Exorcism, a prayer or a series of rites that supposedly cast demons out of possessed individuals, needs to be banned legally for the following reasons:
It is a religious guess, not a medical fact, that a person is possessed.
Though Jesus said that anybody can exorcise, even someone who is not a proper follower, priests and clergymen reserve this power to themselves. Catholics believe that other religions performing exorcisms cannot do so at all, and that the victim is either not possessed or the demon never meant to stay. Most "possessed" people get better anyway. The alleged victim is just used to bolster religious egos.
If God, Jesus, and prayer remove demons, then you should not need exorcists and cannot prove that they ever remove a demon. What if the demon left because a friend prayed for the victim? If that happens, the exorcist will claim that the exorcism did it! The exorcist may not even know that the friend prayed. It is more like the exorcism "works" by convincing a troubled person that they have a demon, and when they believe that, they start to think that the exorcism got rid of it. But this does not address the underlying problem, only the symptom.
The practices involved include physical abuse, e.g., using holy water to make the "demon" scream in agony and abuse the "victim's" body. It is simply assumed that the screamer is not the victim but the demon—but whose body is made to feel pain, and whose mouth is letting the scream out?
The practices involve verbal abuse. The demon is called everything under the sun, such as evil, abomination, and monster, and is treated as something that there is no hope of dialoguing with. The demon is never told to try to be nice and leave the person alone. It is assumed the demon does not have a better nature, and cannot have one. If the demon is really the person suffering from mental illness and not a real spirit, then the person is being abused and made worse. You will fear a bad person who cannot change more than one who can.
Exorcists admitted to John Thavis, the writer of The Vatican Prophecies, that they have to be as conniving, clever, and cunning as the demons in order to trick them into leaving the person. That does not sound like exorcism is truly a holy ritual. It sounds like the medieval black magic rituals, which were full of holy prayers and hypocrisy.
Evidence during the rite shows that the victim suffers from the abuse. Holy water is ignored. A demon supposedly said, according to The Vatican Prophecies by John Thavis, that when the body is sprinkled with holy water, "I'd rather have dog piss thrown on me than holy water." Why does the demon speak as if hurting the body is hurting it? Not all demons react when the holy water is sprinkled, which raises the question: Does it really do anything at all? Is it just a form of madness we are dealing with, not evil spirits? If something supernatural is going on, then why can't you think it is a form of supernatural madness and not a demon? Suppose that is what it is, and not a demon! Thinking it is a demon and treating it as such only reinforces the madness.
The exorcist will look for the name of the demon, which supposedly gives him power over it. That is pure superstition, as a real spirit will not need a name. And there is no reason why a demon cannot tell its name if it has one. It would make no difference. There is no logic in the notion that having a demon's name means you have power over the demon, or God's power. If there were, then if you are using God's power to exorcise, why is it not enough if God knows the name? There is no way of being sure that the demon is telling the truth when it gives its name. The demon will not tell if doing so will result in being ejected. And once the name is given, the demon can still persist. The Vatican Prophecies by John Thavis says exorcists believe the demon must be bullied and forced to tell its name because once it does, it loses its power. That doctrine proves that exorcism is an occult ritual. It is magic. It leads to the dangerous notion that you can manipulate and bully demons. Jesus dealt with the Gerasene man, who was reportedly possessed. He asked the demon the name, and it said its name was "Legion." Jesus was a magician, not a man of God, if that story is true, and his motive was to gain power over the demon. He was not using God's power to evict the demon but getting it to destroy its own power. Also, Jesus did not cast out the demons but moved them to the pigs, which drowned themselves in response. This is not exorcism. It suggests that if an exorcism is not possible, death is the only cure. Jesus was indicating that killing the possessed is an alternative if exorcism does nothing.
Some exorcisms go on for decades. Some victims are given exorcisms frequently. If exorcism is superstition and demons are imaginary, you would expect some people to get better anyway. There is nothing remarkable about that.
