human sin. In 1974, Father Moon directed that the cross remain atop our Seminary. Upon hearing of its demise this June, he said that it is now time for all crosses to come down. In its place, the Unification Theological Seminary will help raise up a banner of the oneness of God and humankind, culminating the expectations of all religions, beyond the cross into the resurrection and life eternal on earth and in Heaven.” The effort to develop a “theology” for this movement continues; in mid-2004, “the Theologians Club at the Unification Theological Seminary is hosting the UTS Theologians’ Conference to begin to delineate a clear Unification theology on the cross as a symbol and why it should be removed from churches at this time.”
Unificationist spokesmen claimed that 300 Christian congregations had removed the cross from their churches between April and August 2003. In a Good Friday 2003 press release, at the start of this Unificationist campaign, Stallings said that since Constantine, “the cross was a symbol of conquest and forced conversions, as expressed in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadores, the forced conversions of Native Americans and colonialism in Africa and elsewhere in the name of Christ. These were all carried forward under the sign of the cross. To Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and many others, the cross is a symbol of intolerance and domination, not love and forgiveness.” Thus, to foster religious unity, Christians should “take down the cross,” under the leadership of the ACLC – and, according to a Unificationist clergyman, “when Christianity takes down the cross a massive revival will break out in Christianity. 120 founded ACLC, now 120 set the condition to remove the cross and lift up Jesus in the resurrection. This will lead to the unity of Christianity, Islam and Judaism and soon a massive ‘family’ movement that will bless marriage removing the stained blood lineage from the earth.”
Footnote [1] (I can show others if needed):
[1] Jason Berry and Gerald Renner, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, 2004, Free Press, p. 73. In his groundbreaking 1994 book Lead Us Not Into Temptation, Berry provided further detail on Stallings. Berry wrote, “A priest who had known Stallings for years told me that his flamboyant lifestyle was well known among gay priests in the archdiocese. In the mid-seventies, under Cardinal Baum, Stallings had been a vocational director, recruiting young men for the seminary. The priest did not know whether Stallings had molested two young people (as the Washington Post would later report) or how much Archbishop Hickey knew. ‘Nothing about George would surprise me,’ the priest chuckled.” (Jason Berry, Lead Us Not Into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children, Image Books, 1994, p. 214) Berry also reported, “Ordained in Washington in 1974, Stallings proved a charismatic orator. As his inner city parish flourished, Stallings filled the rectory with antiques. When parish council members protested he flew into a rage. He also held back a portion of Sunday collections which was due the archdiocese. … In a 1990 series in the Washington Post, reporters Bill Dedman and Laura Sessions Stepp found that in 1979 a parishioner complained ‘that Stallings held parties at St. Theresa rectory and had men visit at odd hours.’ An archdiocesan official said that ‘the source of the complaints was unable or unwilling to specify allegations regarding possible sexual misconduct.’ In 1982, a pastoral assistant had quit after finding Stallings and a fourteen-year-old boy naked in a rectory bedroom. Stallings claimed they were taking a bath after jogging. His pulpit charisma made Stallings a commanding figure to his flock. When Hickey twice asked him to take a new parish, parishioners protested and he remained pastor. … He also accepted into his rectory a priest who had been suspended from his religious order for making sexual advances to adolescent males. In 1989, when Hickey ordered Stallings to enter the Paraclete monks’ hospital in New Mexico, Stallings blasted the church for being racist and launched the breakaway Imani Temple. The Post subsequently reported statements by two young men that Stallings had molested them while they were altar boys. Accusing the Post of racism, Stallings trumpeted his support of Marion Barry in the then mayor’s unsuccessful battle against drug charges and emerged as a folk hero to many embittered blacks.” (Jason Berry, Lead Us Not Into Temptation, pp. 218-219)”
Lee



