Demonical Possession
Man is in various ways subject to the influence of evil spirits. By original sin he
brought himself into "captivity under the power of him who thence [from the time
of Adam's transgression] had the empire of death, that is to say, the Devil"
(Council of Trent, Sess. V, de pecc. orig., 1), and was through the fear of death
all his lifetime subject to servitude (Heb., ii, 15). Even though redeemed by
Christ, he is subject to violent temptation: "for our wrestling is not against flesh
and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of
this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph., vi, 12).
But the influence of the demon, as we know from Scripture and the history of the
Church, goes further still. He may attack man's body from without (obsession),
or assume control of it from within (possession). As we gather from the Fathers
and the theologians, the soul itself can never be "possessed" nor deprived of
liberty, though its ordinary control over the members of the body may be hindered
by the obsessing spirit (cf. St. Aug., "De sp. et an.", 27; St. Thomas, "In II
Sent.", d. VIII, Q. i; Ribet, "La mystique divine", Paris, 1883, pp. 190 sqq.).
I. CASES OF POSSESSION
Among the ancient pagan nations diabolical possession was frequent (Maspero,
"Hist. anc. des peuples de l'Orient", 41; Lenormant, "La magie chez les
Chaldéens"), as it is still among their successors (Ward, "History of the
Hindoos", v., I, 2; Roberts, "Oriental Illustrations of the Scriptures"; Doolittle,
"Social Life of the Chinese"). In the Old Testament we have only one instance,
and even that is not very certain. We are told that "an evil spirit from the Lord
troubled" Saul (I Kings, xvi, 14). The Hebrew word r=FBah need not imply a
personal influence, though, if we may judge from Josephus (Ant. Jud., VI, viii, 2;
ii, 2), the Jews were inclined to give the word that meaning in this very case. In
New-Testament times, however, the phenomenon had become very common.
The victims were sometimes deprived of sight and speech (Matt., xii, 22),
sometimes of speech alone (Matt., ix, 32; Luke, xi, 14), sometimes afflicted in
ways not clearly specified (Luke, viii, 2), while, in the greater number of cases,
there is no mention of any bodily affliction beyond the possession itself (Matt., iv,
24; viii, 16; xv, 22; Mark, i, 32, 34, 39; iii, 11; vii, 25; Luke, iv, 41; vi, 18; vii, 21;
viii, 2). The effects are described in various passages. A young man is
possessed of a spirit "who, wheresoever he taketh him, dasheth him, and he
foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away, . . . and oftentimes hath
he [the spirit] cast him into the fire and into waters to destroy him" (Mark, ix, 17,
21). The possessed are sometimes gifted with superhuman powers: "a man with
an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs, and no man now could bind
him, not even with chains. For having been often bound with fetters and chains,
he had burst the chains, and broken the fetters in pieces, and no one could tame
him" (Mark, v, 2-4). Some of the unfortunate victims were controlled by several
demons (Matt., xii, 43, 45; Mark, xvi, 9; Luke, xi, 24-26); in one case by so
many that their name was Legion (Mark, v, 9; Luke, viii, 30). Yet, evil as the
possessing spirits were, they could not help testifying to Christ's Divine mission
(Matt., viii, 29; Mark, i, 24, 34; iii, 12; v, 7; Luke, iv, 34, 41; viii, 28). And they
continued to do so after His Ascension (Acts, xvi, 16-18).
