Exorcism
Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from
persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by
them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the
means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative
adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or any of the higher power in which
he is subject.
The word, which is not itself biblical, is derived from exorkizo, which is used in
the Septuagint (Genesis 24:3 = cause to swear; III(I) Kings 22:16 = adjure), and
in Matthew 26:63, by the high priest to Christ, "I adjure thee by the living God. . .
" The non-intensive horkizo and the noun exorkistes (exorcist) occur in Acts
19:13, where the latter (in the plural) is applied to certain strolling Jews who
professed to be able to cast out demons. Expulsion by adjuration is, therefore,
the primary meaning of exorcism, and when, as in Christian usage, this
adjuration is in the name of God or of Christ, exorcism is a strictly religious act
or rite. But in ethnic religions, and even among the Jews from the time when
there is evidence of its being vogue, exorcism as an act of religion is largely
replaced by the use of mere magical and superstitious means, to which
non-Catholic writers at the present day sometimes quite unfairly assimilate
Christian exorcism. Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion,
however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may
be, with a legitimate religious rite.
IN ETHNIC RELIGIONS
The use of protective means against the real, or supposed, molestations of evil
spirits naturally follows from the belief in their existence, and is, and has been
always, a feature of ethnic religions, savage and civilized. In this connection only
two of the religions of antiquity, the Egyptian and Babylonian, call for notice; but
it is no easy task, even in the case of these two, to isolate what bears strictly on
our subject, from the mass of mere magic in which it is embedded. The
Egyptians ascribed certain diseases and various other evils to demons, and
believed in the efficacy of magical charms and incantations for banishing or
dispelling them. The dead more particularly needed to be well fortified with magic
in order to be able to accomplish in safely their perilous journey to the underworld
(see Budge, Egyptian Magic, London, 1899). But of exorcism, in the strict
sense, there is hardly any trace in the Egyptian records.
In the famous case where a demon was expelled from the daughter of the Prince
of Bekhten, human ministry was unavailing, and the god Khonsu himself had to
be sent the whole way from Thebes for the purpose. The demon gracefully retired
when confronted with the god, and was allowed by the latter to be treated at a
grand banquet before departing "to his own place" (op. cit. p. 206 sq.).
Babylonian magic was largely bound up with medicine, certain diseases being
attributed to some kind of demoniacal possession, and exorcism being
considered easiest, if not the only, way of curing them (Sayce, Hibbert Lect.
1887, 310). For this purpose certain formulæ of adjuration were employed, in
which some god or goddess, or some group of deities, was invoked to conjure
away the evil one and repair the mischief he had caused. The following example
(from Sayce, op. cit., 441 seq.) may be quoted: "The (possessing) demon which
seizes a man, the demon (ekimmu) which seizes a man; The (seizing) demon
which works mischief, the evil demon, Conjure, O spirit of heaven; conjure, O
spirit of earth." For further examples see King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery
(London, 1896).
AMONG THE JEWS
There is no instance in the Old Testament of demons being expelled by men. In
Tobias 8:3, is the angel who "took the devil and bound him in the desert of upper
Egypt"; and the instruction previously given to young Tobias (6:18-19), to roast
the fish's heart in the bridal chamber, would seem to have been merely part of the
angel's plan for concealing his own identity. But in extra-canonical Jewish
literature there are incantations for exorcising demons, examples of which may
be seen in Talmud (Schabbath, xiv, 3; Aboda Zara, xii, 2; Sanhedrin, x, 1). These
were sometimes inscribed on the interior surface of earthen bowls, a collection of
which (estimated to be from the seventh century A.D) is preserved in the Royal
Museum in Berlin; and inscriptions from the collection have been published,
translated by Wohlstein in the "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" (December, 1893;
April, 1894).