report abuse
 

Tim Ferguson

posted July 12, 2006 at 7:17 am


Stallings, by receiving episcopal consecration without a pontifical mandate has already excommunicated himself (c. 1382) – interdict would have no further effect. If Milingo were to join with him, there would be serious canonical effects for him as well (though it should be noted that he, as yet, has not been shown to have done anything to harm his relationship with the Church and our presumption should be of his innocence).
Interdict (and excommunication) would impact their ability to receive and celebrate the sacraments licitly, but they would still be able to do so validly – both are validly ordained bishops of the Church (as were the bishops who consecrated Stallings illicitly).
Since Stallings theology now seems to include some odd aspects of the Unification Church, questions can be raised about the validity of the ordinations he does, but his celebration of the other sacraments, if they have the proper matter and form, are indisputably valid.
That has nothing to do with the “intestinal fortitude” of this or of previous popes. And please note, WF, that John Paul II, certainly a “modern pope” oversaw the declaration of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, his two co-consecrators and the four bishops they consecrated. If you’re looking for a pope to freely and wildly apply ecclesiastical penalties as a first response to questionable activity, those days, thankfully, are gone. Mindful the statements by Our Lord, (Matthew 18:12-20), the Church seeks to correct and reprove those who have fallen into error and excommunication and interdict are not “first response” tactics, but more along the lines of final warnings.



report abuse
 

Az

posted July 12, 2006 at 7:26 am


Surely, there would be a defect of intention should Milingo opt to consecrate bishops outside the Catholic Church, regardless of whether he himself has valid orders. No censure from Rome would therefore be necessary.



report abuse
 

Tim Ferguson

posted July 12, 2006 at 7:42 am


If he intends to ordain sacrificing priests and bishops and intends to do what the Church does in episcopal ordination, the priests and bishops he ordains would receive valid orders (just as the Orthodox, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholics, etc. do, even though they are acting outside of the Catholic Church). The defect of intention would come in, like it did with Anglican Orders, if the intention was not to ordain sacrificing priests.
However, if he were to consecrate bishops without a pontifical mandate, he and they would be subject to the same excommunication that affected Stallings, Lefebvre and his crew. If he ordained priests without permission of the local ordinary, they would be illicit and he and they would be open to ecclesiastical censure. Needless to say, any attempted ordination of a woman would be invalid, not through a defect of intention, but because the Church does not have the power to do so.



report abuse
 

Simon

posted July 12, 2006 at 8:41 am


A “mega-schism” implies a significant number of followers, which neither of these two clowns have.



report abuse
 

Fr. Seraphim Beshoner, TOR

posted July 12, 2006 at 9:13 am


Press release on this here:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=69082
It seems as if the Archbishop is on his way out.



report abuse
 

Gerard E.

posted July 12, 2006 at 9:21 am


Birds of a feather flock together. Both can merge their limited congregations. Until the inevitable battle for control. Fragmenting them once more. Ho hum. Mega Schism? More like Moonbat Schism.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 12, 2006 at 10:08 am


Tom Haessler, at the time I started this post, there were ten responses to Amy’s entry, nine of which pertained to the subject of her post.
You alone used this thread as a springboard to impugn Fr. Amorth, who is not even mentioned the article Amy cites. Whatever your personal disagreement with Fr. Amorth’s writings, I hope you recognize that it is YOUR personal disagreement, one which has you willing to discount the views of those who you acknowledge to be orthodox (Fr. Fessio, Fr. Baker and Ralph Martin).
I did a Google search on Fr. Richard Woods, the first results described his area of expertise as theology and political science. It took further digging to discover that his medical connection was working in Loyola’s Sexual Dysfunction Clinic, which has an interdisciplinary team. Fr. Woods’ academic training is in theology. I found no evidence that he has had formal training in the medical or mental health field. His only medical connection is in a clinic and I can tell you that sexual dysfunction clinics are not where the overlap of mental health and demonic activity is addressed.
Fr. Benedict Groeschel, in his foreward to Fr. Amorth’s book, An Exorcist Tells His Story, says that he does have difficulty with Fr. Amorth’s approach, the book should be “read with care but an open mind.” Note that he does not impugn Fr. Amorth as you do. That’s something you should keep in mind.
Among American mental health professionals who acknowledge the overlap of mental health and demonic/diabolical activity, the protocol is to address all mental health issues first before considering demonic activity. Fr. Amorth has a different view. Just as physicians sometimes have differing views as to how to best treat a condition, Fr. Amorth’s view differs from the standard here in the US. That does not make it “superstition.”
You obviously don’t agree with Fr. Amorth, but you would do well to not impugn him.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted July 12, 2006 at 11:02 am


