Demoniacs
(Gr. daimonikos, daimonizomenos, possessed by a demon).
The idea of demonic possession by which a man becomes demonized, that is
possessed or controlled by a demon, was present in many ancient ethnic
religions, and in fact it is found in one form or another wherever there is a belief in
the existence of demons, and that is practically everywhere (cf.
DEMONOLOGY). Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the demonic
possession in the New Testament, for this is in many ways the most worthy of
special attention, and serves as a standard by which we may judge of cases
occurring elsewhere. Further questions in regard to these other cases and the
general practice of the Church in dealing with those who are possessed by evil
spirits will be treated in other articles (EXORCISM, OBSESSION).
Among the many miracles recorded in the synoptic Gospels, special prominence
is given to the casting out of devils or demons (daimon, daimonion). Thus, in St.
Mark, the first of all the wonders is the casting out of the devil from a demoniac,
the man "with an unclean spirit" (en pneumati akatharto) in the synagogue at
Capharnaum. And St. Peter thus describes the mission and the miracles of
Christ: "Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with
power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the
devil" (tous katadynasteuomenous upo tou diabolou -- Acts 10:38).
The reason for the stress thus laid on this casting out of the devils is not far to
seek. For the miracles of Christ, as St. Augustine says, are both deeds and
words. They are works done in testimony of His power and His Divine mission --
and they are words because they have a deep significance. In both these
aspects the casting out of devils seems to have a special preeminence. Few, if
any, of the wonders can be said to give such a striking proof of a power above the
order of nature. And for this reason we find that the disciples seem to have been
more impressed by this than by the other powers given to them: "Even the devils
are subject to us." And as, when He calmed the storm at sea, they cried: "Who
do you think this is this, who commands both the winds and the sea, and they
obey Him?" (Luke, viii, 25). So those who saw the devil cast out at Capharnaum
asked: "What thing is this? What is this new doctrine? For with power He
commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him" (Mark, i, 27). In the
same way it may be said that these wonders speak in a special manner and
show forth the meaning of His mission, for He had come to break the power of
Satan and deliver men from their state of servitude. It is thus that Christ Himself,
on the eve of His Passion, speaks of the great victory which He was about to
accomplish by His Cross on Calvary: "Now is the judgment of the world: now
shall the prince of this world be cast out" (John, xii, 31). That casting-out is
symbolized in the deliverance of every demoniac. They might also be in the
slavery of sin and in need of forgiveness. They might possibly have some bodily
infirmity and need healing; still, it was not for this that they were said to be
demoniacs, but because an evil spirit had literally entered into, and taken
possession of, them to control and direct, or perhaps hinder their physical
powers, e.g. to speak through their vocal organs, or to tie their tongues. And
though this possession might be associated with sin, this was not necessarily
the case; for sometimes this affliction might befall an innocent person, as in the
case of the boy who had been possessed from his infancy (Mark 9:20). So
neither is it necessary to suppose that there was any bodily infirmity in the victim
distinct from the demonic possession itself, even in the case of those who are
described as being blind or dumb as well as being possessed by a devil. For it
may be -- and in some places it may seem that this is intimated by the text -
that the dumbness or other infirmity is not due to any defect in the organs, but to
the fact that their normal activity is hindered by the possessing devil. Hence,
when once his influence and restraint is taken away, the infirmity immediately
disappears.
It is in this way that these cases of demonic possession have been constantly
understood by Catholic commentators, that is to say, the words of Scripture have
been taken literally, and understood to mean that an evil spirit, one of the fallen
angels, has entered into the demoniac, that this spirit may speak through the
voice of the demonized person, but that it is not the man, but the spirit, who is
speaking, and that by the command of Christ or that of one of His servants the
evil spirit may be cast out, and the possessed person set free. And though our
commentators and theologians have treated the subject of obsession with their
wonted fullness of detail and critical discrimination, for a long time there was little
occasion for any determined defense of this literal interpretation and acceptance
of the Scriptural doctrine on this matter. For even in the days of the first
Reformers, when so many traditional doctrines were rudely called in question,
there was no disposition to dispute the reality of demonic possession. The
primitive Protestants might not accept the claims of the Church to the power of
exorcizing evil spirits, as they plainly denied the higher sacramental powers of
the Christian priesthood but they had no mind to doubt or deny the existence of
evil spirits and the reality of Satanic influence and activity. Nor is this surprising,
since the beginning of Protestantism was marked by an increase in practices of
superstition, and for a long while, both in Catholic and in Protestant countries,
men were prone to be too credulous in these matters, and to exaggerate the
extent of obsession, witcheraft, and intercourse with evil spirits.