The chief characteristics of these Jewish exorcisms is their naming of names
believed to be efficacious, i.e., names of good angels, which are used either
alone or in combination with El (=God); indeed reliance on mere names had long
before become a superstition with the Jews, and it was considered most
important that the appropriate names, which varied for different times and
occasions, should be used. It was this superstitious belief, no doubt, that
prompted the sons of Sceva, who had witnessed St. Paul's successful
exorcisms in the name of Jesus, to try on their own account the formula, "I
conjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth", with results disastrous to their
credit (Acts 19:13). It was a popular Jewish belief, accepted even by a learned
cosmopolitan like Josephus, that Solomon had received the power of expelling
demons, and that he had composed and transmitted certain formulæ that were
efficacious for that purpose. The Jewish historian records how a certain Eleazar,
in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian and his officers, succeeded, by
means of a magical ring applied to the nose of a possessed person, in drawing
out the demon through the nostrils -- the virtue of the ring being due to the fact
that it enclosed a certain rare root indicated in the formulaæ of Solomon, and
which it was exceedingly difficult to obtain (Ant. Jud, VIII, ii, 5; cf. Bell. Jud. VII,
vi, 3).
But superstition and magic apart, it is implied in Christ's answers to the
Pharisees, who accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub,
that some Jews in His time successfully exorcised demons in God's name: "and
if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?"
(Matthew 12:27). It does not seem reasonable to understand this reply as mere
irony, or as a mere argumentum ad hominem implying no admission of the fact;
all the more so, as elsewhere (Mark 9:37-38) we have an account of a person
who was not a disciple casting out demons in Christ's name, and whose action
Christ refused to reprehend or forbid.
EXORCISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Assuming the reality of demoniac possession, for which the authority of Christ is
pledged, it is to be observed that Jesus appealed to His power over demons as
one of the recognised signs of Messiahship (Matthew 12:23, 28; Luke 11:20). He
cast out demons, He declared, by the finger or spirit of God, not, as His
adversaries alleged, by collusion with the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24, 27;
Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 19); and that He exercised no mere delegated power, but
a personal authority that was properly His own, is clear from the direct and
imperative way in which He commands the demon to depart (Mark 9:24; cf. 1:25
etc.): "He cast out the spirits with his word, and he healed all that were sick"
(Matthew 8:16). Sometimes, as with the daughter of the Canaanean woman, the
exorcism took place from a distance (Matthew 15:22 sqq.; Mark 7:25).
Sometimes again the spirits expelled were allowed to express their recognition of
Jesus as "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24) and to complain that He had come
to torment them "before the time", i.e the time of their punishment (Matthew 8:29
sqq; Luke 8:28 sqq.). If demoniac possession was generally accompanied by
some disease, yet the two were not confounded by Christ, or the Evangelists. In
Luke 13:32, for example, the Master Himself expressly distinguishes between
the expulsion of evil spirits and the curing of disease.
Christ also empowered the Apostles and Disciples to cast out demons in His
name while He Himself was still on earth (Matthew 10:1 and 8; Mark 6:7; Luke
9:1; 10:17), and to believers generally He promised the same power (Mark
16:17). But the efficacy of this delegated power was conditional, as we see from
the fact that the Apostles themselves were not always successful in their
exorcisms: certain kinds of spirits, as Christ explained, could only be cast out by
prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:15, 20; Mark 9:27-28; Luke 9:40). In other words
the success of exorcism by Christians, in Christ's name, is subject to the same
general conditions on which both the efficacy of prayer and the use of
charismatic power depend. Yet conspicuous success was promised (Mark
16:17). St. Paul (Acts 16:18; 19:12), and, no doubt, the other Apostles and
Disciples, made use of regularly, as occasion arose, of their exorcising power,
and the Church has continued to do so uninterruptedly to the present day.
ECCLESIASTICAL EXORCISMS
Besides exorcism in the strictest sense -- i.e. for driving out demons from the
possessed -- Catholic ritual, following early traditions, has retained various other
exorcisms, and these also call for notice here.