Milingo was handled with kid gloves after his Moonie “marriage” in hopes of warding off just this situation: that he would begin a line of schismatic bishops. What idiot recommended that this man to become a bishop? If he gets loose in Africa and starts a “spirit church” with lots of exorcisms he could be very dangerous indeed.
People who’re inpressed by Fr. Amorth need to read up on possession phenomema in 17th C France–the Devils of Loudon, Marthe Brossier etc,. Fr. Amorth is heavily influenced by folk superstitions. There is no Catholic theology of the “evil eye”.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted July 12, 2006 at 11:07 am


A greater worry within our own country’s borders are free wheeling groups such as “rent-a-priest” made up of priests who have left, married, and who do not wish to abide by their current status within the Church. And then there are those who have formed quasi catholic churches which confuse tourists and others, thinking they are actually attending a bonafide Catholic Church. They marry homosexuals and encourage women priests, etc. We don’t have to wait for some larger headlines to alert us to what is already more insidiously entering the neighborhoods … even in parishes still considered in good standing within dioceses, like the infamous Joan of Arc…or those simply dissident priests who are allowed to preach heresy regularly from the pulpit. At least you can more clearly identify this “couple” as just weird folks. I wonder, if Mr. Moon did not have the material wealth base that he has, if anyone would give him the time of day.



report abuse
 

Tim Ferguson

posted July 12, 2006 at 11:16 am


A great resource for tracking down these bishops and priests who’ve struck out on their own – and the bishops and priests they’ve subsequently ordained, validly or not depending on the case, is this website, the Ind-Movement.org
great fun to explore on a rainy afternoon.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted July 12, 2006 at 11:24 am


Apparently there is nothing to fear – I suppose if you get the “right one” if ever in the need for such services:
There was an attempt made by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and by Cardinal Medina to introduce into the Ritual an article – it was article 38 at that time – which would authorize exorcists to use the previous Ritual. It was undoubtedly a maneuver in extremis to fend off on our behalf the grave errors found in the definitive Ritual. But the two cardinals failed in their attempt. Then Cardinal Medina, who had understood what was at stake in this matter, decided to grant us this lifeline anyway and he added a separate note.
So the Roman Rite can still be used … by the old pros!



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 12, 2006 at 11:51 am


Sandra, have you read Fr. Amorth’s book? I would think not since the “evil eye” is included only for the sake of rounding out a description and is not a fundamental part of his work. Nor do you seem aware that Fr. Amorth speaks of working with medical (physical and mental health) professionals.
What is your basis for your statement that “Fr. Amorth is heavily influenced by folk superstions”? Your reference of 17th century possession phenomena? Fr. Amorth’s book makes no mention of the 17th century.
It is interesting that those who have said that Fr. Amorth’s work is superstitious or “heavily influenced by superstitions” have not only not read his writings, neither do they have direct experience in the clinical or pastoral area where demonic/diabolical activity is most often detected.
I have done clinical work in the mental health field and Fr. Amorth’s core description matches well with instances in my clinical practice. (not my current work) Fr. Amorth’s book has gotten high marks from a priest of orthodox soundness with wide pastoral experience in discernment. Fr. Groeschel, who is probably the best known public figure in this area does not call Fr. Amorth’s work “superstitious.” It puzzles me that you feel so free to do so.



report abuse
 

naptown

posted July 12, 2006 at 12:35 pm


I’ve met Stallings many times. I live just around the corner from Imani Temple. And a few years ago I worked for a candidate who ran against Stallings for the City Council. (Stallings came in 2nd). He’s an amazingly charming man, speaks perfect Italian, very mild-mannered. Always accompanied by at least one huge bodyguard wearing those Secret Service earpieces and at least one striking woman. In conversation he is one of the most pleasant men I know. Makes me stop and think: How can he be so crazy? “The devil is most dangerous when he’s being pleasant.”



report abuse
 

JonathanR.

posted July 12, 2006 at 1:02 pm


“Makes me stop and think: How can he be so crazy? “The devil is most dangerous when he’s being pleasant.””
Hehe, you should listen to that Rolling Stones song, “Sympathy for the Devil”. He could be a dapper chap, but he’s still the devil.



report abuse
 

Christopher Fotos

posted July 13, 2006 at 12:55 am


Amy, posting here since it’s the closest comment section to your “what happened” post–I had the same problem–lucky for me I just had one substantive post on Wednesday, but when Typepad came back up, after being down for most of the day, it was gone.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted July 13, 2006 at 9:22 am


