Good. Maybe Fr Serra’s statue needs to move over to Church property.
We shouldn’t be casting “pearls before swine” putting our saints in the public park to be abused.
By that logic, we shouldn’t have statues of MLK in public parks because he was a Baptist clergyman.
MLK has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but if he did it would be sensible to move him if there is reason to think something will happen to it.
God bless him. I say our entire country needs an exorcism.
I truly think we would see such a great change for the good if this country had an exorcism.
MLK isn’t a Catholic saint and I leave it to his own faith to deal with that.
Typically, statues of Catholic saints aren’t put on public land nowadays as it raises church and state issues and may well bring a challenge from ACLU.
The statues of Fr Serra generally predate his canonization, and were based on his historical role in settling California, not on his being a holy man.
Now that he’s a saint, these statues may be seen in a different light.
As a Protestant whose familiarity with exorcisms is limited to ‘The Exorcist’ movie and similar stories, please help me better understand why an exorcism was needed in this situation as a response to the statue being toppled and vandalized.
Obviously the act of vandalism of the statue was completely wrong and uncalled for and I could understand if the Church wanted to seek reparations or the arrest of the perpetrators, and the desire to move it to a more protected area.
In my mind, Satan inspired the act of desecration, but I’m struggling to comprehend the need for an exorcism because I don’t know what was possessed, although I trust the Archbishop knows what he’s doing and acted appropriately.
Many priests, especially those who lean toward traditionalist views, believe satanic forces are at work in opposition to the Church when stuff like this happens. They typically will lead people in prayer and perform some kind of exorcism/ blessing rituals against evil at these sites.
Thanks for the reply. So the site itself (in the aftermath of the desecration) was determined to have been possessed?
I figured it was probably the vandals themselves who were influenced by Satan, but I can understand that it would make sense to bless the ground again where the statue is located and show the world that the person meant a lot to the community and Church.
“Possession” typically only refers to living creatures, primarily humans. Usually the word used would be demonic presence in some area or in a building. The idea is to get rid of demonic presence so it does not affect humans or human behavior.
A more mundane example would be, a few years ago when vandals broke a window at my home, I said some St. Michael prayers and sprinkled some holy water to make sure any residual evil was gone. Of course it would have been better/ stronger if a priest had done it, but I didn’t have a priest handy for various reasons.
Thanks for clarifying.
According to the current logic, it would be appropriate to tear down statues of Dr. King altogether, because of the evil things he did in his lifetime.
Demons are attracted to
- evil people
- evil places
As I understand it, and I’m not an expert, places become evil when very evil things are done there. Toppling a statue of God’s saint is very evil. I think that’s why they performed an exorcism.
This is a good thing. We are fighting a great evil here in our nation today, a truly great evil.
I actually think it would be a good idea if this happened as people would finally awaken out of their slumber and see what is happening.
We can only fight a spiritual war with spiritual weapons. God give us the Grace to do so.
There are multiple kinds of exorcisms. What you are thinking of from the movie is not what he did.
There are minor exorcisms, related to the catechumenate, (episcopal-appointed catechists, deacons, priests, and bishops can perform) as well as those used immediately before baptism of infants. (Deacons, priests, and bishops can perform).
The movie (which was based on a true story) is a whole different ballgame. This is a solemn exorcism. Only priests appointed by the bishop (and trained, accordingly) can do these. One of the issues from the real-life account was a priest attempting to perform a solemn exorcism that he was neither appointed nor trained for. Also, the real-life story was about a boy, not a girl, FYI.
It’s a statue. Statues don’t bleed human beings do. The exorcism is healthy for the human beings who did this, and for the human beings affected by it.
The point of the evil isn’t about the statue, even though it was toppled. And the point of the exorcism isn’t to make up for the damaged statue, or to somehow preserve our cultural externals. None of that is going to matter.
Human beings are what matter, and none of this is going to be good for anyone.