(1) Exorcism of the possessed
We have it on the authority of all early writers who refer to the subject at all that
in the first centuries not only the clergy, but lay Christians also were able by the
power of Christ to deliver demoniacs or energumens, and their success was
appealed to by the early Apologists as a strong argument for the Divinity of the
Christian religion (Justin Martyr, Apol., 6; P.G., VI, 453; Dial., 30, 85; ibid., 537,
676 sq; Minutius Felix, Octav., 27, P.L., III; Origen, Contra Celsum., I, 25; VII, 4,
67; P.G., XI, 705, 1425, 1516; Tertullian, Apol., 22, 23; P.L., I, 404 sq; etc). As is
clear from testimonies referred to, no magical or superstitious means were
employed, but in those early centuries, as in later times, a simple and
authoritative adjuration addressed to the demon in the name of God, and more
especially in the name of Christ crucified, was the usual form of exorcism.
But sometimes in addition to words some symbolic action was employed, such
as breathing (insufflatio), or laying of hands on the subject, or making the sign of
cross. St. Justin speaks of demons flying from "the touch and breathing of
Christians" (II Apol., 6) as from a flame that burns them, adds St. Cyril of
Jerusalem (Cat., xx, 3, P.G., XXXIII, 1080). Origen mentions the laying of hands,
and St. Ambrose (Paulinus, Vit. Ambr., n. 28, 43, P.L, XIV, 36, 42), St. Ephraem
Syrus (Greg. Nyss., De Vit. Ephr., P.G., XLVI, 848) and others used this
ceremony in exorcising. The sign of the cross, that briefest and simplest way of
expressing one's faith in the Crucified and invoking His Divine power, is extolled
by many Fathers for its efficacy against all kinds of demoniac molestation
(Lactantius, Inst., IV, 27, P.L., VI, 531 sq.; Athanasius, De Incarn. Verbi., n. 47,
P.G., XXV, 180; Basil, In Isai., XI, 249, P.G., XXX, 557, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat.,
XIII, 3 col. 773; Gregory Nazianzen, Carm. Adv. iram, v, 415 sq.; P.G., XXXVII,
842). The Fathers further recommend that the adjuration and accompanying
prayers should be couched in the words of Holy Writ (Cyril of Jerus., Procat., n.
9, Col. 350; Athanasius, Ad Marcell., n. 33, P.G., XXVII, 45). The present rite of
exorcism as given in the Roman Ritual fully agrees with patristic teaching and is
a proof of the continuity of Catholic tradition in this matter.
(2) Baptismal exorcism
At an early age the practice was introduced into the Church of exorcising
catechumens as a preparation for the Sacrament of Baptism. This did not imply
that they were considered to be obsessed, like demoniacs, but merely that they
were, in consequence of original sin (and of personal sins in case of adults),
subject more or less to the power of the devil, whose "works" or "pomps" they
were called upon to renounce, and from whose dominion the grace of baptism
was about to deliver them. Exorcism in this connection is a symbolical
anticipation of one of the chief effects of the sacrament of regeneration; and since
it was used in the case of children who had no personal sins, St. Augustine
could appeal to it against the Pelagians as implying clearly the doctrine of
original sin (Ep. cxciv, n. 46. P.L., XXXIII, 890; C. Jul. III, 8; P.L., XXXIV, 705, and
elsewhere). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Procat., 14, col. 355) gives a detailed
description of baptismal exorcism, from which it appears that anointing with
exorcised oil formed a part of this exorcism in the East. The only early Western
witness which treats unction as part of the baptismal exorcism is that of the
Arabic Canons of Hippolytus (n. 19, 29). The Exsufflatio, or out-breathing of the
demon by the candidate, which was sometimes part of the ceremony,
symbolized the renunciation of his works and pomps, while the Insufflatio, or
in-breathing of the Holy Ghost, by ministers and assistants, symbolised the
infusion of sanctifying grace by the sacrament. Most of these ancient
ceremonies have been retained by the Church to this day in her rite for solemn
baptism.
(3) Other Exorcisms
According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as
intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects
and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is
in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is
believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of
the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally
liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in
regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church,
to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His
willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.
The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in
turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g.
churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with
public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with
which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and
exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these
material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them
with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by
means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces
no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages. (See
also EXORCIST.)
P. J. Toner
Transcribed by Listya Sari Diyah
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V
Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org