So you say Fr. Amroth doesn’t actually believe in the Evil Eye? Well he does thing an innocent third party can be posessed as a result of another person’s curse.
Fr. Amroth admired Milingo’s hysterical exorcism rallies. Fr. Amroth’s admiration for him was undaunted by Milingo’s appearances at Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Conferences for bishops which Rome forbade bishops to attend. Milingo contemputously rejected the Curial letter because little Vatican bureaucrats weren’t going to tell him what to do.
My reference to the exorcism follies of the 17th C wasn’t in reaction to anything said by Fr. Amroth but because they provide an interesting sidelight on contemporary exorcisms. Hint: the nuns at Loudon weren’t really possessed. Try reading THE POSSESSION AT LOUDON by Michel de Certeau. Also UNCLEAN SPIRITS by DP Walker.
But I wouldn’t trust Fr. Woods on Satanism either. His book on the Devil is very odd and includes positive comments about a particular group of Satanists.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 13, 2006 at 12:54 pm


A brief recap from yesterday since apparently Typepad lost some comments.
I responded to Tom who had gone off on Fr. Amorth even though Fr. Amorth wasn’t even mentioned in the article Amy cited.
Those who associated Fr. Amorth with superstition had clearly not read Fr. Amorth’s book. Fr. Groeschel, who wrote the English translation to Fr. Amorth’s book, An Exorcist Tells His Story, did not associate Fr. Amorth with superstition, but wrote, “this book needs to be read with care but with an open mind.”
For my own experience, I used to do clinical work in mental health and Fr. Amorth’s core explanation matched well with the limited examples I saw in my clinical work. In addition, a priest I know of sound orthodoxy and a depth of experience in pastoral discernment, has given high marks to Fr. Amorth’s book.
Sandra, let me take your post today, one paragraph at a time.
Your first paragraph shows clearly that you have not read Fr. Amorth’s book. Before you comment further about what Fr. Amorth says about the “evil eye,” please read the paragraph that he wrote about it.
Milingo is someone who is off my radar. Please give a reference to your claims about Fr. Amorth’s admiration of Milingo so I can look them up myself. First, because I like to check things out for myself. Second, because I’m surprised that an academic such as yourself is willing to make comments about what someone has written without reading what he actually wrote.
Fourth paragraph before the third. As I noted yesterday, Fr. Woods has no mental health training or experience (that I could find by Google search) and so in my book, has no credible basis for ridiculing Fr. Amorth’s writing.
Thank you for your reference to the 17th century exorcisms. I will probably add both titles to my list of books to read. However, I take your comment that they “provide an interesting sidelight on contemporary exorcisms” with a very large grain of salt.
You are a medievalist and on a topic about medieval times, I would give any of your comments much credibility. That does not extend to the topic of exorcisms.
Each person posting is entitled to his or her opinion about exorcisms, or any other topic. But more weight is given to those with education and/or experience in the field and that’s as far as I’m going with that line of thought today.
Maybe not. For all your academic credentials, your posts at times take on a very condescending, patronizing tone. Were I to do the same to you, I would ask why you think that 17th century exorcisms shed light on contemporary exorcisms. HINT: the first attempt at classification of “mental disorders” was at the very end of the 19th century. Try giving some credence to those who have direct experience with mental health and/or exorcisms.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted July 13, 2006 at 2:05 pm


No, I have not read Fr. Amroth’s books. But I have read interviews with im and newspaper articles on him, in one of which he praised Milingo’s “gift” as an exorcist. And this was after Milingo’s involvement with Fr. Gruner and his unapproved bishops’ conferences. (Those I read about in Gruner’s own publications, with Milingo’s defiance of Curial authority to forbid the gathering directly quoted, with photo.)
I am very well read in the literature of witchcraft and the occult. Posessions and public exorcisms conducted by prominent clerics were big news in 17th C France but even at the time some observors doubted that they were real and the Church eventually closed the thing down.
I certainly don’t deny that demonic Powers exist and can do mischief–I’m from New Orleans after all–but thousands and thousands passing under Fr. Amroth’s hands??



