ON EXORCISM

[littyfam 473]

ON EXORCISM

23rd of Harren’s Folly, 1930

Addressed to the Cardinal Albarosa, from Father Michael

FOREWORD

 

I had been spurred to the writing of this document through a brief encounter with a self-proclaimed exorcist, of a sort - though I shan’t think the term, as defined in the Codex, particularly fitting for her career. She dealt in the pacification and sending off of wayward souls, regardless of their temperament or nature. Such had inspired me so, for I had never encountered one of such a path before, nor one with such inborn ability to do so. It is thus that I took to the Scrolls, and to the Codex, so as to determine the nature and virtue of such a profession.

 

It is thus that I found issue, between my experience and that which is codified, which is the matter on which I plead to those highest in our Holy Mother Church: a redefining of the nature and allowance of exorcisms.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Exorcism is a matter to which the Church pays little heed; few miscreant souls wander this earthly plane past their time, and those that do go largely unnoticed by a population unable to perceive them in a capacity necessarily considerable enough so as to make a case that they exist at all. Such has allowed the process of exorcism to remain one both largely untaught, as well as one needlessly restrictive. It is one these matters that this letter pleads for change to be brought about, lest such individuals of these miraculous abilities unintentionally defy the laws of the Codex.

 

THE LAWS AS THEY STAND

 

I shall begin with an outlining of the laws presently in place, and the context wherein they were created.

 

“The purpose of exorcism is the casting out of wicked forces which have possessed an individual.”

 

This first clause defines the nature of exorcism as expressly and exclusively the overtaking of an individual via malignant beings. This contradicts the first instance of exorcism presented to us through the Scrolls: the casting out of Iblees from Horen’s camp. It is generally understood that Iblees had disguised himself in some manner, as would later be done in the camps of the other three brothers. One cannot, in good faith, make the claim that Iblees had overtaken the body of a descendant; it is never claimed, nor spoken of in the Scrolls, in such a context. Thusly do I find this first definition lacking and inadequate.

 

“The form of exorcism is the invocation of God’s authority in casting out the possessor.”

 

In this clause, I find no fault with the underlying principles. However, its context within the greater Codex causes some concern with the following point, given its description as only a sacramental ceremony, notably divided from the four sacraments themselves. I shall refer to the latter half of Section III of Cardinal Casper’s On the Wine of Sacrament for the underlying purpose of this distinction.

 

“An exorcism may be conducted by the wife of a married cleric on behalf of her husband, in the same manner as St. Julia acted on Ex. Horen’s behalf in the exorcism of Iblees.”

 

This third and final clause is the most problematic. Beyond its contradictions with that first point, of which I have already enumerated my issues, the context in which this clause was created is a tradition in which the Holy Mother Church no longer stands - that being, prior to the legitimization of female clergy. Explicit note is given throughout the recorded conversations in the Council of Providence regarding the allowance of exorcism, particularly with regard to nuns. No such restrictions for nuns are explicitly outlined in the Codex, however implication in the preceding discussions serves to create the notion that only priests, their wives, and monks may perform this ceremony. In consideration of the general prescriptions for sacred ceremonies, as I have outlined regarding the prior clause, this stands as an exception: through the lack of allowance of nuns, it is further implied that laymen themselves are prohibited from conducting this ceremony.  It is upon this basis that I find issue, and the matter upon which I shall shortly present my arguments, on the grounds of both precedent as well as those of theological reasoning.

 

PRECEDENT

 

As stated in the introduction, exorcism is a little-practiced ceremony among the clergy. However, notable examples through history have come about; I will first touch on that of the Bl. Jorji Fisher (otherwise, George Fisher, or Jorji Fjzher.) Within the Legenda Sanctorum, his exorcisms are legitimized, and are given as partial reason for his beatification:

 

“Bl. Jorji Fisher, companion of the Ex. Sigismund, famed exorcist.”

 

This serves an important implication, given the context wherein the exorcism was performed: by a monk. Such legitimacy is cast into question, however, through a Letter of High Pontiff Pius II. Herein is the ability of a monk alone to conduct exorcism questioned; they are, instead, placed solely into the realm of the bishops and Pontiff alone. Such casts doubt onto the solidity of the tradition of exorcism, and particularly sets a precedent in which the allowance of exorcism becomes flexible, rather than rigid and true tradition.

 

Let us consider the next point of precedent, then. Prior to the establishment of the second iteration of the Codex, wherein the particular nature and requirements for exorcism were outlined, a precedent of lay-exorcism was established. This is conducted in two orders: The Brotherhood of Our Lady of the Tabernacle and Order of Saint Julia and Archaengul Michael (outlined in the Golden Bull of Johannesburg V.) Both orders proclaim the ability of laymen to participate in exorcism, when granted authority to do so. Consider:

 

“... and the exorcism of spirits and the otherwise unholy from those lands governed by followers of the Canon be retained by said Brotherhood and its members otherwise unmolested by followers of the Canon.”

