The White Lily Blog


The Hermeneutic of Hex

Father Gabrielle Amorth is an exorcist.  He has written extensively about it, and has so many fans that some of his work is out in audio form and unsigned paperbacks can go at collectors’ prices.

You too can perform an exorcism, by the way. It’s actually quite easy. Just mention the devil, and you can exorcise a whole roomful of liberals in about two minutes.  

The devil is a dirty word to liberals. They do not like their children to overhear such filth. They want their children unsullied and masturbating in peace–sorry, that’s ‘exercising their sexuality’ as Planned Parenthood likes to put it (to girl scouts, for example, as PP recently did at the UN with their classic sex-ed brochure “Young, Healthy, and Hot”).

But Catholics still believe in the devil (that’s ‘believe’ as in ‘say the devil exists’). Christ believed in devils and cast them out three or four at a time. Exorcists say scary things about them. And the most frightening thing Father Amorth says, among very frightening things indeed, is that in his professional opinion the Vatican has been possessed by one.

Well, that explains a lot!

But it can be fixed! Forget those other hermeneutics! Let’s apply the Hermeneutic of Hex and exorcise the hell out of Rome!

Just follow the usual steps, says Father. Confession, a form of exorcism, is the first step to ridding ourselves of the devil, accompanied by personal prayer. That failing after sincere and sustained attempts, the Catholic Rituale has various prayers of graduating intensity which, although the devil always tries to hide, will eventually call him out and conquer him.

But some cases are really tough. These cases, according to Amorth, may involve cursed objects hidden close by, or even swallowed whole, like a bit of magic apple.

Or it could be spells and curses, radioactive words tucked away deep in the consciousness to leak their poison, or really, actually buried somewhere close by, in the backyard or the darkest part of the basement where it’s always damp and strange things live, buried like a bit of bone or braided hair or a clot of blood. Then exorcists have to get out their picks and shovels, real ones, or in the case of spells, the drill bits of good interview questions, because the objects or words usually must be uncovered before the devil will give up and go to hell. These latter kind are on the rise, says Father Amorth, with the resurgence of witchcraft in the world (while the Church Militant lies drugged, dreaming of Her Prince!).

That must be the kind we have in the Vatican! We’re under a spell! And some very great people have pointed us to the spot (most recently, the popular Roman theologian, Msgr.  Brunero Gherardini, author of Ecumenical Council Vatican II, A Much Needed Discussion) : it’s certain words buried deep in the documents of Vatican II!

Gherardini says, regarding the frightening growth of rankest relativism since the Council, “There is even an organizational logic at the service of a satanic intelligence in the very heart of the Church which does not flee from ‘plots, murders, conspiracies.'” (112 of the text, available here) “Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II,” he writes (91),  and “Modernist corruption has hidden itself within the Council documents themselves.” (92)

They were cleverly concealed! The ordinary person would have a difficult time of it, searching. These modernist ideas are often shielded by an opposing, contradictory, traditional statement that the devil can quote when challenged during the exorcism, as he often does, according to Amorth.

For example, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ordered that Latin be retained by the Church, as always, as tradition requires.  But at the same time, elsewhere one finds the contrary statement that “the vernacular be permitted when it seems beneficial.” It has ‘seemed beneficial’ in so many instances–of course as Satan knew it would–that seminaries don’t even teach Latin anymore, and the old universal Church has now balkanized  into thousands of language ghettos, and it’s entirely possible that some of the translations of the consecration are cheap enough and dirty enough to make the consecration invalid. As Satan knew it might, and many suspect is the case. (Yummy! Tender young souls tonight!)

So the trick, then, you see how it works, is to make sure there are opposing notions, the inclusion of the traditional position and the introduction of a new one.  Wow, we’ll have a choice!  Take a bite, princess.

One of the most pernicious of these hidden poisons is this one: a constitution of Vatican II says in one place, “The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle in dialogue with our brethren”  and elsewhere the honest old position, “It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety.”  In practice, just about any truth is extremely uncomfortable to say, and the faithful will gladly seize the excuse that saying ‘Suzie should not move in with her young man until they are married’ is quite an “obstacle” indeed. And so it goes. Suzie is lost, Satan wins her beautiful soul.

Another way to hide hexes and spells is in pretty words, so that we are enchanted by the rhythm and rhyme of them and follow the Pied Piper all the way to the sea!  Consider this statement from Vatican II: ‘The Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church.’  That’s a big word, subsists. It’s much better than the old way of saying it, ‘The Church of God is the Catholic Church.’ Anybody can say, is. Only an expensive lawyer can say subsists! Excellent change–so they thought.

But it changes the doctrine.

Now there are two or even more rabbits inside the Hat! (You know how prolific rabbits are, like protestants spinning off sects.)  Before, there had always been only one, the One, the Holy Apostolic Church. Now there is something bigger and we’re inside It!