report abuse
 

T. Chan

posted July 13, 2006 at 2:42 pm


Can ther be an authentic charismatic gift even though one commits some sort of sin against charity? Yes. Did Archbishop Milingo conduct real exorcisms, or were they mere illusions of the devil, good enough to fool another exorcist, especially if he doesn’t have first-hand knowledge? It’s possible.
Given the fact that many bishops do not even appoint an exorcist for their diocese, it should not be surprising that many, including non-Romans, would seek Fr. Amorth out.
As for the amount of demonic activity in this world–there are still plenty of people dealing with [evil] spirits in societies not completely converted to Christ, whether it be in the form of folk magic, shamanism, or what have you. I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the evil eye, coupled with an intent to curse and invocation of the devil, whether implicit or explicit, is just a mere superstition, just as I wouldn’t dismiss the efficacy of using a shaman to put a curse on someone.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 13, 2006 at 5:41 pm


Hi Sandra,
LOL at “I’m from New Orleans after all-” That probably would give you a different starting point.
You probably have read more about witchcraft and the occult. When I ran into discernable evil in my clinic work, I tried to read up on it to know what I was dealing with. That is, until the point I received a word in prayer to stop delving into it and focus instead on goodness and healing.
God seems to be bringing me back to that field (with me doing a Jonah looking for a boat to Tarshish) so I read Fr. Amorth’s book. It was greatly reassuring to find that his basic explanation fit what I had come across. That said, I’ve also read parts of his book with raised eyebrows. But I was greatly surprised yesterday with the views of Fr. Amorth.
Bear with my thoughts on the points raised since I’m just on my first reading of his book. One criticism of Fr. Amroth that is valid is that his first book in not written in textbook fashion and it is difficult to find where I read something.
The number of blessings that Fr. Amorth claims was a repeated objection. It’s clear that he’s not talking about full possession. I think the big difference is that he makes much finer distinctions than the rest of us would. I don’t mean that he includes ineligible instances. It’s more like the popular culture example that the Eskimoes (Inuit) have 30 names for snow. Fr. Amorth mentions the exorcisms of baptism (which is an everyday example) and distinctions of degree of evil influence. I can tell that I’m getting too bogged down in details, so I leave that.
As for “evil eye” of yesterday’s discussion, this is from the (one) paragraph, he says it’s not the common perception that someone can cause another bad luck just by looking at him. It is in this paragraph that he gives what I think is the clearest explanation of spells, “it presupposes the will to harm a predetermined person with the intyervention of demons.”
Back to my thoughts. If we as Catholics believe we can help someone by asking the intercession of the saints or Mary, wouldn’t it be possible to intend harm to someone and ask the intervention of demons? Duh, I just found his definition of a generic curse as “harming others through demonic intervention.”
There’s almost too much content or complexity to address the topic in a combox. I’ll have to do a search and see if I can find interviews with Fr. Amorth and what the story is with Milingro. Maybe this weekend when the heat and humidity will limit me to in front of the fan.



report abuse
 

T. Chan

posted July 13, 2006 at 6:24 pm


just noticed the archbishop has a website:
http://www.archbishopmilingo.org/index.html



report abuse
 

Mike Richardson

posted July 13, 2006 at 9:04 pm


Hello, Everyone.
From studying the history of religion, one thing is a constant. When the time for “reform” draws near, one way or another, it will take place. Could this be the time to reform the priesthood? Wouldn’t priests and nuns make the best of parents as well as religious leaders? I imagine their families could really help this world. Only peace between men and women can lead to a world of peace.
All the Best,
Mike



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 13, 2006 at 10:52 pm


Sandra, just wanted to make sure that I mentioned that what convinced me that Fr. Amorth is one of the “good guys” is his insistence on basic Catholicism, frequent reception of the sacraments.
Also re evil eye “I want to stress that, while I believe that the evil eye is possible, I cannot be positive that I have encountered it in my experience as an exorcist.”
Sorry if I’ve rambled at all. I went to “lie down” at 6 tonight and woke up at 10. Whoops.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted July 13, 2006 at 11:18 pm


Given Fr. Beshoner’s reference, it looks like Milingo has jumped out of the barque.



report abuse
 

fxto qdjhaivyg

posted July 28, 2007 at 5:06 am


hrymnzj ewahil ibksnozy lzhs cmurpshe bprkysie bdjkaqyme



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.