Something I just thought of today:
Scottie said:
I just finished Hostage to the Devil last night.
I started reading it many months ago, but when I got to the 5 exorcism stories, I stopped. Not sure why, but I felt like it might be too much, too creepy, whatever... So, a few days ago, I decided it was time, so I read the rest.
The most interesting bits for me were the ways in which permission was basically given for the evil entities to do their thing. For example:
Gerald straightened up. He changed his tone to a sharp, inquisitorial, and imperious note: “You, Evil Spirit, you will obey our commands.”
Again, the rasping voice: “You do not know what you’re getting into, priest. You cannot pay the price. It’s not your virginity merely that you’ll lose. And not merely your life. You’ll lose it all—”
“As Jesus , Our Lord, bore sufferings, so I am willing to bear what it costs to expel you and send you back to where you came from.”
This was Gerald’s first error. Without realizing it, and in what looked like heroism, he had fallen into an old trap. They were now on a personal plane: he versus the evil spirit. No exorcist can function in a personal way, in his own right, offering his strength or his will alone to counter and challenge the possessing spirit. He never should try to function in place of Jesus, but merely speak and act in concert with him as his representative.
(p. 227). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
When I read this, I exclaimed, "No, you dingbat! He gave permission!"
Gerald (the exorcist) clearly says that he is willing to bear what it costs to expel the demon. He gave it permission, and that was a bad idea. He ended up physically assaulted, literally torn up (I won't say where, but it's bad) and in the hospital for 4.5 weeks.
It seems like the Catholic exorcists have a plan, and it works - but they don't even really understand
why it works.
There are several other examples. The "doorway" through which the entities sneak in usually has something to do with self-importance, and mostly with believing some lie.
If you believe that gender is purely physical, you're open. If you believe that love is purely sex, you're open. If you believe that spirit is nothing more than a chemical, physical thing, you're open.
If you're so sure that you have the right answers, then via your self-importance, you can believe a lie that is literally inviting in all kinds of bad stuff.
I hadn't thought of this before, but the case of Richard/Rita is directly related to gender, what it means, what it means to be fe/male, etc.
And one of the things that always bothered me about this gender pronoun thing and transgender individuals especially is the fact that being male or female has WAAAAY more to do than just the physical hardware present.
As Martin writes in the book, Fr. Gerald says something along the lines of: You're not female or male because you have the proper physical parts; you have the physical parts because you are female or male.
Now, naturally, transgender folks claim they were the other gender to start with, so they're just fixing that by "switching sides". Well, who knows? I guess that's entirely possible. I would be interested to know in how many cases this is actually true vs. the number of cases were it's more the result of issues, ponerization, etc.
In any case: It's still hard for me to see how modifying yourself can change you from male to female or vice versa, because it's only physical/chemical. It totally ignores what it truly means at a deeper level to be male or female. Change the hardware, take the hormones, okay... But are you really truly a different gender? That's a hard question to answer.
Similarly, gender pronouns might mean that a person is denying who they are at a very fundamental level - and then inviting and even demanding that the rest of the world accompany them into their reality.
From the above excerpt, this is apparently the type of reality that can invite possession in the worst cases.
So, it's about a whole lot more than just words, or laws, or whether you have a hotdog or a bun.
There is a similar problem with sex and oversexualization in general. If the purpose of male/female has some spiritual significance, and yet society boils it down to boinking on the front lawn like a pair of dogs, then that's a big problem.
It's especially big because dogs do what they do when they do it seemingly in a state of "innocence". They don't seem to have the capability for the same higher emotions (or whatever). They also don't seem to have to marry, get divorced, no jealousy dramas, etc. So, it's very different than animalized human sexual behavior.
And THAT then brings up the idea of OPs and such, who may be "simpler creatures". Well, okay, that's not necessarily a bad thing. We all start from nothing. But then if that's true, you sure wouldn't want to hook up with one unless you're the same "type".
Thus, I'm not at all surprised when somebody like Putin gives a speech on the need for morals, against pedophilia, against the ponerization of society, and so on. It seems to be desperately needed, especially now, and especially in many Western nations.