That ‘something bigger’ holds all the churches, not just the Catholic Church founded by Christ.  And Vatican II gave them a whole spell of their own, for they became Churches. A big bright capital C instead of that plain little hard old h for heretic, and now it lies lodged in Her throat, and She sleeps on. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny Christ is God but who must have somewhere in them the “significance and importance in the mystery of salvation” because Vatican II said so, ah, they are up early and going door to door. Delish, says the devil! How sweet it is!

We quit going door-to-door saving souls, you see. Because all Churches save souls, don’cha know. At least according to the Council. Don’ need no sacraments here! Don’ need no Christ. We got the Church of Christ Without Christ, don’cha know.

Dylan said it well about the devil, in ‘Man of Peace’ :

He’s a great humanitarian, he’s a great philanthropist,

He knows just where to touch you honey, and how you like to be kissed

He’ll put both his arms around you

You can feel the tender touch of the beast

You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.        (Read all Dylan’s lyrics to “Man of Peace” here.)

Yes, Father Amorth, we’re possessed, all right. We need a boatload of hermeneutic.  Maybe SSPX will play the Prince in their scheduled battle with the Vatican over the buried words of Vatican II. Fer shure, somebody needs a good old-fashioned hex-kicking, and those SSPX boys may be the ones to do it.


7 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Have you read Don Gabriel Amorth’s book? Quite interesting…

Comment by Marco

Yes–the earlier one–I forget the name and already sent it back to the library. The most recent one (mentioned in a Catholic Answers thread where I learned of him, I forget that title as well!) is not available anywhere, it seems! He really is so much more analytical and theological than anyone might guess. He’s really a wonderful, cogent, passionate, and traditional priest.

Have you read Archbishop Lefebvre’s “They Have Uncrowned Him” about Vatican II? Gherardini’s “The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion” The former you can get anywhere (anywhere on Amazon, I mean), the latter you have to get from this monastery/publishing house in Italy–I made a page giving the contact info, if you look on my Home page.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

One of the most pernicious of these hidden poisons is this one: a constitution of Vatican II says in one place, “The manner and order in which Catholic belief is expressed should in no way become an obstacle in dialogue with our brethren”

This is referring to how we present the truth…that doesn’t mean don’t present it or manipulate it (which some people sadly do. John moving in with Suzie is still wrong, and we need to say so. However, if we simply say “You’ll go to hell” (which is true) instead of explaining the reasons why it is wrong, explaining that it will be harmful to their relationship, and so forth, in a, how do I say this without sounding liberal, pastoral manner. Granted, some people need a whack upside the head with the heresy stick, and we should use it where necessary. However, there are others who would be driven away by that. We hold to the truth, and explain it in the manner most expedient to the end, which is conformity to the truth.

Comment by Steven John Bosco

I got Archbishop Lefebvre’s Spiritual Journey, which is his addresses to priests, and the one thing that I came away with is a pithy comment, basically Supernaturalize things! And I have a tendency–say, in pro-life sidewalk counseling, outside the clinic, trying to get women to reconsider, it doesn’t get much more practical Catholicicsm than that–to do just the opposite, to talk about breast cancer or other natural consequences of abortion. But I’ve been trying to apply what the archbishop taught in those conditions, and while I don’t say ‘you’ll go to hell,’ which one of our protestant counselors always does, I am bringing up a supernatural dimension. And see, they probably are going to go ahead and do it anyway, and if I give reference to the concept of ‘soul’ and ‘eternal life with God,’ which their abortion of the child will deprive that soul of, since limbo, although in ill repute in the Church at present, is the traditional teaching, then perhaps they’ll take that away with them, and that might be more useful to them than the knowledge that now they’ve exposed themselves to a greater risk of breast cancer. I’m trying to do that in all my conversations. And you do realize that the quote you quoted back–is used vilely by very many in the Church. Not that I expressed it very well, but you must know we’re hiding our differences in the name of ecumenism, but they are our jewels. Hey, I’m opening my envelope to you all ready to be mailed, and putting Spiritual Journey in! It is written for you, not for me.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

I’m not entirely sure what you are trying to get at here, but simply put, I would say that Vatican II wanted us to use the most charitable means of evangelization that is still effective, rather than always going for the heretic/hell/damnation line.