The exorcist will directly talk to the demon or the Devil during the exorcism because Jesus did that. Some new rites have the exorcist praying to God for help. Logic says that if exorcism works, then it works through prayer (assuming prayer works at all!). There is something wrong if rites that address the demon get it out, but rites that ask God to remove the demon do not. If God is pure love, then you would expect the reverse to be the case.
Many exorcisms are performed in secret to avoid ridicule and media attention, which endangers the allegedly possessed person. The exorcist is protected by this secrecy, even if they are just a charlatan with a screw loose. LGBT conversion therapy happens under this cover of confidentiality.
Legally permitting exorcism gives religious people special treatment and special rights because of their faith in exorcism and demons. They get away with distressing and tormenting the allegedly possessed, who imagine that the demon is going berserk during the exorcism. The abuses that take place during exorcism would not be tolerated in any other field. Some atheists believe in "memes"—ideas that are like computer viruses and infect your mind, such as religion. An atheist would not be allowed to upset a victim of possession by administering a secular exorcism.
In some dioceses, you sign a form before you are exorcised, thus taking responsibility upon yourself. Then the Church cannot be sued if you end up more damaged, or even dead, due to its rituals.
If the Church were truly confident that people could be removed from demonic influence, or that dramatic exorcism is necessary like in horror movies, it would be doing group ceremonies. The rites are done for one person at a time, and the proceedings are secretive. This is hiding something. Interestingly, Jesus didn't do group exorcisms either!
Jesus said he could not have a demon because he honored his father in John 8:49, insinuating that people like the possessed in the Catholic Church bring it on themselves.
Some believers think mental illness is the demon’s work, while others think possession is just a metaphor for mental illness. Those who think possession in the Bible refers to psychiatric disorders should be doing Jesus-style exorcisms in mental hospitals. They are not, and they do not tell psychiatrists to do so. They need exorcism for being such hypocrites and liars!
It is odd that very evil people are not asked to undergo exorcism—it only happens when people act deranged. This is because vulnerable people are targeted by religion for its own ends, and because evil people are often too smart to be fooled by religion. Surely, if a person were possessed, they would be acting evil rather than deranged! The whole practice of exorcism reflects the age-old bigotry of thinking of a mentally ill person as evil and somehow demonic just because they are sick. The exorcist who thinks that is truly evil.
Exorcism is fanaticism, as proven by the Church's opposition to Freudianism, Jungianism, and modern psychiatry, because of its stress on learning to love yourself, which allows you to love others. The Church claims to cooperate with psychiatry to determine if a case requires an exorcist. How can it, when it does not even believe in psychiatry? It claims infallibility for itself, a quality it does not imagine any medical discipline to have.
Unlike medicine, which is carefully regulated, each religion invents its own rules about exorcism. It is irresponsible to put mental treatment in the hands of non-professionals, as is done when the exorcist steps in. Exorcism tends to be private, which increases the chance of abuse and harm. It prevents regulation.
Consent to exorcism raises problems. The demon is thought to simulate the person, so if the person objects to the exorcism, it will be assumed it is the demon talking. Thus, the person will be ignored and exorcised against their will.
Nobody can prove that it is a demon at work. If anything paranormal is happening, could it be a psychic illness? Treating it as a demon will only worsen the problem. If people have psychic abilities, perhaps the entity is part of them. Perhaps the demon is an artificial personality created in the subconscious by psychological and psychic forces. To abuse the demon is to abuse the person. Also, if the problem is the subconscious, merely assuming that it is a real demon and treating the person accordingly is abuse.
People with mental health problems may suffer because of belief in demons. If you doubt your sanity, imagine how upsetting it will be if you start to feel you are possibly possessed. Even going to Mass and hearing the readings from the gospel about Jesus' exorcism can put this terrible suggestion in your mind.
Exorcisms sometimes cause a violent reaction in the person. How can you know that it is a demon doing this and not the ritual, or the person’s delusion that they have a demon? Exorcism affirms the delusion, and that is so evil.
Exorcists believe that somebody cursed the victim or the victim invited the demons in. You need proof before making such claims. Exorcism endorses the slander of accusing somebody—even if their identity is unknown—without proof that anyone was to blame.