The history of the early Church is filled with instances of similar diabolical
agency. A quotation from Tertullian will suffice to bring before us the prevalent
conviction. Treating of true and false divinity he addresses the pagans of his time:
"Let a person be brought before your tribunals who is plainly under demoniacal
possession. The wicked spirit, bidden speak by the followers of Christ will as
readily make the truthful confession that he is a demon as elsewhere he has
falsely asserted that he is a god" (Apolog., tr. Edinburgh, p. 23). The facts
associated with possession prove, he says, beyond question the diabolical
source of the influence - "What clearer proof than a work like that? What more
trustworthy than such a proof? The simplicity of truth is thus set forth: its own
worth sustains it; no ground remains for the least suspicion. Do you say that it is
done by magic or by some trick of the sort? You will not say anything of the sort
if you have been allowed the use of your ears and eyes. For what argument can
you bring against a thing that is exhibited to the eye in its naked reality?" And
the Christians expel by a word: "All the authority and power we have over them is
from our naming of the name of Christ and recalling to their memories the woes
with which God threatens them at the hands of Christ as Judge and which they
expect one day to overtake them. Fearing Christ in God and God in Christ, they
become subject to the servants of God and Christ. So at our touch and
breathing, overwhelmed by the thought and realization of those judgment fires,
they leave at our command the bodies they have entered." Statements of this
kind embody the views of the Church as a whole, as is evident from the facts,
that various councils legislated on the proper treatment of the possessed, that
parallel with the public penance for catechumens and fallen Christians there was
a course of discipline for the energumens also, and, finally, that the Church
established a special order of exorcists (cf. Martigny, "Dict. des antiq. chr=E9t.",
Paris, 1877, p. 312).
All through the Middle Ages councils continued to discuss the matter: laws were
passed, and penalties decreed, against all who invited the influence of the Devil
or utilized it to inflict injury on their fellowmen (cf. the Bulls of Innocent VIII, 1484;
Julius II, 1504; and Adrian VI, 1523); and powers of exorcism were conferred on
every priest of the Church. The phenomenon was accepted as real by all
Christians. The records of criminal investigations alone in which charges of
witchcraft or diabolical possession formed a prominent part would fill volumes.
The curious may consult such works as Des Mousseaux, "Pratiques des
d=E9mons" (Paris, 1854), or Thiers, "Superstitions" I, or, from the Rationalistic
point of view, Lecky, "Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe", I, 1-138, and,
for later instances, Constans, "Relation sur une =E9pidemie
d'hyst=E9ro-d=E9monopathie" (Paris, 1863). And though at the present day
among civilized races the cases of diabolical possession are few, the
phenomena of Spiritism, which offer many striking points of resemblance, have
come to take their place (cf. Pauvert, "La vie de N. S. J=E9sus-Christ", I, p. 226;
Raupert, "The Dangers of Spiritualism", London, 1906; Lepicier, "The Unseen
World", London, 1906; Miller, "Sermons on Modern Spiritualism", London, 1908).
And if we may judge from the accounts furnished by the pioneers of the Faith in
missionary countries, the evidences of diabolical agency there are almost as
clear and defined as they were in Galilee in the time of Christ (cf. Wilson,
"Western Africa", 217; Waffelaert in the "Dict. apol. de Ia foi cath.", Paris, 1889,
s. v. Possession diabol.).
II. REALITY OF THE PHENOMENON
The infidel policy on the question is to deny the possibility of possession in any
circumstances, either on the supposition, that there are no evil spirits in
existence, or that they are powerless to influence the human body in the manner
described. It was on this principle that, according to Lecky the world came to
disbelieve in witchcraft: men did not trouble to analyse the evidence that could be
produced in its favour; they simply decided that the testimony must be mistaken
because "they came gradually to look upon it as absurd" (op. cit., p. 12). And it
is by this same a priori principle, we believe, that Christians who try to explain
away the facts of possession are unconsciously influenced. Though put forward
once as a commonplace by leaders of materialistic thought, there is a noticeable
tendency of late years not to insist upon it so strongly in view of the admission
made by competent scientific inquirers that many of the manifestations of
Spiritism cannot be explained by human agency (cf. Miller, op. cit., 7-9). But
whatever view Rationalists may ultimately adopt, for a sincere believer in the
Scriptures there can be no doubt that there is such a thing as possession
possible. And if he is optimistic enough to hold that in the present order of things
God would not allow the evil spirits to exercise the powers they naturally
possess, he might open his eyes to the presence of sin and sorrow in the world,
and recognize that God causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust and
uses the powers of evil to promote His own wise and mysterious purposes (cf.