Comment by Steven John Bosco

Steven, I’ve gotten myself mixed up on which comment I wanted to talk to you about (busy old day!) but I hope you will see this, and it rather combines two comments. I know you can interpret it ‘pastorally’ using the word in a perfectly innocent manner, not liberal in any way. I myself interpreted it so until very recently. But you have to be a very paranoid reader (that’s why I used the metaphor, ‘buried hex,’–it’s like a fiction writer with an unreliable narrator; or think Seinfeld, how many people thought it was ‘serious’ instead of parody). (2) Anyway, notice the tone” ‘should in no way become an obstacle.’ That’s different from an alternative wording like (permit me the liberty) ”should not stand as an obstacle unless you’ve tried everything else.” Crude, but do you see the point? And then, the more pastoral, or gentler, approach goes well paired with a harsher spokesman–you know, like Good Cop/Bad Cop. But who is speaking the rather harsher realities of hell–the supernatural realities? In catechism class? I don’t think so, Steven. From the pulpit? No–on the topic of ‘what does it mean when John moves in with Susie without the sacrament of marriage’ the pulpit is pretty silent where I live. And then when you combine the absence of a Bad Cop anywhere on the horizon with another reality, that the constitutions of VII are full of the concept of ‘civil rights’ for sinners–for error. That’s what it boils down to. The whole wording of ‘what is the Church’ in VII–the whole conception of ‘religious freedom’ as a new demand of the Catholic Church when the previous century and a half had been spent fighting that very error–all these other sections give a weight to the quote without ever arguing it up front. That’s a new communication technique that modern advertising exploits, especially political ads. They call it ‘priming,’ when ideas are allowed to bump into each other until an impression is formed without an argument ever being presented. An example I was half-hearing this morning in the news was about pairing the name ‘Tyrone’ with an endorsement for an African-American candidate (in a piece of social sciences research) and in fact most listeners to whatever it was associated the name ‘Tyrone’ with ‘African-American name’ and drew conclusions that had never been syntactically argued. Sol Alinsky used this technique politically in the Sixties. VII was expert at it. I would have to reproduce in just a few characters all of Iota Unum to really make the point. Perhaps you’d do me the great favor of keeping this in mind as you continue your studies, and maybe down the road you’ll begin to be able to pick it up.

And I think last is that real life situations of Susie and John are so complicated that telling the truth is just about as heartbreaking as it gets. Here’s two real life situations I observed close up: one, a Catholic counselor in a Catholic woman’s crisis pregnancy center (altho they don’t offer women the faith there, just material stuff and secular counseling), her only daughter had moved away, had moved in with a guy and lived with him for two years, she was finally planning her wedding, it wasn’t Catholic, but a woman friend pronouncing the words they had written themselves. You really don’t have very many choices here, speaking pastorally or any other way. And yet in real life, nobody said to her, Don’t go to the wedding. Go to the reception. She thought she would lose chances to communicate with her daughter forever. So she went to the wedding. No ‘obstacle’ to future communication, was that okay? The other scenario in the mountains of Mexico, a man left his wife and moved in with another woman. His sister refused to allow him in the house, refused to visit his house. The family was torn and divided and emotionally destroyed by the conflict. A big ‘obstacle,’ let me say, observing it (I was renting a house from them and included in everything, lucky me). But if I had to say which response to the situation was more pastoral, I’d have to say the one in Mexico. A dozen half-grown kids watched the drama and drew the appropriate conclusaion. Their friends heard the whole story. A set of morals that protects them–protects them!–was upheld, at very great cost. We’ve lost that. We’re so busy trying to sort out if so-and-so has a ‘right’ to act/believe/speak as they wish, we’re tongue-tied (I forget how many times the word is used in VII documents–it’s a joke!). And that’s why the little quote, so innocent by itself, is so innocently poison. It’s pure lie.

Steven, I have to get up from this computer and kneel down and pray that I haven’t said anything that might in any way hurt your vocation or your trust in the Church or in our dear Lord. I am not an expert in anything, only that I do work hard in the world, in an apostolate, and it inevitably puts you in the thick of things where you learn or die, but if I have learned wrong, may God forgive me, and guide you well.

Comment by thewhitelilyblog

With regard to Latin: It may not have been taught, it may not be in some places. I will say, however, that at least where I am in seminary, it is a required course.

With regard to salvation and the Church: I will quote first Lumen Gentium, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

The only way for people to be saved outside the Church is if they did not know, and even then, the salvation itself will come through the Church by God’s mercy – that is, if the Church did not exist, nobody would be saved.

Also, we as Catholics have an obligation to evangelize, and one that we sadly neglect, partly due to the skewing of Vatican II to make it sound like it doesn’t matter which church you belong to, when, in fact, it does matter. This is part of our baptismal call: CCC 904-905:

904 “Christ . . . fulfills this prophetic office, not only by the hierarchy . . . but also by the laity. He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the sense of the faith [sensus fidei] and the grace of the word”438

To teach in order to lead others to faith is the task of every preacher and of each believer.439

905 Lay people also fulfill their prophetic mission by evangelization, “that is, the proclamation of Christ by word and the testimony of life.” For lay people, “this evangelization . . . acquires a specific property and peculiar efficacy because it is accomplished in the ordinary circumstances of the world.”440

This witness of life, however, is not the sole element in the apostolate; the true apostle is on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful.441

Comment by Steven John Bosco




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s