The quote-grabs are upsetting (bio-marriage!) but his longform answers are reasonable. We have become such a click-bait society. Thanks for delving deeper.
"...deciding to forego a coat of arms in favor of a simple cross or choosing not to replace the diocese’s late exorcist."
I see here a very 1970's approach: get rid of "old" things that are supposedly offensive to modern sensibilities, adopt "modern" ideas such as a very big-corporation like "code of conduct" and the amorphous idea of "safety." Get rid of objective rules and regulations but institute a code of conduct which in practice means subjective rules. (the unstated part of any "code of conduct" is that you'll be punished if you violate this code; a code of conduct is a passive-aggressive weapon in the hands of an administrator)
Getting rid of the exorcist is a big "tell" that a "psychological" approach to the spiritual world has been adopted whatever they say.
And I have to say, 40 priests objecting to a document from a Bishop is a lot considering how few priests are really willing to push back. Will they be listened to, in a spirit of synodality, or is it my way or the highway and now there are 40 targets in the diocese? I think this is a fair question.
I don't mean to be overly negative or critical, after all this man isn't my Bishop, but I think it is fair to question this Bishop's actions and statements - which are characteristic of the current "retro" moment in the Church - without questioning his sincerity.
The previous bishop of my diocese who was exiled from the Boston Archdiocese for objecting to the movement of predators from one parish to another didn't believe in exorcism, so we didn't have an exorcist while he was our bishop. Several neighboring dioceses did, though, so one could always get help elsewhere.
I am super curious about the exorcism thing. I hadn't realized that "to have or not have an exorcist" was a choice in the hands of a bishop - I'd at some point been informed that every diocese had one as a matter of course. I skimmed the linked Register article about the situation, which quoted his words from a radio interview, but I would have loved it if Luke would have pushed him about whether he believes in the existence of demons and the potential for their malevolent influence in human lives (2 separate questions, I suppose). An answer of No to one or both questions would put him out of step with Pope Francis, to say nothing of the rest of the Magisterium.
How many other dioceses around the world do not have exorcists? According to the Register, Basel is the only Swiss diocese to have one. Can we have an interview with *that* guy?
If you are reading that presumption into my comments in this thread, let me disabuse you. I have personal experience of deliverance ministry (not major exorcism, thankfully) in which we were experiencing things that were not readily explicable by psychiatry/ psychology, and since then I am in a constant battle with my anxious mind which jumps too quickly to the demon explanation even when the lights just flicker or I hear a mysterious thump. I'm not saying I agree with the bishop's decision, even after having read the context of more expanded quotes than the Register article presented - I think he should delegate a "professional" exorcist. And as I said in my original post, I'd love an interview with Basel's exorcist - if he basically handles all of Switzerland's demonic activity, I would guess he's pretty busy. But maybe not, and that's why Bp. Bonnemain is sanguine about not having one in his diocese?
I enjoy engaging with you and other commenters who know more about this subject than I do, and seem to have time to do the research to back up your claims, as I feel I've learned a lot through you. I have commented to Bridget before that I appreciate her Christ-and-the-saints-focused perspective, because it is nice to have someone tell me that I *don't* have to set my hair on fire.
As quoted in Bridget's comment, the guy literally said what you just said - that in most cases, "they need support, prayers, a blessing or other appropriate services – but not *necessarily* a major exorcism." Emphasis mine. The Register article notably left out the word "necessarily," which implies that, in answer to the 2 questions of my original post, he does consider that there is a possibility of exorcism being necessary in some cases. Possibly (maybe even probably) the bishop with biceps is too materialist and is serving his diocese poorly, and setting himself up for disaster, in assuming he could handle any necessary exorcist work that comes his way. But I don't have any control over that, and I would rather hear what he has to say about this decision "from the horse's mouth" and not in dribs and drabs.
Fr Carlos Martins, CC, has served as an exorcist for almost 20 years. The podcast consists of stories from his experience along with healthy doses of scripture and catechesis. It is very well done.
