Man sues diocese for possession of exorcism recordingsBy Adam Parker (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, June 29, 2008
To read the official 1999 rite of exorcism, visit http://tinyurl.com/9z97d. When the man prayed, his hand twitched. Concerned, the man sought the advice of a priest, who diagnosed him with being possessed by an evil spirit, perhaps the devil. An exorcism, the priest advised, was the only solution. It was taped. And now the man wants the "tape(s)" and for no one to see it. The account is detailed in a lawsuit filed last month in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. The man, called J. Doe in the suit so that his identity is protected, alleges that his privacy was invaded when the exorcism was filmed by officials of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston. Doe had tried "to seek justice peacefully, within the Church and without resorting to legal action," for more than two years in an attempt to reclaim the recorded material or have it destroyed, according to the suit and attorney Larry Richter. He also is seeking an injunction to prevent the diocese from using the recordings in any way, according to the suit. He wants a jury trial. Diocese officials would not comment on the specifics of a pending case. Spokesman Steve Gajdosik, citing the private nature of exorcism, said only that "the Holy See encourages dioceses to take up this important role, process, program," and that to perform an exorcism, a priest requires special training that includes education and practical and spiritual experience. The Rev. Msgr. Anthony LaFemina is the only priest in the diocese performing exorcisms, Gajdosik said. He did not know how many have been performed in recent years. LaFemina was on vacation in Florida and unavailable for comment. Richter said his client resorted to legal action only after LaFemina and diocese officials ignored his repeated requests to hand over the recording, though assurances apparently were made that the "tape(s)" would not be distributed. "The concern is (that he will) be held up to some kind of ridicule" should the "tape(s)" be viewed by others, Richter said. "If (the "tape(s)") is not being used and not needed, what's the big deal?" Doe returned to the church in recent years after a long-term separation. After reactivating his practice of the faith, he noticed "mild hand-twitching during prayer," which worried him and caused him to seek "healing prayer" from a priest, according to the suit. "The local priest diagnosed possible affliction or possession by an evil spirit, the devil," the suit states. Doe was referred to LaFemina, who discussed the symptoms over the phone and told Doe he thought possession was a likely explanation. "Treatment" — exorcism — was the "most viable option," the priest told Doe, according to the suit. Before the procedure, Doe was asked to sign a consent form that included permission for the diocese to record the treatment, the suit states. Doe was very uncomfortable with the idea of recording such an intensely private event and asked that it not be done. His request was denied, according to the suit. "After further complaint about the recording, Doe was informed that there was no other option available," the suit states. "It was a take it or leave it proposition… (T)he devil would remain afflicting Doe unless the consent form was signed." Doe offered alternatives to recording the exorcism, saying he would bear any expense, but his offer was rejected, according to the suit. Only later did Doe learn that recording exorcisms was not necessarily commonplace, the suit states. The treatment was performed over the course of seven to 10 days, and included priests and several unknown lay people affiliated with the church, according to the suit. After the exorcism, Doe continued to worry that the recording could be misused and continued to submit requests to the diocese for the destruction of the tape, the suit states. "These concerns fell on deaf ears." Richter said the legality of the consent form is disputable. Was it Doe or the possessed Doe (in other words, the devil) who signed consent? The section called "Sacramentals" in the Vatican's Code of Canon Law states that "No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary" — typically a bishop. "The local ordinary is to give this permission only to a presbyter" — priest — "who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life." "The Roman Ritual," a Vatican-approved text that includes instructions on how to perform certain rites, addresses exorcism directly and in detail, describing the specific prayers, psalms, scriptural passages, creeds and saints' names that should be recited. Pope John Paul II approved an updated rite of exorcism in 1998, which was published in 1999, Gajdosik said. Pope Benedict XVI has called for more exorcists to be trained, Gajdosik said. Reach Adam Parker at 937-5902 or aparker@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 22 comment(s)
Posted by Perspective on June 29, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He signed the form. He should probably shut up. The church is supposedly keeping the tapes confidential. If he loses his "suit" then someone could put it on youtube out of spite.
He signed the forms giving consent.
Of course Ritcher does have a good point about his mental state when he signed the forms. I do not agree that it was not valid because he was possessed - I think it could be argued that he was not of sound mind when he was thought he was possessed by evil demons. Give me a break - possessed by evil demons. Are you serious? It is not surprising that the Catholic Church takes in more money than most countries and got away with systematically abusing children for generations.
Choose any definition you want for "cult" and try to be objective. Just because it has been practiced for generation upon generation does not make the definition any less applicable.
Before any of you zealots jump down my throat (like a demon), I am just making an observation. I agree that religions are good and that religous people are happier and live more satisfied lives than those who are not.
Posted by RTC on June 29, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just want to know if his head spun around.
Posted by newbattleaxe on June 29, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perspective, if someone on drugs signs a consent form, is that valid? There are many forms of "possession," and not only Catholics believe in possession by evil spirits.
Posted by 8theistic on June 29, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Religions are horrible crutches for the weak. god helps those who help themselves, right?
Posted by skeeter on June 29, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
evil spirits?
Maybe I need a priest to exorcise this Heineken out of my hand.
What a bunch of hooey. I'm gonna get drunk.