Needless to say, the whole traditional doctrine on this matter was rejected by the
Sceptical philosophers of the eighteenth century. And with the spread of new
ideas in the age of revolution and political economy and practical science, it
seemed, for a time at any rate, in the early nineteenth century, that the old
superstitious beliefs in spirits and witchcraft were dying a natural death. Most
educated men were incredulous of any diabolical agency in this world, even if
they retained some shadowy belief in the existence. of the evil spirits in another
sphere. But with a happy inconsistency, many who rejected as superstitious all
other alleged cases of obsession still professed their belief in the Gospel
narrative, with its numerous demoniacs and its miraculous exorcisms. Of course
it was possible, at least in the abstract, and without i making a too curious
examination of the facts, to hold a theory that possession had really happened of
old and had since ceased altogether. For all must admit that in any case it does
not occur with the same frequency in all ages or in every land alike. But it is one
thing to dispute the fact and another to deny the possibility of demonic
possession in medieval or modern times. It may be a great mistake, but there is
no contradiction involved in saying that obsession did happen of old but does not
happen now; it is surely another matter if we say that these things cannot
happen now, that they are intrinsically impossible. And though they may not be
fully conscious of their own motives it is to be feared that this is really the
position adopted by those who reject all cases of demonic possession except
those that are recorded in the New Testament. It is true that some are provided
with a theological, or Biblical, reason for this limitation. For they tell us that
possession was indeed possible before the Death of Christ, but that since that
great victory the power of Satan has been broken, or, in the language of
Scripture, he has been bound, so that he can no longer gain possession of the
bodies of men. It may be freely allowed that there is no contradiction or
inconsistency involved in admitting the Gospel cases of obsession and denying
the others, if this be the real reason for making the distinction. But it is difficult to
believe that this is really the ground on which all later instances are rejected as
unreal. For after all, this doctrine about the binding of Satan and the consequent
ceasing of obsession is at best a theological conjecture (see DEVIL) and a
plausible interpretation of a mysterious text, and as such it can hardly afford a
basis for a certain conclusion. And it may be safely said that those who deny all
modern or medieval cases of obsession are generally very certain of their
conclusion. There is a further difficulty in the fact that cases of obsession are
recorded in the New Testament as having taken place after the death of Christ.
It was no doubt due to the force of these objections or to a desire to find some
means of meeting or evading them, that the Rationalistic school of German
Biblical criticism set about the task of providing a new interpretation of the
Gospel cases of demonic possession. Older free-thinking philosophers and
assailants of revealed religion had bluntly denied the fact of obsession, and
asserted that the demoniacs were merely madmen, that they were suffering from
epilepsy, or mania, or some other form of mental alienation, and that Jewish
superstition had ascribed the disease to the presence of an evil spirit. The earlier
school of German Rationalist theologians endeavoured to modify this view of the
matter and so interpret the Sacred Text as to reconcile the naturalistic
explanation with due reverence for the Gospel and for the wisdom of the Divine
Redeemer. Thus they accepted the view that the demoniacs were merely
lunatics, and that it was only popular superstition that imagined that they were
possessed by devils. So far these theologians agreed with the infidel writers. But,
instead of making the confusion between lunacy and possession a ground of
attack on the Gospel, they went on to explain that Christ indeed knew the truth
and only accommodated Himself to the ideas of His ignorant hearers, who were
incapable of grasping the true facts, and that this was the wisest way to lead
them on to the truth. One of these interpreters seeks to explain the answers to
the evil spirit at Capharnaum by the method adopted by doctors in dealing with
those who are suffering under a delusion. The best means of curing them is often
found in an affected adoption of the patient's delusion, e.g., if he imagines that he
has to undergo some operation, the doctor will pretend to perform it. In the same
way it is suggested that the superstitious belief in demonic possession prevailed
among the Jews in the time of Christ (and whether true or false it certainly did
prevail among them), and in these circumstances a lunatic might very well be
under the delusion that he was a subject of this imaginary obsession- and thus a
wise physician might cure the delusion by means of an affected exorcism of the
non-existent evil spirit.