Job, passim; Mark v, 19).
That mistakes were often made in the diagnosis of cases, and results attributed
to diabolical agency that were really due to natural causes, we need have no
hesitation in admitting. But it would be illogical to conclude that the whole theory
of possession rests on imposture or ignorance. The abuse of a system gives us
no warrant to denounce the system itself. Strange phenomena of nature have
been wrongly regarded as miraculous, but the detection of the error has left our
belief in real miracles intact. Men have been wrongly convicted of murder, but
that does not prove that our reliance on evidence is essentially unreasonable or
that no murder has ever been committed. A Catholic is not asked to accept all
the cases of diabolical possession recorded in the history of the Church, nor
even to form any definite opinion on the historical evidence in favour of any
particular case. That is primarily a matter for historical and medical science (cf.
Delrio, "Disq. mag. libri sex", 1747; Alexander, "Demon. Possession in the N.
T.", Edinburgh, 1902). As far as theory goes, the real question is whether
possession has ever occurred in the past, and whether it is not, therefore,
possible that it may occur again. And while the cumulative force of centuries of
experience is not to be lightly disregarded, the main evidence will be found in the
action and teaching of Christ Himself as revealed in the inspired pages of the
New Testament, from which it is clear that any attempt to identify possession
with natural disease is doomed to failure.
In classical Greek daimonan, it is true, means "to be mad" (cf. Eurip., "Phœn."
888; Xenophon, "Memor.", I, i, ix; Plutarch, "Marc.", xxiii), and a similar meaning
is conveyed by the Gospel phrase daimonion echein, when the Pharisees use it
of Christ (Matt., xi, 18; John, vii, 20; viii, 48), especially in John, x, 20, where
they say "He hath a devil, and is mad" (daimonion echei, kai mainetai);
daimonan, however, is not the word used by the sacred writers. Their word is
daimonizesthai, and the meanings given to it previously by profane writers ("to be
subject to an appointed fate"; Philemon, "Incert.", 981; "to be deified";
Sophocles, "Fr.", 180) are manifestly excluded by the context and the facts. The
demoniacs were often afflicted with other maladies as well, but there is surely
nothing improbable in the view of Catholic theologians that the demons often
afflicted those who were already diseased, or that the very fact of obsession or
possession produced these diseases as a natural consequence (cf. Job, ii, 7;
G=F6rres "Die christ. mystik", iv; Les=EAtre in "Dict. de la bible" s. v.
D=E9moniaques). Natural disease and possession are in fact clearly
distinguished by the Evangelists: "He cast out the spirits with his word: and all
that were sick he healed" (Matt., viii, 16). "They brought to him all that were ill
and that were possessed with devils . . . and he healed many that were troubled
with divers diseases; and he cast out many devils" (Mark i, 32, 34); and the
distinction is shown more clearly in the Greek: pantas tous kakos echontas kai
tous daimonizomenous.
A favourite assertion of the Rationalists is that lunacy and paralysis were often
mistaken for possession. St. Matthew did not think so, for he tells us that "they
presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases [poikilais
nosois] and torments [Basanois], and such as were possessed by devils
[daimonizomenous], and lunatics [seleniazomenous], and those who had the
palsy [paralytikous], and he cured them" (iv, 24). And the circumstances that
attended the cures point in the same direction. In the case of ordinary diseases
they were effected quietly and without violence. Not so always with the
possessed. The evil spirits passed into lower animals with dire results (Matt., viii,
32), or cast their victim on the ground (Luke, iv, 35) or, "crying out, and greatly
tearing him, went out of him, and he became as dead, so that many said: He is
dead" (Mark, ix, 25; cf. Vigouroux, "Les livres saints et la crit. rationaliste",
Paris, 1891).