(He is also an expert on relics, and has a ministry called Treasures of the Church.
> “We don't have to look for unusual causes for most problems,” he told Swiss public television, SRF.
>
> “In most cases, people are simply suffering mental or psychological stress. They need support, prayers, a blessing or other appropriate services – but not necessarily a major exorcism,” added Bishop Bonnemain, who is also a qualified doctor.
> In his radio interview, the bishop of Chur claimed that “it is not necessary to try to find mysterious causes” for alleged cases of demonic possession, which he described as a psychological and social distress. According to Bishop Bonnemain, who is a former doctor and hospital chaplain, “classic solutions” of a “medical, psychological and psychotherapeutic” nature are to be favored for these people facing “difficult social, professional or health situations.”
It reminds me of sitting down with friendly Protestants and finding out that we read the same words in different translations and with a different expectation of what the words are going to say and that (not surprisingly) in a few situations we come up with two completely opposite interpretations of the same passage instead of just two fairly similar interpretations with differing emphasis.
Heh, I had noticed that the Register quoted fragments rather than whole sentences and it raised my eyebrows. But I didn't put in the effort to find a longer transcript... put it into making a comment instead. Thank you for the much-needed additional context.
the bishop can perform any exorcism himself, and is certainly not canonically required to depute one of his priests to be a diocesan exorcist. probably he figured that in his diocese it was not needed.
I think his take on most cases simply requiring psychological help is correct. the thing about exorcists is that some of them see demons behind every corner. (Harry Potter, anyone?)
there are a lot of dioceses in Europe. I'm sure he could refer cases to the exorcist of a neighbouring diocese.
exorcism is a prayer to God. it "works" or it doesn't based on whether God wills to answer the prayer.
there is no evidence that Bishop Bonnemain "writes off" those who need spiritual help or cannot distinguish between them and the psychologically disturbed or confused.
There was the case in Gary Indiana where kids were running up walls in defiance of gravity and the family discovered they had been put under a demonic curse which ended when they moved. An exorcist helped in the situation and helped them discover the cause. It made the real news.
Oh that is interesting! It should have been obvious that exorcist was a delegated position of some kind, but for some reason it didn't cross my mind - I guess because I think of exorcism as requiring training/apprenticeship, and most bishops don't strike me as the sort to have gone through that ;)
As KA Byrnes said, his answers here are reasonable. I don't get the sneaky "let's approve of LGBT stuff via winking and nodding" vibe from him. The bio-marriage thought was particularly interesting. On one hand, I want to insist that marriage per se is between one man and one woman, but on the other...if the popular understanding moves away from that reality (i.e. everyone else understands the "marriage" label to mean something that we don't mean), maybe using some other word would make sense, for the sake of understandable communication. Only problem is that "bio-marriage" sounds absurd in English, and I can't think of any other term that would work. Calling it "Man-Woman marriage" is understandable but clunky (and it leaves out the permanent aspect of marriage). Maybe "Rad Trad marriage"? "XX-XY marriage"?
Anyone know how he explains the "sexual rights are human rights" tenet? I have no idea what is meant by "sexual rights".
This interview is essential reading to help understand the complexity of pastoral demands on Catholics since the onslaught of the sexual revolution. The attacks on the family have left two generations of wounded people. This bishop is one smart dude. No wonder the Pope wants to hang on to him. He gets Francis, and he also exhibits the compassion, apostolic delicacy and orthodoxy of Opus Dei. As for ze biceps, too many Catholics hide Christ behind layers of fat.
Technically given that a bishop is a successor of the Apostles and thus has the fullness of priesthood, he is an exorcist! nevertheless, one would be wish to have another exorcist in the diocese given the crazy things now in vogue!
The quote-grabs are upsetting (bio-marriage!) but his longform answers are reasonable. We have become such a click-bait society. Thanks for delving deeper.
Great job, Luke.