Posted by Perspective on June 29, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
newbattleaxe - You ask if a consent form is valid if signed by someone on drugs. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The courts have repeatedly had to rule on a case by case basis, taking into account whether or not the "drugs" in question would influence someone's decision making process to the point that they would have potentially made a different decision. They have also often ruled that being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time was a decision they made and any unwise agreement or contract was a result of that decision. - I agree that other religions also believe in possession by evil spirits. However, they are not typically money making machines that in some cases control over entire governments.
Since posting earlier and seeing your post, I also have another argument that weakens the position that the consent was made by the "possessed John Doe" and should not be binding to the unpossessed John Doe. If the possessed John Doe was in control at the time of consent, why would he consent to the recordings knowing that he was going to be exorcised if he did? Maybe he should have gone to see a psychiatrist instead, but wait... many of them record their sessions as well. I guess if the courts rule for Joe Doe in this case, any nut job would be able to go back to their psychiatrist and demand destruction of any session recordings. They could just argue that they previously consented under mental duress.
I think that J Doe made an agreement and he should be stuck with it. I also think that the whole demon spirit thing is BS to start with. If it were a smaller religion doing these things we would call it voodoo or witchcraft and the government would have them put on some kind of governement watchlist.
Posted by amylrod on June 29, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Considering the fact that exorcisms have been performed throughout the centuries without a "recording" as we understand to be taped, the Church has to have documentation of exorcisms. In the past, it would been someone writing what was happening as it occurred. I just find it confusing that the Monsignor would say if the man didn't sign then he could keep the devil in him. That lacks charity and indifference. Exorcisms are taken very seriously, and to say such a statement really seems to say the Church doesn't care. IF the man's identity is kept confidential and it is a taped recording, not videoed, then he should not have to worry about the information being released ever. His privacy must be kept private.
Posted by MeJG on June 29, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In today's world when everyone should know - if you weren't part of something and actual witness - did not see if for yourself - then take the words you read with a grain of salt.
We none know what was really said except those involved.
It today's world so much is recorded. What worries me is who is going to be sued next - the doctor who records the test of some unknown illness - or the physician who is helping you with mental illness and is recording a session?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who needed help would be denied help from within a Christian faith.
The question - of which person signed the form for this to be recorded - the possessed or the non-possessed. Get real - Doe remembers that he asked for help - he remembers what was requested of him.
In today's world -if the priest had responded - he probably would have been sued for responding.
When will everyone learn to take responsibility for their choices?
Be careful "POST AND COURIER" - you may be sued if you didn't state it correctly -
Be careful friends who offer help to someone - you may be sued if they are not "SURE" of what you offered.
Be careful Attorney Richter - you may be sued because he feels you were representing him - when he was possessed - because if he was in his right mind - he probably would never have asked for help and then sue the chruch that helped him.
We live in a suing world and you Mr. Richter will also be held accountable to God for you actions.
Posted by geekguy2008 on June 29, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
.....and the Catholic Crutch is continually manipulating its members. Telling that man that unless it's done the way the Crutch wants it done, the demon will continue to harass.
What a CROCK of CRAP.
Now that this article has been published, just keep an eye on YouTube.com. Sooner or later, that video will show up.
Posted by armymom on June 29, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
8theistic: Atheism is a crutch for _____. We could fill in the blank with so many things.
I kinda felt like I was reading the plot to a movie just now instead of a newspaper article.
Posted by Perspective on June 29, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What if the demon did not get excorcised and now that is the reason the possessed subject has started attacking the church with a law suit? The guy could still be possessed and not know it! The demons could actually be in control of him, using him and the lawyer to attack the church.
quick, Dr. Frankenstein, shock him again.....wait, wrong fantasy.
The church could solve this problem if you would all donate more money.
Posted by ForPnC on June 29, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a pot of crap this whole thing is. The catholic crotch strikes again.
Posted by anon123 on June 29, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this the same Catholic Church that just paid $500,000,000.00 from the faithful's collection plate for sexually molesting young boys?
Posted by Reader on June 30, 2008 at 4:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perspective, I am not sure that his argument is going to be that some devil was speaking for him when he signed the form, although that is what the paper suggests. Much more likely is that he was under duress. The priest was telling him that if he did not sign, he would continue to be possessed. That statement/threat coerced him into signing something he did not really consent to. It is perhaps invalid for the same reason that a contract signed at gunpoint is not valid.
Posted by lillycollette on June 30, 2008 at 5:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
*
Posted by Cid95 on June 30, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This proves that evolution is real; this idiot and the priests or medicine men or shysters or whatever they were that he consulted to help him are clearly missing links between apes and men.
Posted by shoelaces on June 30, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But does his hand still twitch?????
Umm....I go to a doctor when something is wrong.
Posted by Weeeee on June 30, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RTC, he has to have the projectile vomit too.
This really is a crock of S. Sometimes I get dry skin and goose bumps. I wonder if I'm possessed. Or maybe it's my atheism acting out. The sad part is...your "Gawd" lets this happen.
I hope he gets rich...just like those kids who were molested.
Posted by Tammie on June 30, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole thing reeks of creepiness. Especially imagining the head spinning, projectile vomiting, and the chant of "REDRUM". Yeah, I added that last part. :-l
Posted by Charles_Town on June 30, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of the comments here really crack me up.
Posted by Girleygirl on June 30, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He could have gotten a second opinion from another church or a doctor or his lawyer first before agreeing with the church recording this incident. He had his options so he can't use the distress option.
Posted by JEFF4PLAY on June 30, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG!!!
THEY COULD REPOSSESS HIM!!!