 

“Exorcists are laypeople and priests which have been consecrated as exorcists.”

 

Of note, is that The Brotherhood of Our Lady of the Tabernacle does not necessitate that its members be clerics, nor that exorcism require specific authority, as professed for confession.

 

It is through these three examples that I seek to cast into doubt both the current requirements for an exorcist, as well as profess the malleability of exorcism throughout the Church’s history. 

 

LEGITIMACY IN THE TEXTS

 

Perhaps more vital than tradition; or, rather, a necessary prescription to break tradition is to prove that those unquestionable texts proclaiming the Word of the Lord provide sufficient reasoning to defy it. It is thus that I look to the Scrolls; in particular, that history of St. Julia.

 

St. Julia, as progenitor of all exorcists, is perceived as having acted on behalf of Ex. Horen. Such is, in my perception of the scrolls, and in the context of the current Church, a disingenuous outlook toward the Gospel. To cite Gospel 2:22-23;

 

“But Julia was wise and recalled her husband’s warning. She revealed Iblees, and the Denier was cast out of the camp, and he was very wroth.”

 

Forasmuch as the warning sent by Horen takes a place of note in the text, the actions of St. Julia stand alone, done not as direct action on behalf of Horen. Again, I refer to the arguments conducted by the late Cardinal Casper, regarding the context of the sacraments in contrast to that of the sacred ceremonies within the text. As exorcism originated, not as action derived from an Exalted, but as action from another, then it is a ceremony not held in exclusivity by the tradition of the Exalted, but rather as a tradition separate and freely available to all.

 

Let us consider further, then, the implications of the phrasing herein; particularly that of St. Julia’s description as wise. Herein do I call to attention the implications of such; that, rather than mere obedience to any orders of Ex. Horen, St. Julia acted of her own volition and of her own thoughts, albeit informed by her talks with Ex. Horen. This reveals a particular agency with which one not of the legacy of the Exalted operated, and thus permits a reading wherein, rather than as an extension of her husband, St. Julia acted apart from him.

 

Further, with the allowance of female priests, a new tradition has begun wherein women are viewed as equals in spirit to men; this casts into further doubt the theological underpinnings of the present laws, which make such a claim of wifely aid.

 

The exclusivity of the sacred ceremony to only the wives of priests as the only laymen permitted to conduct it is a needless excess, built on a foundation of theological reasoning which defies that of the remainder of the sacred ceremonies.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Thusly, I plead to His Holiness and the College, that the prescriptions and definition of exorcism be reviewed, and the legislation surrounding it be relaxed so that those blessed laymen among us may be granted permission to perform legal and rightful exorcisms, as those prior orders have done. It is a history of our Holy Mother Church, that laymen may conduct exorcisms for their fellow man, spanning to those most ancient days of St. Julia and Ex. Horen. Let those pious and able men and women, beyond merely those of the cloth, be able to exorcise those wayward and misplaced souls, that they might go to their rightful place in the Seven Skies.

 

On a basis of both precedent and theology, I have outlined the necessity and legitimacy of such a manner of exorcism, and humbly ask that this be considered.

 

 

---

 

In Faith

Father Michael

[Mannamannaa 1626]

Kor'garr, Lutaumancer and pacted shaman with the immortal spirit of the Truthful Dead, lets out a rumble of intense thinking while brows furrow over crimson eyes. His scarred chest pulses momentarily with an ever so slight aura of Kor's Echoes, those energies connecting him to the Gatekeeper of the Ancestral Realm. After minutes of careful study, the grey orc nods, beginning to draft a public letter in response for Father Michaels's report.

[!] The Letter is precise and clearly legible, wrote upon dense Cane papyrus with vivid desert berry inks. All are able to obtain a copy as desired. [!]

To Father Michael agh the Kanonist Faithful,

Kor'garr has taken much interest in your report and analysis of Exorcism traditions within your organization. As a Lutaumancer myself, the methods of ushering lost souls to their proper destinations within the Stargush and the purification of the unclean from living Descendants holds great importance to me; It is Kor'garr's Honor bound duty to ensure those influences are led to the afterlife instead of festering upon the Mortal Realm. I agree greatly with the premise brought forward by Father Michael, that those called to ensure the safety of our Souls and given those abilities by higher powers such as Kanon agh the Spirits be encouraged to use them, nub matter their physical features or what lat call "gender". 

However, Kor'garr has azh important point to raise; nub all Burz or foul corruptions upon living Descendants are Ibleesian in origin. While Deemonic possesion is of course ag great danger, the unintended lingering of phantoms or other nubded, whether incorporeal or puppeted skeletons, still traps those departed within purgatories of utmost horror and unholiness. As such, Kor'garr inquires whether Exorcism applies merely to the possessed living, or extends to those Univing influences shackled to the mortal plane.

With Kanon's Holy guidance,
Kor'garr
Skriptgoth of the Iron Horde
Lutaumancer