"...deciding to forego a coat of arms in favor of a simple cross or choosing not to replace the diocese’s late exorcist."
I see here a very 1970's approach: get rid of "old" things that are supposedly offensive to modern sensibilities, adopt "modern" ideas such as a very big-corporation like "code of conduct" and the amorphous idea of "safety." Get rid of objective rules and regulations but institute a code of conduct which in practice means subjective rules. (the unstated part of any "code of conduct" is that you'll be punished if you violate this code; a code of conduct is a passive-aggressive weapon in the hands of an administrator)
Getting rid of the exorcist is a big "tell" that a "psychological" approach to the spiritual world has been adopted whatever they say.
And I have to say, 40 priests objecting to a document from a Bishop is a lot considering how few priests are really willing to push back. Will they be listened to, in a spirit of synodality, or is it my way or the highway and now there are 40 targets in the diocese? I think this is a fair question.
I don't mean to be overly negative or critical, after all this man isn't my Bishop, but I think it is fair to question this Bishop's actions and statements - which are characteristic of the current "retro" moment in the Church - without questioning his sincerity.
The previous bishop of my diocese who was exiled from the Boston Archdiocese for objecting to the movement of predators from one parish to another didn't believe in exorcism, so we didn't have an exorcist while he was our bishop. Several neighboring dioceses did, though, so one could always get help elsewhere.
I am super curious about the exorcism thing. I hadn't realized that "to have or not have an exorcist" was a choice in the hands of a bishop - I'd at some point been informed that every diocese had one as a matter of course. I skimmed the linked Register article about the situation, which quoted his words from a radio interview, but I would have loved it if Luke would have pushed him about whether he believes in the existence of demons and the potential for their malevolent influence in human lives (2 separate questions, I suppose). An answer of No to one or both questions would put him out of step with Pope Francis, to say nothing of the rest of the Magisterium.
How many other dioceses around the world do not have exorcists? According to the Register, Basel is the only Swiss diocese to have one. Can we have an interview with *that* guy?
If you are reading that presumption into my comments in this thread, let me disabuse you. I have personal experience of deliverance ministry (not major exorcism, thankfully) in which we were experiencing things that were not readily explicable by psychiatry/ psychology, and since then I am in a constant battle with my anxious mind which jumps too quickly to the demon explanation even when the lights just flicker or I hear a mysterious thump. I'm not saying I agree with the bishop's decision, even after having read the context of more expanded quotes than the Register article presented - I think he should delegate a "professional" exorcist. And as I said in my original post, I'd love an interview with Basel's exorcist - if he basically handles all of Switzerland's demonic activity, I would guess he's pretty busy. But maybe not, and that's why Bp. Bonnemain is sanguine about not having one in his diocese?
I enjoy engaging with you and other commenters who know more about this subject than I do, and seem to have time to do the research to back up your claims, as I feel I've learned a lot through you. I have commented to Bridget before that I appreciate her Christ-and-the-saints-focused perspective, because it is nice to have someone tell me that I *don't* have to set my hair on fire.
As quoted in Bridget's comment, the guy literally said what you just said - that in most cases, "they need support, prayers, a blessing or other appropriate services – but not *necessarily* a major exorcism." Emphasis mine. The Register article notably left out the word "necessarily," which implies that, in answer to the 2 questions of my original post, he does consider that there is a possibility of exorcism being necessary in some cases. Possibly (maybe even probably) the bishop with biceps is too materialist and is serving his diocese poorly, and setting himself up for disaster, in assuming he could handle any necessary exorcist work that comes his way. But I don't have any control over that, and I would rather hear what he has to say about this decision "from the horse's mouth" and not in dribs and drabs.
For FACTS on exorcism, The Exorcist Files podcast is very educational: https://www.exorcistfiles.tv
Fr Carlos Martins, CC, has served as an exorcist for almost 20 years. The podcast consists of stories from his experience along with healthy doses of scripture and catechesis. It is very well done.