Abstracting altogether from the fact that these passages are themselves
inspired, they prove that the Jews of the time regarded these particular
manifestations as due to a diabolical source. This was surely a matter too
closely connected with Christ's own Divine mission to be lightly passed over as
one on which men might, without much inconvenience from the religious point of
view, be allowed to hold erroneous opinions. If, therefore, possession were
merely a natural disease and the general opinion of the time based on a
delusion, we might expect that Christ would have proclaimed the correct doctrine
as He did when His followers spoke of the sin of the man born blind (John, ix, 2,
3), or when Nicodemus misunderstood His teaching on the necessity of being
born again in Baptism (ibid., iii, 3, 4). So far from correcting the prevalent
conviction, He approved and encouraged it by word and action. He addressed the
evil spirits, not their victims; told His disciples how the evil spirit acted when cast
out (Matt., xii, 44, 45; Luke, xi, 24-26), taught them why they had failed to
exorcize (Matt., xvii, 19); warned the seventy-two disciples against glorying in the
fact that the demons were subject to them (Luke, x, 17-20). He even conferred
express powers on the Apostles "over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to
heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities" (Matt., x, 1; Mark, vi,
7; Luke, ix, 1), and, immediately before His Ascension, enumerated the signs
that would proclaim the truth of the revelation His followers were to preach to the
world: "In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new
tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it
shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover"
(Mark, xvi, 17-18). Thus does the expulsion of demons become so closely bound
up with other miracles of the Christian dispensation as to hardly permit of
separation.
The problem, therefore, that confronts us is this: If a belief so intimately
connected in Christ's own mind with the mission He came to accomplish was
based on a delusion, why did He not correct it? Why rather encourage it? Only
two answers appear possible. Either He was ignorant of a religious truth, or He
deliberately gave instructions that He knew to be false - instructions that misled
His followers, and that were eminently calculated, as indeed the issue proved, to
have very serious consequences, often of a most painful and deplorable kind, in
the whole subsequent history of the Church He founded. No Catholic can dream
of admitting either of the explanations. The theory of accommodation formulated
by Winer ("Biblisches Realw=F6rterbuch", Leipzig, 1833) may at once be
dismissed (see DEMONIACS). Accommodation understood as the toleration of
harmless illusions having little or no connexion with religion might perhaps be
allowed; in the sense of deliberate inculcation of religious error, we find it very
hard to associate it with high moral principle, and entirely impossible to reconcile
it with the sanctity of Christ.
Why possession should manifest itself in one country rather than another, why it
should have been so common in the time of Christ and so comparatively rare in
our own, why even in Palestine it should have been confined almost entirely to
the province of Galilee are questions on which theologians have speculated but
on which no sure conclusion can ever be reached (cf. Delitzch, "Sys. der biblis.
Psychol.", Leipzig, 1861; Les=E9tre, op. cit.; Jeiler in "Kirchenlexikon", II, s. v.
"Besessene"; St. Aug., X, xxii, De civ. Dei, 10, 22). The phenomenon itself is
preternatural; a humanly scientific explanation is, therefore, impossible. But it
might fairly be expected, we think, that since Christ came to overthrow the
empire of Satan, the efforts of the powers of darkness should have been
concentrated at the period of His earthly life, and should have been felt especially
in the province where, with the exception of a few brief visits to neighbouring
lands, His private and public life was passed. (See EXORCISM, EXORCIST.)
In addition to the works mentioned above, see PERRONE, De deo creatore, p. I,
c. v, prop. i, ii; BINTERIM, Denkw=FCrdigkeiten, VII (Mainz, 1841); MAURY, La
magie et l'astrologie (Paris, 1900), p. II, c. ii; TYLOR, Primitive Culture (London,
1891), cc. xiv, xv; SPENCER, Principles of Sociology, I.
M. J. O'Donnell
Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter
Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII
Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org