The fallacy of this crude Rationalism was searchingly criticized and exposed by
Strauss in his critical Life of Christ in the nineteenth century (Das Leben Jesu,
ix). He points out that such interpretations not only have no basis in the text, but
that there is much there that plainly contradicts them. The critic, he observes, is
really ascribing the ideas of his own time to those who lived in the first century.
And indeed a closer scrutiny of the evidence may well be enough to show that
this Rationalistic exegesis is inconsistent in itself and in conflict with the
testimony of the very documents on which it professes to be founded. It may be
admitted that there is an element of truth in the general notion that there may be
some condescension or accommodation where an enlightened teacher is
addressing a rude and uncultured audience, and one who cannot in some
measure adapt himself to their crude conceptions and habits of thought and
expression might as well address them in a foreign tongue. It may be added that
in the case of a Divine teacher there must needs be some condescension or
accommodation to the lowly ways of men. And for this reason St. Gregory
Nazianzen likens the inspired words of Holy Scripture to the simple language in
which a mother speaks to her lisping little ones. It need not surprise us,
therefore, did we find that Christ accommodated His words to the limitations of
those who heard Him. But this principle will not serve to explain His manner of
speaking and acting in regard to this matter of demonic possession, for it simply
will not fit the facts. It is not a question of some isolated and possibly ambiguous
action or utterance, but of many and various acts and utterances all consistent
with each other, and with the belief or knowledge that there is real demonic
possession, and utterly incompatible with the interpretation that has been put
upon them by these critics. It may be a wise course to humour a madman who
imagines himself to be possessed, by pretending to accept his belief and bidding
the devil depart from him, and in the case of some modern missionary, of whom
we knew no more than the fact that he had used some words in a case of
supposed possession there might be room to doubt whether he himself believed
in the possession, or was merely seeking to pacify a lunatic by making use of
his delusion. But it would surely be otherwise if we found the same missionary
speaking in this way about demons and demonic possession to others who were
not lunatics suffering from this painful monomania: if we found him teaching how
evil spirits enter into a man and how, when they are cast out, they wander in
desolate places. Yet this is what we actually find in the Gospels, where Christ
not only addresses the devils and bids them depart or be silent, and thus treats
them as personalities distinct from the man who is the subject of possession,
but speaks of them in the same way to His disciples, to whom he teaches a
doctrine about demonic possession. So again, it may sometimes be a wise
course for a religious teacher to deal gently with the beliefs of the ignoranth; may
feel that it is impossible to do all at once, and that some errors can only be
destroyed by gentle means and gradual enlightenment. It may be that the best
and most enlightened teacher, who found him self in the midst of a simple,
credulous, and superstitious population, would shrink from adopting harsh and
drastic measures to get rid of these cherished superstitions and popular errors.
And though on this point we must speak with some reserve, it is possible that in
such a case the teacher, in endeavouring to make himself understood by his
hearers, will use their own language and convey his own message of truth
through the medium of words and phrases which, taken literally, may seem to
give some countenance to these popular errors. But whether this be permissible
or no, it may be safely asserted that a wise and good teacher will not carry his
accommodation to the point of confirming his hearers in their delusions. And
these critics themselves can hardly question the fact that the whole treatment of
demonic possession in the Gospels has had this effect and has confirmed and
perpetuated the belief in real demonic possession.