(He is also an expert on relics, and has a ministry called Treasures of the Church.
https://treasuresofthechurch.com)
There is a more neutral article here https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-bishop-purges-exorcist-post/48086754
> “We don't have to look for unusual causes for most problems,” he told Swiss public television, SRF.
>
> “In most cases, people are simply suffering mental or psychological stress. They need support, prayers, a blessing or other appropriate services – but not necessarily a major exorcism,” added Bishop Bonnemain, who is also a qualified doctor.
For comparison
https://www.ncregister.com/news/why-did-a-swiss-diocese-abolish-its-exorcism-ministry
> In his radio interview, the bishop of Chur claimed that “it is not necessary to try to find mysterious causes” for alleged cases of demonic possession, which he described as a psychological and social distress. According to Bishop Bonnemain, who is a former doctor and hospital chaplain, “classic solutions” of a “medical, psychological and psychotherapeutic” nature are to be favored for these people facing “difficult social, professional or health situations.”
It reminds me of sitting down with friendly Protestants and finding out that we read the same words in different translations and with a different expectation of what the words are going to say and that (not surprisingly) in a few situations we come up with two completely opposite interpretations of the same passage instead of just two fairly similar interpretations with differing emphasis.
Heh, I had noticed that the Register quoted fragments rather than whole sentences and it raised my eyebrows. But I didn't put in the effort to find a longer transcript... put it into making a comment instead. Thank you for the much-needed additional context.
the bishop can perform any exorcism himself, and is certainly not canonically required to depute one of his priests to be a diocesan exorcist. probably he figured that in his diocese it was not needed.
I think his take on most cases simply requiring psychological help is correct. the thing about exorcists is that some of them see demons behind every corner. (Harry Potter, anyone?)
there are a lot of dioceses in Europe. I'm sure he could refer cases to the exorcist of a neighbouring diocese.
exorcism is a prayer to God. it "works" or it doesn't based on whether God wills to answer the prayer.
there is no evidence that Bishop Bonnemain "writes off" those who need spiritual help or cannot distinguish between them and the psychologically disturbed or confused.
There was the case in Gary Indiana where kids were running up walls in defiance of gravity and the family discovered they had been put under a demonic curse which ended when they moved. An exorcist helped in the situation and helped them discover the cause. It made the real news.
Oh that is interesting! It should have been obvious that exorcist was a delegated position of some kind, but for some reason it didn't cross my mind - I guess because I think of exorcism as requiring training/apprenticeship, and most bishops don't strike me as the sort to have gone through that ;)
In context this man is a very reasonable person. Shows the value of listening and careful consideration.
As KA Byrnes said, his answers here are reasonable. I don't get the sneaky "let's approve of LGBT stuff via winking and nodding" vibe from him. The bio-marriage thought was particularly interesting. On one hand, I want to insist that marriage per se is between one man and one woman, but on the other...if the popular understanding moves away from that reality (i.e. everyone else understands the "marriage" label to mean something that we don't mean), maybe using some other word would make sense, for the sake of understandable communication. Only problem is that "bio-marriage" sounds absurd in English, and I can't think of any other term that would work. Calling it "Man-Woman marriage" is understandable but clunky (and it leaves out the permanent aspect of marriage). Maybe "Rad Trad marriage"? "XX-XY marriage"?
Anyone know how he explains the "sexual rights are human rights" tenet? I have no idea what is meant by "sexual rights".
This interview is essential reading to help understand the complexity of pastoral demands on Catholics since the onslaught of the sexual revolution. The attacks on the family have left two generations of wounded people. This bishop is one smart dude. No wonder the Pope wants to hang on to him. He gets Francis, and he also exhibits the compassion, apostolic delicacy and orthodoxy of Opus Dei. As for ze biceps, too many Catholics hide Christ behind layers of fat.
Technically given that a bishop is a successor of the Apostles and thus has the fullness of priesthood, he is an exorcist! nevertheless, one would be wish to have another exorcist in the diocese given the crazy things now in vogue!