Where do you draw the line with belief in possession and exorcism? You write a poison-pen letter. Why not say your pen was possessed and wrote that letter? What about the dangerous doctrine of "Cen"? Cen is when the spirit of a dead person steals your body and pretends to be you. It can lead to a child being put to death for their father's crimes.
Exorcism can be a very long process, bringing great trauma and worry to the victim and their family and friends, and it does not always succeed. Often, a demon is allegedly put out, but when the person seems possessed again, it is insisted that the demon was put out and returned. That claim is a cop-out. Exorcists cannot be trusted, no matter how kindly they seem to be. Fortune-tellers are great charmers too. Would the fear of a "demon" coming back really be worth getting over a "possession"?
When the demon "returns", the victim is typically blamed, not the exorcist. Jesus predictably is never blamed! The belief among exorcists that demons do not possess unless they were sent to you by enemies or invited in is judgmental.
Exorcists sometimes believe in beating the victim to get the demon out. Some who believe that the person, not just the body, is taken over rationalize this abuse.
Your mere belief in possession or exorcism is enabling those who carry out extreme and cruel forms of exorcism. Promoting a religion that believes in exorcism is enabling it too. And so is giving that religion money.
Exorcists claim to be performing an act of love for the victim. Real love is based on evidence about what is best for the person. It is not based on the guess that demons exist and possess the person. It is not based on the guess that some demons, though naughty, might actually be tolerable. Though Christendom claims to love its neighbor by not accusing without proof, it is happy to accuse demons without proof. Those who do not have the guts to hate and abuse the people around them like to target fantasy entities such as demons and fairies instead. The bad side of human nature will always out. People regarded as good love God because they think he hurts others and protects them—thus, they find peace in the misery of others. People need demons to hate and curse. It unleashes the bad energy they would unleash on other people otherwise. Exorcism is based on the principle: It is okay for me to take beliefs very seriously when there is little or no suitable evidence in their favor. Where do you draw the line with a principle like that? Real love respects principles, for principles serve not only truth but us as well.
Exorcists deny that you need hard evidence for extraordinary claims, especially magical claims, which are the most extraordinary. But surely, they should put more emphasis on evidence that a case of possession is not authentic before deciding that it is? Even the most ardent believer has to confess that there must be cases of possession or miracles that are fraudulent or deceptive but were never found out, or may never be. You never really know 100% if something is supernatural. Many have faked possession, usually to get attention. You cannot be as sure that a demon is in a person and to be blamed for what they do, as you are that Hitler was evil. And you need to be—accusing on insufficient evidence says something about you.
Some victims seem to recover after exorcism due to the placebo effect. This effect can be achieved in other ways without exorcism. Friendly doctors who listen to their patients are the best catalyst for the placebo effect. Exorcism is about ritual and fear. Any talking or friendliness happens outside of it. The placebo effect in exorcism can backfire—the person might get worse, not better. Doctors telling a white lie to trigger the placebo effect is nothing compared to exorcism, which is a big issue and presupposes a whole worldview. It is a religious placebo effect, not a medical one, and should not be tolerated.
Exorcists believe that though demons will possess people, they much prefer tempting people to sin. This leads to the evil notion that if temptation comes from a supernatural source, then there is nothing we can do about it. Why encourage X to avoid temptation if temptation is not coming from within her or him?
Matthew 7:15-20 has Jesus stating clearly that good fruits are unmistakable. An exorcism that takes time to work is hardly an unmistakable sign from God and a good fruit. Jesus said that false prophets do enough good to pass for sheep, but they cannot get grapes from thorns. Their followers might be fine people, but just not good enough. Catholic exorcisms are not delightful and imply that God prolongs the agony. They are marks of a false religion.
This says it all: “There are priests who carry out exorcisms on their mobile phones. That’s possible thanks to Jesus,” Cardinal Ernest Simoni.
Ban exorcism legally and strike off any doctor or medical professional who suggests, tolerates, or facilitates it. Tax any diocese that allows or facilitates it. It is a form of abusive superstition.