And at least in these latter days there must be many who would have abandoned
all belief in the reality or even the bare possibility of any such possession, but
that they felt constrained to believe it on the authority of Christ and the testimony
of the Gospels. Certainly, if it were possible to accept this interpretation of the
early Rationalists, and regard the attitude of Christ as an accommodation to
popular beliefs and superstitions, it must be confessed that the alleged economy
has had very unfortunate consequences. Later Rationalists, who see the
difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of reconciling this view with the evidence of
the Gospels, have turned to other ways of escape, and, like the other
supernatural and miraculous elements in the Gospel narrative, the instances of
demonic possession and the casting out of devils have been explained as parts
of a mythical legend that has grown up around the figure of Christ or again they
have furnished grounds for disputing tie fullness of His knowledge, or the
authenticity and veracity of the narrative. This is not the place to deal with these
problems of apologetics; but it may be well to say a word on the true ground for
the rejection of belief in real demonic possession. The tendency has been to
deny the possibility of miracles or demonic possession. And it is sometimes
curious that critics who are so bold in setting limits to the knowledge of Christ
are often strangely oblivious of their own natural knowledge. On metaphysical
principles we can have no valid ground for deciding that such a thing as demonic
obsession is impossible, and it is a more reasonable, as well as a more modest,
course to keep to means of knowledge within our reach and examine the
evidence adducible for the actual occurrence of obsession. If any one has
examined this evidence and found it insufficient, his denial of demonic agency,
whether we accept it or not, is at any rate entitled to respect. But few of those
who have been most decided in their rejection of obsession or other preternatural
or miraculous manifestations have taken any pains to examine the adducible
evidence. On the contrary, they have generally dismissed it with contempt, as
unworthy of serious consideration. And Baader is surely well warranted when he
complains of what he calls "Rationalistic obscurantism and dogmatism" in this
matter (Werke, IX, 109). Of late years the magnetism to which this acute thinker
was calling the attention of philosophers in the work we have cited, and more
recently the phenomena of hypnotism and spiritism, have helped to bring the
critics to a more rational attitude. And with the weakening of this credulous
prejudice many of the difficulties raised against the demonic possession in the
New Testament will naturally disappear.
The instances of obsession mentioned in the New Testament may be roughly
divided into two classes. In the first group we are given some facts which, even
apart from the use of demonized or some equivalent term might suffice to show
that it is a case of demonic possession properly so called. Such are the cases of
the "man with an unclean spirit" in the synagogue at Capharnaum (Mark, i) and
the Gerasene demoniac (Luke, xi). In both of these instances we have evidence
of the presence of an evil spirit who betrays knowledge beyond the ken of the
demonized person or (in the latter case) manifests his power elsewhere after he
has been cast out. In the second group may be placed those cases in which we
are not given such distinct and unmistakable signs of true demonic possession,
e.g. the woman who had a spirit of infirmity (Luke, xiii, 11). Here, apart from the
words, spirit and whom Satan hath bound, there is apparently nothing to
distinguish the case from an ordinary healing of infirmity. A careful consideration
of the medical aspect of demonic possession has often been associated with a
denial of the demonic agency. But this is by no means necessary, and, rightly
understood, the medical evidence may even help to establish the truth of the
record. This was done by Dr. Wm. Menzies Alexander in his "Demonic
Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations, Historical, Medical and
Theological" (Edinburgh, 1902). In his view, the Gospel records of the chief eases
of demonic possession exhibit all the symptoms of such diseases as epilepsy,
acute mania, and so on with such accuracy of detail that the narrative can only
owe its origin to a faithful report of the actual facts. At the same time Dr.
Alexander is equally impressed by the cogency of the evidence for real demonic
possession at least in these cases. Even those readers who are unable to
accept his conclusions -- and in regard to later instances of obsession we are
unable to follow him -- will find the book helpful and suggestive and it may be
commended to the attention of Catholic theologians.
W. H. Kent
Transcribed by Tomas Hancil
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV
Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York